3 ms·

for something like this, jail time plus asset seizures is surely too extreme (purdue pharma, on the other hand...). however a severe financial penalty for both

for something like this, jail time plus asset seizures is surely too extreme (purdue pharma, on the other hand...). however a severe financial penalty for both company and executives (VPs and up, plus legal counsel) makes a ton of sense. for execs, you'd want to especially financially negate at least some past and future bonuses and stock compensation, because it makes up the bulk of most executive comp.

autoexec 4y ago
> for something like this, jail time plus asset seizures is surely too extreme If you'd go to jail for acting that way, why is that suddenly too extreme for CEOs? The fact is that very very personal details including things like sexual preferences, the medical history, the political views, the sexual partners, and the religious practices of millions of people were exposed by this data collection and that can't be taken back. All that data will exist forever and will likely be used against these people for the rest of their lives. I don't want Canada to become the dystopian prison-nation that the US is. The "Land of the Free" has more of its population behind bars than any other country on Earth, but some jail time (not life behind bars) is completely appropriate for the scale and scope of what was done here and it is necessary to prevent it from happening again.
- clairity 4y ago
  you'd be wont to find anyone who'd support exective prison time more than me, but i'm against prison time as a de facto punishment for exactly the reason that it results in too many people being locked up frivolously. i agree that the scale and scope here are atrocious, but again, take away all their gains and more, especially in regards to prestige and esteem, and you'll deter this type of behavior as effectively as incarceration without any of the downsides of prisons (especially the perverse incentives and the exhorbitant costs). the punishment should fit the crime. that's why i'd throw the sacklers in prison (because they ruined countless lives, up to and including death), but not these executives.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > take away all their gains and more, especially in regards to prestige and esteem, and you'll deter this type of behavior as effectively as incarceration I guess that'll have be left to speculation until somebody actually manages to convince their government to try it, but I suspect that any financial penalties that don't outright end a company will rarely be enough on its own to act as a deterrent, and that absolving CEOs of any responsibility or accountability and placing the financial burden of fines for violating the rights of millions on the company as a whole will just cause it to be seen as an acceptable gamble for CEOs. It's not even a bad one. The gains to be made exploiting people are very great after all, and the risk of being caught fairly low. CEOs certainly don't care about prestige and esteem. They are often sociopaths and psychopaths who care very little about others or how they are viewed. Even when their actions do destroy a company they'll just deploy their golden parachutes and happily drift off to another one. As much as our legal systems fail to hold CEOs accountable corporations themselves are certainly no better at it.
    - clairity 4y ago
      > "CEOs certainly don't care about prestige and esteem." oh quite the opposite, even for psycho/sociopaths. it's really the core thing that humans care about, with everything else, even money (beyond subsistence), only being proxy metrics for it. people kill other people simply for damaging their (self-)image/reputation (the jilted lover being a classic example). the point of this punishment is to strike right at the heart of what humans care most about by knocking them down a number of rungs on the status ladder (prison time alone doesn't do this, as they'll be just a rich and statused coming out and they were going in, though maybe a bit more humble/shameful). you don't necessarily need to make them poor, just relatively poorer than who they believe their peers are. but yes, the key to any of this is to raise the risk considerably, as you noted. no punishment can be effective without credible enforcement.

autoexec 4y ago

> for something like this, jail time plus asset seizures is surely too extreme If you'd go to jail for acting that way, why is that suddenly too extreme for CEOs? The fact is that very very personal details including things like sexual preferences, the medical history, the political views, the sexual partners, and the religious practices of millions of people were exposed by this data collection and that can't be taken back. All that data will exist forever and will likely be used against these people for the rest of their lives. I don't want Canada to become the dystopian prison-nation that the US is. The "Land of the Free" has more of its population behind bars than any other country on Earth, but some jail time (not life behind bars) is completely appropriate for the scale and scope of what was done here and it is necessary to prevent it from happening again.

clairity 4y ago
you'd be wont to find anyone who'd support exective prison time more than me, but i'm against prison time as a de facto punishment for exactly the reason that it results in too many people being locked up frivolously. i agree that the scale and scope here are atrocious, but again, take away all their gains and more, especially in regards to prestige and esteem, and you'll deter this type of behavior as effectively as incarceration without any of the downsides of prisons (especially the perverse incentives and the exhorbitant costs). the punishment should fit the crime. that's why i'd throw the sacklers in prison (because they ruined countless lives, up to and including death), but not these executives.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > take away all their gains and more, especially in regards to prestige and esteem, and you'll deter this type of behavior as effectively as incarceration I guess that'll have be left to speculation until somebody actually manages to convince their government to try it, but I suspect that any financial penalties that don't outright end a company will rarely be enough on its own to act as a deterrent, and that absolving CEOs of any responsibility or accountability and placing the financial burden of fines for violating the rights of millions on the company as a whole will just cause it to be seen as an acceptable gamble for CEOs. It's not even a bad one. The gains to be made exploiting people are very great after all, and the risk of being caught fairly low. CEOs certainly don't care about prestige and esteem. They are often sociopaths and psychopaths who care very little about others or how they are viewed. Even when their actions do destroy a company they'll just deploy their golden parachutes and happily drift off to another one. As much as our legal systems fail to hold CEOs accountable corporations themselves are certainly no better at it.
  - clairity 4y ago
    > "CEOs certainly don't care about prestige and esteem." oh quite the opposite, even for psycho/sociopaths. it's really the core thing that humans care about, with everything else, even money (beyond subsistence), only being proxy metrics for it. people kill other people simply for damaging their (self-)image/reputation (the jilted lover being a classic example). the point of this punishment is to strike right at the heart of what humans care most about by knocking them down a number of rungs on the status ladder (prison time alone doesn't do this, as they'll be just a rich and statused coming out and they were going in, though maybe a bit more humble/shameful). you don't necessarily need to make them poor, just relatively poorer than who they believe their peers are. but yes, the key to any of this is to raise the risk considerably, as you noted. no punishment can be effective without credible enforcement.