12 ms·

I increasingly think we need personal criminal liability for everyone in the management chain before this will end. As long as you can cash out your options be

by acdha 3y ago

I increasingly think we need personal criminal liability for everyone in the management chain before this will end. As long as you can cash out your options before the reckoning, maybe even spin a division out to go bankrupt, there are just too many people who’ll chase the larger number. You need the guy who gets that internal memo to think that if he doesn’t report it to the EPA, he’ll spend the rest of his life wondering whether the knock on the door is the FBI.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
Investors as well.
- jmaygarden 3y ago
  How would investors know if something is kept secret?
  - Teever 3y ago
    What about the situation with 3M now? We know that they kept this is a secret, so shareholders should either sell or be criminally liable.
    - jmaygarden 3y ago
      That’s a very good point. At the least, the stock price should go to zero. I guess your point is that they are artificially keeping the company out of bankruptcy/receivership.
      - Teever 3y ago
        No the argument I'm making is that the shareholders are funding a criminal enterprise and therefore should face RICO charges.
    - Nasrudith 3y ago
      That depends upon someone willing to buy when it comes with criminal liabilities. Lets not recreate sin-eaters.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    Ostensibly they wouldn't. On the face that may seem like a problem but I think it's more of an opportunity. With real consequences on the table for investors corporate transparency becomes a critical component of any investment strategy. What might that incentivize?
toomuchtodo 3y ago
In China, there was a case of baby formula execs (Edit: pointed out to me further down thread that the execs were only jailed for 5-15 years with Sanlu's general manager receiving a life sentence, and the people executed very those directly responsible for tainting the product mentioned) knowingly selling product that was harmful and led to tens of thousands of hospitalizations and a handful of deaths. They were executed. Perhaps this type of incentive will lead to less harmful outcomes vs limited liability and the corporate veil. At some point, you’re doing enough harm knowingly at scale that monetary damages and prison are insufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
- graphe 3y ago
  This is false. The executives were not harmed. Even the article you posted states that.
  - acdha 3y ago
    There’s a table of prosecutions with links like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20091125173132/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/24/2009-11-24_china_executes_zhang_yujun_geng_jinping_for_roles_in_deadly_tainted_milk_powder_.html https://web.archive.org/web/20091125173132/http://www.nydail... Are you saying that’s fake?
    - pdonis 3y ago
      No, he's saying that the people who were executed were not company executives.
      - acdha 3y ago
        Ah, thanks for the clarification. I missed that.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    You’re correct and I’m mistaken. The execs were only jailed for 5-15 years, Sanlu's general manager received a life sentence, and the farmer and salesperson who were directly involved with the knowing adulteration of the product were executed. I’ll update my top comment accordingly. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk-scandal-pair https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...
steve1977 3y ago
Up to and including capital punishment. If something like this causes deaths for example, it should be treated like murder.
- DoktorDelta 3y ago
  "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one"
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    thats a good one. They are people when it suits them.
    - graphe 3y ago
      Isn't that what happened at Enron?
- acdha 3y ago
  Yeah, treat it like we would murder versus manslaughter based on proof of intent. If you knew the risks and did it anyway, we should treat that like we do someone shooting a gun in populated place.
Swizec 3y ago
> I increasingly think we need personal criminal liability for everyone in the management chain before this will end. I work in healthtech and it is fascinating how seriously everyone takes HIPAA because it includes provisions for personal liability. Every instance of exposed data costs you personally $1000 or so. All other regulations seem to be seen as “Ehhhh how close can we push it to reasonably claim we did the things?”. But with hipaa it’s different. The conversation is always “How much extra can we do to make sure nothing could possibly leak?” Makes me wish GDPR and friends had the same teeth. Turns out even small teeth work great when they’re personal.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Here in Australia they updated the Privacy Act with personal liability for directors. I discovered that every one of my client organisations is exempt, because of course they are. Powerful people don’t go to jail, that’s for the common people. Exemptions were put in place for all government agencies, and charities. Turns out they many health-related business are actually technically non-profits. So your health data can leak and they just shrug their shoulders and move on as if nothing had happened.
bsder 3y ago
If companies are people, companies should be able to get the death penalty. We used to do this. Companies getting their charters revoked used to be something that wasn't uncommon. Unless you make the punishments for this an existential threat, it's just a cost of doing business.
- haltist 3y ago
  How exactly do you get rid of 3M? They make so many chemicals necessary for modern consumer products that they are an irrevocable part of the global economy. There is no substitute for 3M. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually supply Intel, AMD, and other high-tech companies with chemicals necessary for photo-lithography. This is before we even get to what they supply to the military-industrial complex. Even if they don't make the end products I am certain they produce the necessary chemical precursors for so many industries that there would be no way to do anything about whatever crimes they have committed against nature. It doesn't matter how much people complain about these companies. Their existence is a necessary evil because of how the global economy is structured.
  - nijave 3y ago
    Government acquisition, divestiture, and all IP entering the public domain? Or even just forcing them to break up into more, smaller companies.
    - ThomPete 3y ago
      you live in a capitalist society not some socialist nightmare. Giving it to the government would be much much much worse.
      - jmaygarden 3y ago
        They didn’t say to let the government run it. Make the patents/trade secrets public domain and sell off the physical assets in open auctions. Someone would buy up the profitable manufacturing lines that aren’t known to be as harmful.
hinkley 3y ago
Maybe get Bayer to buy you… I’m looking at you, Monsanto.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
atoav 3y ago
Exactly. And maybe we should make sure that crimes against humanity that go unpunished today can (and will) be punished in the future. Some climate activist kids on tiktok call this "Nuremberg 2046". Doing illegal stuff and lobbying your best to get away with it has become so normal nowadays that maybe an appeal to the honor of the people involved does not cut it.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  You would need to be very careful when defining "crimes against humanity" to not be post-facto law. It is like the maxim of it being better to let a hundred guilty go free than punish one innocent: if being innocent is no defense then why would anyone bother to be innocent?
  - atoav 3y ago
    What the Nazis did was totally legal in the Third Reich, back when they did it. They made sure of that. Yet it was totally clear just how against the humanity it was afterwards. Should the victors have let them go at the Nuremberg trials? No, so they used international law and saw this as a starting point for the universal declaration of human rights. I think it is good that people and companies should think about what will be seen as a crime against humanity afterwards. I'd say anything that goes against the universal declaration of human rights now is a good start, even if there are national loopholes right now. Actors that know now that they are e.g. poisioning the environment/people or actively prevent a solution to climate crisis with millions of starving people on the other side of the scale, know today that what they do is wrong. They just think they will get away with it. The question is about spirit of the law VS letter of the law. Just because all you did was legal doesn't mean you are innocent or right. Just because you did something illegal doesn't mean you are wrong (e.g. it was illegal to hide a jew in the Third Reich). So some of the things individual actors so is already illegal under international law and/or a violation of human rights. And I think we would all profit from the faint possibility of that ever becoming a thing.

