4 ms·

It does make sense. You're confusing corporate liability with personal liability. The parent's point is that if the investors / shareholders would be responsibl

by dstick 5y ago

It does make sense. You're confusing corporate liability with personal liability. The parent's point is that if the investors / shareholders would be responsible. Stuff like this would be severely reduced because resources would be allocated to prevent it. Right now, the only damage is a financial one. And as long as the damage is lower than the cost of prevention, hacks like this will continue to happen.

ghayes 5y ago
So isn't the solution here to up the penalties, specifically with codified minimums ($X per leaked phone number, $Y for leaked SSN, etc)? The corporate death penalty would end up hurting the consumers significantly more than this method, which would primarily hurt the share/debt-holders, which is the intent. Corporate dissolution seems like a concern when fraud or malfeasance is specifically involved. For context, I'm very likely in this breach, but it wouldn't make me any happier to hear T-Mobile was shut-down tomorrow.
- gibba999 5y ago
  Yes, the solution are astronomical penalties. And a corporate dissolution isn't the outcome. The outcome is that T-Mobile goes into bankruptcy, with its customers as the debtors. The outcome of that is that a bankruptcy court divides up the assets to maximize payout to you. Most likely, this means: - T-Mobile, as an entity continues to exist, as-is.. - Shareholder value is wiped out... - And handed to customers, as the customers become shareholders. T-Mobile has a 180B market cap, which probably means you acquire stock worth a grand or so.
- dstick 5y ago
  No that wasn’t the point at all. Corporate death penalty was a completely overblown analogy by someone else. What this is about is that a manager / CEO / shareholder can be held personally accountable with punishment that could include jail time. As a deterrent. Right now only the company is accountable as if it’s some sort of living creature, and the penalty is always money. Which as you aptly put, they have in abundance!

by dstick 5y ago

ghayes 5y ago

So isn't the solution here to up the penalties, specifically with codified minimums ($X per leaked phone number, $Y for leaked SSN, etc)? The corporate death penalty would end up hurting the consumers significantly more than this method, which would primarily hurt the share/debt-holders, which is the intent. Corporate dissolution seems like a concern when fraud or malfeasance is specifically involved. For context, I'm very likely in this breach, but it wouldn't make me any happier to hear T-Mobile was shut-down tomorrow.

gibba999 5y ago
Yes, the solution are astronomical penalties. And a corporate dissolution isn't the outcome. The outcome is that T-Mobile goes into bankruptcy, with its customers as the debtors. The outcome of that is that a bankruptcy court divides up the assets to maximize payout to you. Most likely, this means: - T-Mobile, as an entity continues to exist, as-is.. - Shareholder value is wiped out... - And handed to customers, as the customers become shareholders. T-Mobile has a 180B market cap, which probably means you acquire stock worth a grand or so.
dstick 5y ago
No that wasn’t the point at all. Corporate death penalty was a completely overblown analogy by someone else. What this is about is that a manager / CEO / shareholder can be held personally accountable with punishment that could include jail time. As a deterrent. Right now only the company is accountable as if it’s some sort of living creature, and the penalty is always money. Which as you aptly put, they have in abundance!