3 ms·

>company is closed permanently in the interest of public security. So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The de

>company is closed permanently in the interest of public security. So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The dependents of all the company are now involved. There's a long chain of consequences after this. Why not just target the guilty: maybe any punishment should make them suffer.

lynx23 4y ago
Well, I'd argue if the first two high penalties did not have an effect, the company is likely rotten from within and can not really be fixed, so close it. Also, I find your "but you have to think about the children^WJobs" argument pretty hollow. Nothing can be changed, because some gay lesbian from a foreign country might loose their already precarious job. Come on, is this really an argument for something?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
quantified 4y ago
That makes all of them vested in the outcome that that company was actually good in its security of sensitive information. If they are important to anyone actually involved in the company, the company will take care of things properly. The same argument is made for why breadwinners shouldn't get jail time when they commit a felony.
caskstrength 4y ago
> So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The dependents of all the company are now involved. There's a long chain of consequences after this. Why not just target the guilty: maybe any punishment should make them suffer. I agree. It would be better to make execs personally criminally liable.
counttheforks 4y ago
Sounds like a good incentive for the janitors to not leave doors open at night for their own convenience, creating massive security risks. Regardless, plenty of places need janitors and the likes. They'll find other jobs.
- waynesonfire 4y ago
  They'll find jobs with companies that fill the void but with improved security measures. If anything, there will be more jobs created by the demand to shore up security. They'll be high quality jobs too, as management will be reluctant to outsource potential criminal liability to incompetent contractors in India.

lynx23 4y ago

Well, I'd argue if the first two high penalties did not have an effect, the company is likely rotten from within and can not really be fixed, so close it. Also, I find your "but you have to think about the children^WJobs" argument pretty hollow. Nothing can be changed, because some gay lesbian from a foreign country might loose their already precarious job. Come on, is this really an argument for something?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

quantified 4y ago

That makes all of them vested in the outcome that that company was actually good in its security of sensitive information. If they are important to anyone actually involved in the company, the company will take care of things properly. The same argument is made for why breadwinners shouldn't get jail time when they commit a felony.

caskstrength 4y ago

> So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The dependents of all the company are now involved. There's a long chain of consequences after this. Why not just target the guilty: maybe any punishment should make them suffer. I agree. It would be better to make execs personally criminally liable.

counttheforks 4y ago

Sounds like a good incentive for the janitors to not leave doors open at night for their own convenience, creating massive security risks. Regardless, plenty of places need janitors and the likes. They'll find other jobs.

waynesonfire 4y ago
They'll find jobs with companies that fill the void but with improved security measures. If anything, there will be more jobs created by the demand to shore up security. They'll be high quality jobs too, as management will be reluctant to outsource potential criminal liability to incompetent contractors in India.