4 ms·

> [From the end of the article] Lawyers for Mr. Sullivan have argued that other employees were responsible for regulatory disclosures and said the company had s

by lr1970 4y ago

> [From the end of the article] Lawyers for Mr. Sullivan have argued that other employees were responsible for regulatory disclosures and said the company had scapegoated Mr. Sullivan. Unless and until CEOs are held personally responsible for such security breaches there will be no solution to the problem. A Chief Security Officer job looks more and more as a designated scape-goat for hire.

GuB-42 4y ago
It is an idea I hear often, but I don't think it will solve anything. The CEO will be the scapegoat, and may get paid better for the risk taken. So having a CEO scapegoat or a CSO scapegoat, same thing. You have to realize that a CEO is just an employee. An important employee, but like any other employee, he is paid to do a job, and can be fired if his employers are not satisfied with his work. If we want to punish the people who have the ultimate responsibility, that would be the shareholders. And it may include you if you have stock in that company. The CEO could also be punished as a shareholder (CEOs usually are), but not as a CEO unless he commit fraud against the shareholders. We could imagine prison sentences for the most important shareholders, but really, financial sanctions are the most fair. Shareholders will lose money proportional to their share. And if the CEO really is the problem, shareholders will be very unhappy and he won't last long and may even get sued.
- bmitc 4y ago
  It's interesting that if you commit crimes or harm, whether intentional or not, but in the aggregate, at scale, etc. that you can get away with it or just be fined. Be a single employee that accidentally or intentionally leaks information, particularly company or government information, and you'll be sued to oblivion. Or imagine being a lower or middle class person charged with a crime or have a civil suit brought against you and all you get is a like $20 fine.

by lr1970 4y ago

GuB-42 4y ago

It is an idea I hear often, but I don't think it will solve anything. The CEO will be the scapegoat, and may get paid better for the risk taken. So having a CEO scapegoat or a CSO scapegoat, same thing. You have to realize that a CEO is just an employee. An important employee, but like any other employee, he is paid to do a job, and can be fired if his employers are not satisfied with his work. If we want to punish the people who have the ultimate responsibility, that would be the shareholders. And it may include you if you have stock in that company. The CEO could also be punished as a shareholder (CEOs usually are), but not as a CEO unless he commit fraud against the shareholders. We could imagine prison sentences for the most important shareholders, but really, financial sanctions are the most fair. Shareholders will lose money proportional to their share. And if the CEO really is the problem, shareholders will be very unhappy and he won't last long and may even get sued.

bmitc 4y ago
It's interesting that if you commit crimes or harm, whether intentional or not, but in the aggregate, at scale, etc. that you can get away with it or just be fined. Be a single employee that accidentally or intentionally leaks information, particularly company or government information, and you'll be sued to oblivion. Or imagine being a lower or middle class person charged with a crime or have a civil suit brought against you and all you get is a like $20 fine.