4 ms·
First amendment loophole. You can't legally tell someone to commit negligent homicide, but if you tell them the engineering process efficiency management prog
by doubloon 3y ago
First amendment loophole.
You can't legally tell someone to commit negligent homicide, but if you tell them the engineering process efficiency management program has passed mandatory quality and safety checks by an accredited third party auditor, then the law can't touch you.
Much like computer science, every problem (like how to avoid being charged for homicide) can be solved by layers of indirection.
- aeternum 3y agoThis is why regulation is rarely the answer. Corporate lawyers are ultimately more clever and better-paid than the congressional staffers that are writing the laws. It's also much easier to find a loophole than it is to predict and avoid all loopholes, especially with all the compromise required to pass a law.
- PopePompus 3y agoThey don't have to be more clever. They just have to be faster to adapt, which is trivial given the glacial pace at which legislation is passed in the US.
- toss1 3y agoWhich also means that the regulatory agency most be structured to remain un-captured by the corporate interests it regulates, and empowered to react and adapt rapidly to the 'clever' legal hacks.
- Andrex 3y agoThey also have to make an example out of cases which they know they can win dead-to-rights. The chilling effect can be a societal good if used correctly.
- tycho-newman 3y agoNo lawyers are dumb enough to want less safe commercial planes.
- nehal3m 3y agoI can easily imagine them to be greedy enough though.
- salawat 3y agoCorrection: No lawyer is dumb enough to go on the record, or to leave a signature on something that could reasonably create the impression upon discovery that they knowingly want or facilitated the creation of, less safe commercial planes. However, buying Boeing stock, with the current management in place, is synonymous with wanting less safe commercial planes.
- bumby 3y agoThis was glaringly obvious where I took a course on engineering law. So much boiled down to “don’t put bad stuff in writing” more than “don’t do bad stuff in the first place.” The press or made a point to distinguish the way engineers think can get them in legal trouble (eg, trying to be open and transparent about design flaws). It kinda bummed me out.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoI wouldn't do it, but. I think it's not crazy to buy Boeing stock in the belief that they will figure their shit out and start building safer planes.
- WalterBright 3y agoIt is? Boeing stock is half the value it was before the MAX crashes.
- aeternum 3y agoThat's never the proposal but is often the outcome. Firing your engineers and outsourcing or eliminating large amounts of QA most would agree was likely to make Boeing planes less safe. Yet no lawyer raised an objection. They lawyers also successfully argued that FAA testing was not needed and Boeing can and should be trusted to signoff internally. There are lots of ways to justify.
- dboreham 3y ago> Corporate lawyers are ultimately more clever and better-paid than the congressional staffers that are writing the laws. In the US those are often the same people, right?
- _heimdall 3y agoIts not so much in direction as it is bureaucracy and corruption. From what I've seen, regulatory agencies and processes are created for a combination of well intended concern for public safety and a power grab. Neither of those are based on indirection so much as ignorance (or hopefulness?) and greed, respectively.
- asveikau 3y agoI don't think a judge or jury is going to buy that.
- bumby 3y agoWhat happens in the case of Boeing where there’s evidence that the quality checks were not complied with? At least with MCAS, there seems to be evidence they didn’t adhere to their own process requirements.
- doubloon 3y agothe OP was asking about the consultants and their liability. they are able to keep far away enough from operational details so it wont matter to them. much like a prsident, dictator, or mafia boss can have plausible deniability because the entire system is set up so that they set a general tone and strategy but can claim they dont know any details, even though a child could guess what the details would be.
- bumby 3y agoThey were stating that a consultant has vouched that the process has passed quality checks. If it hasn’t (and it seems Boeing had not appropriately set up their quality checks), your statement implies the consultant doesn’t gave any liability? Ie they aren’t responsible for checking the system they are paid to check?