by acdha 3y ago

forgetfreeman 3y ago

Investors as well.

jmaygarden 3y ago
How would investors know if something is kept secret?
- Teever 3y ago
  What about the situation with 3M now? We know that they kept this is a secret, so shareholders should either sell or be criminally liable.
  - jmaygarden 3y ago
    That’s a very good point. At the least, the stock price should go to zero. I guess your point is that they are artificially keeping the company out of bankruptcy/receivership.
    - Teever 3y ago
      No the argument I'm making is that the shareholders are funding a criminal enterprise and therefore should face RICO charges.
  - Nasrudith 3y ago
    That depends upon someone willing to buy when it comes with criminal liabilities. Lets not recreate sin-eaters.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  Ostensibly they wouldn't. On the face that may seem like a problem but I think it's more of an opportunity. With real consequences on the table for investors corporate transparency becomes a critical component of any investment strategy. What might that incentivize?

toomuchtodo 3y ago

In China, there was a case of baby formula execs (Edit: pointed out to me further down thread that the execs were only jailed for 5-15 years with Sanlu's general manager receiving a life sentence, and the people executed very those directly responsible for tainting the product mentioned) knowingly selling product that was harmful and led to tens of thousands of hospitalizations and a handful of deaths. They were executed. Perhaps this type of incentive will lead to less harmful outcomes vs limited liability and the corporate veil. At some point, you’re doing enough harm knowingly at scale that monetary damages and prison are insufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

graphe 3y ago
This is false. The executives were not harmed. Even the article you posted states that.
- acdha 3y ago
  There’s a table of prosecutions with links like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20091125173132/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/24/2009-11-24_china_executes_zhang_yujun_geng_jinping_for_roles_in_deadly_tainted_milk_powder_.html https://web.archive.org/web/20091125173132/http://www.nydail... Are you saying that’s fake?
  - pdonis 3y ago
    No, he's saying that the people who were executed were not company executives.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Ah, thanks for the clarification. I missed that.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  You’re correct and I’m mistaken. The execs were only jailed for 5-15 years, Sanlu's general manager received a life sentence, and the farmer and salesperson who were directly involved with the knowing adulteration of the product were executed. I’ll update my top comment accordingly. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk-scandal-pair https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...

steve1977 3y ago

Up to and including capital punishment. If something like this causes deaths for example, it should be treated like murder.

