Again you are arguing against a case that has not been made. A straw-man. There were consequences for the Challenger disaster - there was a full, televised enq

Again you are arguing against a case that has not been made. A straw-man. There were consequences for the Challenger disaster - there was a full, televised enquriy. Feynman was there. That's a pretty deep and expensive consequence. Obviously NASA differs from Paypal. Beyond that I'm pretty sure those involved would feel consequence about their colleagues having died. Total sociapathy at that level is relatively rare in my experience. This is a quite different thing to make peace with to screwing some very small percentage of customers. To apply exactly what I said to _this_ case the consequences are: Estimate the loss to this person, 10k seems like a reasonable liberal guesstimate but yes, actual data would be better to get a harder number. Paypal pay her $100k as compensation. She's happy and paypal have a cost function to optimise sesibly. That's a start on proper incentive. Then if they do it more than N times then they're not taking the consequences seriously and they are only optimising that cost function considering breach as merely a business expense with no regard for ruining people. Someone needs to have a real, non-financial consequence for making a decision like that wittingly or unwittingly. The CEO is good because the buck stops there. It's his or her job to make sure that kind of "we'll screw over this many people because it's in our financial interests not to fix that" does not happen. Now we can discuss what the value of N should be. Should it be 10, 100, 1000? What should constitute a breach? Nowhere is a guillotine part of this. I can't actually see /anything/ you've argued a part of this. I see the outraged comments as being yours. You seem utterly outraged at my holding an opinion I do not hold and did not advance.