4 ms·

They absolutely do have to scale with revenue. Maybe a small fine, enough to cover API revenues, will deter them from that the very specific behaviour around AP

They absolutely do have to scale with revenue. Maybe a small fine, enough to cover API revenues, will deter them from that the very specific behaviour around API data they got fined for however it won't make them think twice about taking a chance on the next unrelated opportunity to be nefarious. A large fine will.

tptacek 8y ago
They need to scale with the revenue derived from the offense, if the goal is to deter them from that behavior in the future.
- alexeldeib 8y ago
  FWIW, I see you saying this, but there are running examples of fines scaling to income, e.g. personal income and speeding tickets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland... I'm also not sure that "scaling with the offense" makes sense -- If company A and B can do the same thing, receive equal fines, but company B can continue to exist as if nothing happened, did the fine mean anything? Would your argument in this case be that the fine should be high enough to be damaging enough to both companies, approximately equal to the social value of discouraging that behavior? Curious especially because you said if the laws changed, you'd be ambivalent. I think there's a structural problem here, I'm not sure any amount of fining particularly will solve the real problem.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  FWIW my personal opinion is the the goal should be to deter from unethical and/or (borderline) illegal activity in the future, not only that specific behaviour. Anything else turns into a game of whack-a-mole which is long term damaging to the economy and competitive environment.
- ionised 8y ago
  How would that deter them though?
- ramblerman 8y ago
  This just allows corporations to compartmentalize their risks. They can put all their illegal activities in a side division, and if they don't pan out no worries since we only get fined on the revenue of the failed project.

tptacek 8y ago

They need to scale with the revenue derived from the offense, if the goal is to deter them from that behavior in the future.

alexeldeib 8y ago
FWIW, I see you saying this, but there are running examples of fines scaling to income, e.g. personal income and speeding tickets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland... I'm also not sure that "scaling with the offense" makes sense -- If company A and B can do the same thing, receive equal fines, but company B can continue to exist as if nothing happened, did the fine mean anything? Would your argument in this case be that the fine should be high enough to be damaging enough to both companies, approximately equal to the social value of discouraging that behavior? Curious especially because you said if the laws changed, you'd be ambivalent. I think there's a structural problem here, I'm not sure any amount of fining particularly will solve the real problem.
rorykoehler 8y ago
FWIW my personal opinion is the the goal should be to deter from unethical and/or (borderline) illegal activity in the future, not only that specific behaviour. Anything else turns into a game of whack-a-mole which is long term damaging to the economy and competitive environment.
ionised 8y ago
How would that deter them though?
ramblerman 8y ago
This just allows corporations to compartmentalize their risks. They can put all their illegal activities in a side division, and if they don't pan out no worries since we only get fined on the revenue of the failed project.