12 ms·

A corporation criminally hacked a rival for profit and got away with a small fine. A person doing the exact same thing would be heading to prison. Seems like

A corporation criminally hacked a rival for profit and got away with a small fine. A person doing the exact same thing would be heading to prison. Seems like the same crime has a very different outcome when a corporation commits it.

roywiggins 6y ago
The article notes that Zeeshan Zaidi, a Ticketmaster exec, plead guilty to violating the CFAA and to wire fraud in 2019, and is apparently still awaiting sentencing. You can read the criminal complaint: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451.7.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > still awaiting sentencing Aside from the usual explanation (white collar crime), any idea why someone can be found guilty and then still not given a sentence for more than a year. AFAICT he isn't even incarcerated at the moment.
xwdv 6y ago
A corporation regular committing crimes is a good revenue stream if they pay the fines consistently. So yes, the outcome is expected to be different, this shouldn’t be mind blowing.
- maedla 6y ago
  They should be nationalized to become an even better revenue stream
  - buran77 6y ago
    While superficially a good idea, it would probably punish shareholders more than the actual perpetrators and would most likely lead to a far lower performing company, so a weaker economy. How many state run companies do you know are performing great? Tesla may do any number of shady or illegal things but without Musk and his vested interest in the company it would probably be a footnote in some corporate obituary.
    - newen 6y ago
      Why? It’s not like shareholders are the ones doing the work inside the company.
      - xwdv 6y ago
        Because the company’s growth story which much of the high valuation is built on is instantly eliminated, sending prices plummeting while the people working inside the company just go on to get new jobs somewhere and make more money.
      - buran77 6y ago
        Not sure "why what" but I made 2 points: - The shareholders shouldn't necessarily be held responsible because most have no input or knowledge when it comes to any shady business. - The company would perform worse because without the drive for profit (and whatever gray means they use to achieve them) that most private entrepreneurs have, the company would almost definitely perform worse. Privatized companies usually run better because the state might be a good minority shareholder but not the best when it comes to driving a company.
    - 8note 6y ago
      The shareholders are the right people to hold accountable though. Otherwise you incentivize hiring fall guys to do a crime and go to prison, while the shareholders profit off of their crimes
      - buran77 6y ago
na85 6y ago
>Seems like the same crime has a very different outcome when a corporation commits it. Of course it does. There's a separate justice system for the rich and powerful.
h2odragon 6y ago
Some of the "sovereign citizen" folks have a whole mythology based on "incorporated people", it has some appeal in that it'd be nice if there was just one law and it applied to all. Why can't we have our own personal corporations, which can stiff our creditors, cheat customers, etc etc with impunity? Surely all the social benefits of allowing this behavior from groups would only multiply if these liberties extended to individuals as well.
- gruez 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Factors_for_courts_to_consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Fa... >Factors that a court may consider when determining whether or not to pierce the corporate veil include the following >[...] >Was the corporation being used as a "façade" for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;
  - moftz 6y ago
    Right, if they think your "corporation" is just a shell to shield you from justice, they will just prosecute you instead of going with the charade of trying to punish your shell company. The feds rarely have trouble prosecuting someone when they want to, they've got somewhere between 95-99% conviction rate.
    - singlow 6y ago
      I am not sure if I disagree with your main point. But the conviction rate is only proof that they don't prosecute cases when they do not have the evidence to win.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      That's only for really obvious cases. Part of the problem is that a corporation can effectively distribute liability across different people/groups, so no single individual can have a really good idea, or is even aware of what's happening collectively, to facilitate bad behavior, so to speak. Doing this allows them to effectively engage in the same bad behavior an individual can, but without the risk associated with a single individual doing all of those things themselves. It also may allow them to scale better too. :/
anotherman554 6y ago
This is why the public should never support self driving cars: the corporation will kill people without consequences.
- gruez 6y ago
  >the corporation will kill people without consequences. ...except the corporation being fined and/or sued in civil court, along with the executives/engineers responsible facing criminal charges.
  - pacamara619 6y ago
    It's gonna be the same thing as it is now: "Tragic. Thoughts and prayers. Software problem. Nothing we could do."
    - gruez 6y ago
      That literally describes the situation now with human drivers. The only difference is that human drivers get more sympathy because most voters are also drivers.
  - buran77 6y ago
    Except they rarely punish individuals, and as long as they are large enough or with plenty of government contracts companies rarely get a punishment that's more than "the cost of doing business". Look at the GM ignition switch scandal where executives knew explicitly the likely consequences of their decision and yet no real punishment was enacted even after repeatedly lying about the death toll (initially by at least one order of magnitude) that eventually officially reached 124 deaths and likely much higher in reality. Look at Boeing's 737MAX scandal where executives also knew the likely consequences and worked to go around rules, regulations, certification in order to pretend those consequences won't happen. Both Boeing and authorities either buried or turned a blind eye to reports that this happens. No real punishment here either. Autonomous cars or not, as long as corporations pay for your laws you will always be on the lower rungs of the ladder.
  - 6y ago
aaron-santos 6y ago
Surely someone performed the hacking. Would this person(s) not be criminally liable?
Railsify 6y ago
Crime pays for the already rich.
pengaru 6y ago
It's as if you've never been told "you should incorporate to limit your liability" before.

