6 ms·
Equitable and more specifically injunctive relief is the way out of this abuse of "crime is the cost of doing business" mentality. (That a lot of us raise here.
by eftychis 2y ago
Equitable and more specifically injunctive relief is the way out of this abuse of "crime is the cost of doing business" mentality. (That a lot of us raise here.)
What could that mean: Meta or whichever company breaks the law, loses ownership and rights to anything that is the result of the crime.
If it's a model, Meta can not use that or any other version of the model that utilized data illegally acquired. And that model becomes property of the victims.
- TechDebtDevin 2y agoThat would be the equivalent of confiscating a fleet or trucks from a trucking company whenever a driver broke a law. A little extreme and will never happen. China doesn't even operate like this.
- eftychis 2y agoNot unheard of for some crimes, eg drugs or money laundering. Securities fraud also essentially offers that: all money made out of the fraud and gains on that belong to the victims. California's Unfair Competition framework also dictates essentially payment of the proceeds of the "unlawful activity" and taking actions to undo it. Again this is already an existing relief for certain crimes or civil torts committed by individuals. We just have not legislated to apply it to you know the other "persons," the companies.
- trte9343r4 2y ago[flagged]
- Ductapemaster 2y agoAs the owner of a shelter dog, sounds like a terrible idea. A dog can be provoked — a company much less so.
- trte9343r4 2y agoProvocation is not an excuse! You have no right to send people into hospital! Dog is your responsibility! Use leash, muzzle or keep it at home! If it is dangerous (like you admit), destroy it!
- galangalalgol 2y agoI would argue it depends on the provocation. If a little kid is hitting an animal with a stick and the animal attacks, that is self defense against assault with a deadly weapon. If the animal is a human anyway. If the animal is my dog I have to put it down.
- trte9343r4 2y ago[flagged]
- Ductapemaster 2y agoI respect your space to air your opinions, but you are not doing so in a respectful or persuasive way. I'm sorry for whatever experiences have made you feel like dogs have no place in modern society. I wholeheartedly disagree. At no point did I admit anything about my dog being aggressive towards humans. I speak from my experience spending my life around animals, having gone through the adoption process at a "difficult" shelter, and having to manage my dog's incompatibility and aggression towards other dogs. In addition to interpreting my comment in the worst way possible, you are quick to dismiss the fact that dogs are conscious beings with their own emotions, past history, skills, and evolutionary training. As their handlers, I agree with you that we are absolutely responsible for their actions — that is the implicit choice in having a pet. However that does not mean we can predict their actions at all times. Any dog can be provoked with the right stimulus, as can any human. I do not agree that applying absolutes in response to risk in the complex interactions between various animal groups, including humans, is a sensible or reasonable approach. Also, your comment below "Shelter dogs do not have this training and are aggressive!" is extremely uninformed and incorrect. This is your opinion, not a fact. Espousing this attitude hurts the work that shelters are doing, reinforces dangerous stereotypes for specific dog breeds, and does a disservice to those who choose to adopt a pet.
- xvector 2y agoThis would just create a perverse incentive for the government to confiscate everything it can. Then you would see laws being crafted that are increasingly ambiguous and difficult to follow in order to enable greater confiscation of goods. Asset forfeiture isn't something we should be cheering on.