DoktorDelta 3y ago
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one"
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  thats a good one. They are people when it suits them.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Isn't that what happened at Enron?
acdha 3y ago
Yeah, treat it like we would murder versus manslaughter based on proof of intent. If you knew the risks and did it anyway, we should treat that like we do someone shooting a gun in populated place.

Swizec 3y ago

> I increasingly think we need personal criminal liability for everyone in the management chain before this will end. I work in healthtech and it is fascinating how seriously everyone takes HIPAA because it includes provisions for personal liability. Every instance of exposed data costs you personally $1000 or so. All other regulations seem to be seen as “Ehhhh how close can we push it to reasonably claim we did the things?”. But with hipaa it’s different. The conversation is always “How much extra can we do to make sure nothing could possibly leak?” Makes me wish GDPR and friends had the same teeth. Turns out even small teeth work great when they’re personal.

jiggawatts 3y ago
Here in Australia they updated the Privacy Act with personal liability for directors. I discovered that every one of my client organisations is exempt, because of course they are. Powerful people don’t go to jail, that’s for the common people. Exemptions were put in place for all government agencies, and charities. Turns out they many health-related business are actually technically non-profits. So your health data can leak and they just shrug their shoulders and move on as if nothing had happened.

bsder 3y ago

If companies are people, companies should be able to get the death penalty. We used to do this. Companies getting their charters revoked used to be something that wasn't uncommon. Unless you make the punishments for this an existential threat, it's just a cost of doing business.

haltist 3y ago
How exactly do you get rid of 3M? They make so many chemicals necessary for modern consumer products that they are an irrevocable part of the global economy. There is no substitute for 3M. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually supply Intel, AMD, and other high-tech companies with chemicals necessary for photo-lithography. This is before we even get to what they supply to the military-industrial complex. Even if they don't make the end products I am certain they produce the necessary chemical precursors for so many industries that there would be no way to do anything about whatever crimes they have committed against nature. It doesn't matter how much people complain about these companies. Their existence is a necessary evil because of how the global economy is structured.
- nijave 3y ago
  Government acquisition, divestiture, and all IP entering the public domain? Or even just forcing them to break up into more, smaller companies.
  - ThomPete 3y ago
    you live in a capitalist society not some socialist nightmare. Giving it to the government would be much much much worse.
    - jmaygarden 3y ago
      They didn’t say to let the government run it. Make the patents/trade secrets public domain and sell off the physical assets in open auctions. Someone would buy up the profitable manufacturing lines that aren’t known to be as harmful.

hinkley 3y ago

Maybe get Bayer to buy you… I’m looking at you, Monsanto.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

atoav 3y ago

Exactly. And maybe we should make sure that crimes against humanity that go unpunished today can (and will) be punished in the future. Some climate activist kids on tiktok call this "Nuremberg 2046". Doing illegal stuff and lobbying your best to get away with it has become so normal nowadays that maybe an appeal to the honor of the people involved does not cut it.

Nasrudith 3y ago
You would need to be very careful when defining "crimes against humanity" to not be post-facto law. It is like the maxim of it being better to let a hundred guilty go free than punish one innocent: if being innocent is no defense then why would anyone bother to be innocent?
- atoav 3y ago
  What the Nazis did was totally legal in the Third Reich, back when they did it. They made sure of that. Yet it was totally clear just how against the humanity it was afterwards. Should the victors have let them go at the Nuremberg trials? No, so they used international law and saw this as a starting point for the universal declaration of human rights. I think it is good that people and companies should think about what will be seen as a crime against humanity afterwards. I'd say anything that goes against the universal declaration of human rights now is a good start, even if there are national loopholes right now. Actors that know now that they are e.g. poisioning the environment/people or actively prevent a solution to climate crisis with millions of starving people on the other side of the scale, know today that what they do is wrong. They just think they will get away with it. The question is about spirit of the law VS letter of the law. Just because all you did was legal doesn't mean you are innocent or right. Just because you did something illegal doesn't mean you are wrong (e.g. it was illegal to hide a jew in the Third Reich). So some of the things individual actors so is already illegal under international law and/or a violation of human rights. And I think we would all profit from the faint possibility of that ever becoming a thing.