roywiggins 6y ago

The article notes that Zeeshan Zaidi, a Ticketmaster exec, plead guilty to violating the CFAA and to wire fraud in 2019, and is apparently still awaiting sentencing. You can read the criminal complaint: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451.7.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.439451...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
> still awaiting sentencing Aside from the usual explanation (white collar crime), any idea why someone can be found guilty and then still not given a sentence for more than a year. AFAICT he isn't even incarcerated at the moment.

xwdv 6y ago

A corporation regular committing crimes is a good revenue stream if they pay the fines consistently. So yes, the outcome is expected to be different, this shouldn’t be mind blowing.

maedla 6y ago
They should be nationalized to become an even better revenue stream
- buran77 6y ago
  While superficially a good idea, it would probably punish shareholders more than the actual perpetrators and would most likely lead to a far lower performing company, so a weaker economy. How many state run companies do you know are performing great? Tesla may do any number of shady or illegal things but without Musk and his vested interest in the company it would probably be a footnote in some corporate obituary.
  - newen 6y ago
    Why? It’s not like shareholders are the ones doing the work inside the company.
    - xwdv 6y ago
      Because the company’s growth story which much of the high valuation is built on is instantly eliminated, sending prices plummeting while the people working inside the company just go on to get new jobs somewhere and make more money.
    - buran77 6y ago
      Not sure "why what" but I made 2 points: - The shareholders shouldn't necessarily be held responsible because most have no input or knowledge when it comes to any shady business. - The company would perform worse because without the drive for profit (and whatever gray means they use to achieve them) that most private entrepreneurs have, the company would almost definitely perform worse. Privatized companies usually run better because the state might be a good minority shareholder but not the best when it comes to driving a company.
  - 8note 6y ago
    The shareholders are the right people to hold accountable though. Otherwise you incentivize hiring fall guys to do a crime and go to prison, while the shareholders profit off of their crimes
    - buran77 6y ago

na85 6y ago

>Seems like the same crime has a very different outcome when a corporation commits it. Of course it does. There's a separate justice system for the rich and powerful.

h2odragon 6y ago

Some of the "sovereign citizen" folks have a whole mythology based on "incorporated people", it has some appeal in that it'd be nice if there was just one law and it applied to all. Why can't we have our own personal corporations, which can stiff our creditors, cheat customers, etc etc with impunity? Surely all the social benefits of allowing this behavior from groups would only multiply if these liberties extended to individuals as well.

gruez 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Factors_for_courts_to_consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Fa... >Factors that a court may consider when determining whether or not to pierce the corporate veil include the following >[...] >Was the corporation being used as a "façade" for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;
- moftz 6y ago
  Right, if they think your "corporation" is just a shell to shield you from justice, they will just prosecute you instead of going with the charade of trying to punish your shell company. The feds rarely have trouble prosecuting someone when they want to, they've got somewhere between 95-99% conviction rate.
  - singlow 6y ago
    I am not sure if I disagree with your main point. But the conviction rate is only proof that they don't prosecute cases when they do not have the evidence to win.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    That's only for really obvious cases. Part of the problem is that a corporation can effectively distribute liability across different people/groups, so no single individual can have a really good idea, or is even aware of what's happening collectively, to facilitate bad behavior, so to speak. Doing this allows them to effectively engage in the same bad behavior an individual can, but without the risk associated with a single individual doing all of those things themselves. It also may allow them to scale better too. :/

anotherman554 6y ago

This is why the public should never support self driving cars: the corporation will kill people without consequences.

gruez 6y ago
>the corporation will kill people without consequences. ...except the corporation being fined and/or sued in civil court, along with the executives/engineers responsible facing criminal charges.
- pacamara619 6y ago
  It's gonna be the same thing as it is now: "Tragic. Thoughts and prayers. Software problem. Nothing we could do."
  - gruez 6y ago
    That literally describes the situation now with human drivers. The only difference is that human drivers get more sympathy because most voters are also drivers.
- buran77 6y ago
  Except they rarely punish individuals, and as long as they are large enough or with plenty of government contracts companies rarely get a punishment that's more than "the cost of doing business". Look at the GM ignition switch scandal where executives knew explicitly the likely consequences of their decision and yet no real punishment was enacted even after repeatedly lying about the death toll (initially by at least one order of magnitude) that eventually officially reached 124 deaths and likely much higher in reality. Look at Boeing's 737MAX scandal where executives also knew the likely consequences and worked to go around rules, regulations, certification in order to pretend those consequences won't happen. Both Boeing and authorities either buried or turned a blind eye to reports that this happens. No real punishment here either. Autonomous cars or not, as long as corporations pay for your laws you will always be on the lower rungs of the ladder.
- 6y ago

aaron-santos 6y ago

Surely someone performed the hacking. Would this person(s) not be criminally liable?

Railsify 6y ago

Crime pays for the already rich.

pengaru 6y ago

It's as if you've never been told "you should incorporate to limit your liability" before.