4 ms·
> "It looks like even Sundar Pichai is confused about how this control works because he testified in front of Congress and told them something that is just wron
by neilv 3y ago
> "It looks like even Sundar Pichai is confused about how this control works because he testified in front of Congress and told them something that is just wrong from a technical perspective…," he said.
If that's true, is that a jailable perjury offense for an individual?
Or, as an executive representing a company, is there some analogous penalty for the corporate-person, such as the company losing its revenue and certain rights for a period?
- ceejayoz 3y ago"Confused" and perjury aren't the same thing.
- neilv 3y agoWhat is the penalty/remedy for "confused", then, when it's representing the company and providing incorrect information in testimony before Congress?
- JohnFen 3y agoThe remedy is other testimony or congressional research that shows the original testimony was in error.
- pc86 3y agoThere is no penalty for being wrong.
- ceejayoz 3y agoDo you think it's reasonable to expect Google's CEO to know the exact inner workings of one particular toggle switch buried in their privacy settings, to the point of punishment for getting them wrong? Punishment means Congressional hearings - which are, to be fair, generally useless - become nothing but "I don't know but I can check with our teams later" responses.
- joelfried 3y agoI don't know about OP, but I definitely do. If you do not know enough to answer correctly, do not answer. If you do not know enough to know if you are certain, adjust what you say to be accurate. If every answer becomes "I don't know but I can check with our teams", the Congressional response should be "We subpoena the team to answer these questions". Allowing the CEO of any company to present a factually false answer to Congress while representing the company and speaking from a position of expertise provides awfully perverse incentives for _every single CEO_ to misrepresent his company if there are no repercussions for provably false testimony.
- JohnFen 3y agoWhat if you think you know, and are certain that your testimony is correct, but are wrong nonetheless?
- joelfried 3y agoThat's what a trial is for. There should still be a trial! The alternative seems worse. If there's never punishment for lies every unscrupulous person called to testify will provide whatever is in their best interests instead of providing the truth.
- JohnFen 3y agoThere is punishment for lying. We're talking about if you are being honest but are wrong. Also, this particular case is about testifying to congress. It's not a criminal trial in a court of law.
- joelfried 3y agoIf you are being summoned as a corporate representative to testify to Congress, you should be sure about your answers. Do you think these people are wrong so regularly about the business they run? I didn't think I was being particularly obtuse but you seem to have missed the point: Providing provably false answers to Congress as part of sworn testimony should trigger prosecutors to look into perjury charges. Perjury is what we are talking about here and that has a mechanism: the legal system. Yes, I think that a C level executive who comes to Congress and testifies confidently about something his business does and is wrong about it should trigger a potential prosecution. This is about testifying to Congress and what happens when you say something provably false as an expert under Oath. If you are not certain of what you are testifying about, do not testify to it. If you are certain and wrong, you should be afraid of repercussions. Anything else opens up Pandora's Box.
- taeric 3y agoThere really can't be any penalty for being wrong. That is far too chilling for testimony. Right? There can be clarifications and follow up questions. Can call someone back in to testify again, if need be. Or work with more expert witnesses.
- rolph 3y agohaving your entire testimony declared invalid, unreliable, confused utterances, and thrown out of record, would be a disasterous penalty, for the party attempting to utilize it.
- qingcharles 3y agoIn criminal trials the remedy for "confused" is to have experts who can testify and/or refute the testimony of the "confused" witness.
- JohnFen 3y agoBeing wrong is not the same as lying. Honest, but incorrect, testimony is not perjury.
- jgeada 3y agoThis is something I fundamentally don't understand; it seems that American jurisprudence optimizes for "ignorance" and "deniability", rather than prudence and responsibility. Seems the rich and powerful get given carte blanche to lie and ignore any predictable consequences of their decisions. There is no duty to know what is going on, worse, there is a presumption that it is better to not even know.
- JohnFen 3y agoI don't understand how it could be considered just for someone to be punished for making an honest mistake in their testimony. > Seems the rich and powerful get given carte blanche to lie and ignore any predictable consequences of their decisions. They aren't[1]. This doesn't seem to be a case of someone rich and powerful getting away with lying. [1] They may have the means to fight things in court to reduce their penalty for perjury, but that's not "carte blanche". Rich and powerful people do, in fact, get penalized for lying under oath. Just not 100% of the time.
- mrguyorama 3y ago>I don't understand how it could be considered just for someone to be punished for making an honest mistake in their testimony. His job is to run the company and take responsibility for it. If he doesn't know something illegal is going on, he is still at fault for not learning about it
- reaperman 3y agoThis flirts with the is/ought fallacy. The way you wrote, it sounds like you’re saying that in our current legal system they can be found “found at fault” in a legal sense. But I believe what you meant is that under a different/hypothetical legal system, one which you believe to be closer to optimal, they should be found at fault.