56 ms·

What is the penalty/remedy for "confused", then, when it's representing the company and providing incorrect information in testimony before Congress?

by neilv 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago
The remedy is other testimony or congressional research that shows the original testimony was in error.
pc86 3y ago
There is no penalty for being wrong.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Do 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    What if you think you know, and are certain that your testimony is correct, but are wrong nonetheless?
    - joelfried 3y ago
      That'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 ago
        There 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 ago
        If 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.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > Providing provably false answers to Congress as part of sworn testimony should trigger prosecutors to look into perjury charges. Well, in this case, it should trigger congress to look into it, but I agree. And we know that happens because congress has done so in the past. Such an initial investigation would certainly (and correctly) be done quietly, and we're not likely to know about it unless that investigation determines that perjury may have actually happened.
- throw7 3y ago
  What I expect is that if he doesn't know, then he says so and says he will get the correct answer to the question quickly. I also expect, post-hearing (and soon thereafter, not four years later if ever), that google "update" the record as an addendum that pichai was not correct in his testimony.
taeric 3y ago
There 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 ago
having 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 ago
In criminal trials the remedy for "confused" is to have experts who can testify and/or refute the testimony of the "confused" witness.

What is the penalty/remedy for "confused", then, when it's representing the company and providing incorrect information in testimony before Congress?

by neilv 3y ago

What is the penalty/remedy for "confused", then, when it's representing the company and providing incorrect information in testimony before Congress?

JohnFen 3y ago

The remedy is other testimony or congressional research that shows the original testimony was in error.

pc86 3y ago

There is no penalty for being wrong.

ceejayoz 3y ago

Do 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 ago
I 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 ago
  What if you think you know, and are certain that your testimony is correct, but are wrong nonetheless?
  - joelfried 3y ago
    That'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 ago
      There 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 ago
        If 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.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > Providing provably false answers to Congress as part of sworn testimony should trigger prosecutors to look into perjury charges. Well, in this case, it should trigger congress to look into it, but I agree. And we know that happens because congress has done so in the past. Such an initial investigation would certainly (and correctly) be done quietly, and we're not likely to know about it unless that investigation determines that perjury may have actually happened.
throw7 3y ago
What I expect is that if he doesn't know, then he says so and says he will get the correct answer to the question quickly. I also expect, post-hearing (and soon thereafter, not four years later if ever), that google "update" the record as an addendum that pichai was not correct in his testimony.

taeric 3y ago

There 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 ago

having 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 ago

In criminal trials the remedy for "confused" is to have experts who can testify and/or refute the testimony of the "confused" witness.