3 ms·

They need to make an example out of these companies. If your whole business model is built around handling sensitive data, and you are caught shipping off that

by kortex 5mo ago

They need to make an example out of these companies. If your whole business model is built around handling sensitive data, and you are caught shipping off that data to brokers, you should be liquidated or at least fined to within an inch of bankruptcy, as basically all of your profits are a sham.

inetknght 5mo ago
Fined into bankruptcy and all managers up to and including the CEO criminally charged.
- bombcar 5mo ago
  There needs to be penalties that piece the "limited liability" because otherwise it's just "pay to get away with it" as we currently have. I've been for a "corporate death penalty" (if companies are people, they can be executed) which would result in the shareholders losing everything along with executives being perp-walked.
  - ndriscoll 5mo ago
    Not just executives. They don't will these things into existence. Someone had to build functionality to send user data to Facebook.
    - philipallstar 5mo ago
      Not to side with this behaviour, but I think if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them?
      - ndriscoll 5mo ago
        The point of laws is that T&Cs don't matter if the law has something to say. If the law e.g. were to criminalize sharing health information in this way, then it doesn't matter if the users agreed; you still go to prison for doing it.
      - inetknght 5mo ago
        > if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. No. In a paper contract, you can scratch off things you don't agree with. You can negotiate. You can't do that in Ts & Cs. For example, Ts & Cs often unilaterally change with no ability for you to review or cancel or undo. It's trivially easy to write software which uses services without ever agreeing to Ts & Cs. So it's not really a legal contract. > And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them? Through a real negotiation. With a paper contract, that both parties sign, and both parties receive a copy of, and that can't be unilaterally changed.

by kortex 5mo ago

inetknght 5mo ago

Fined into bankruptcy and all managers up to and including the CEO criminally charged.

bombcar 5mo ago
There needs to be penalties that piece the "limited liability" because otherwise it's just "pay to get away with it" as we currently have. I've been for a "corporate death penalty" (if companies are people, they can be executed) which would result in the shareholders losing everything along with executives being perp-walked.
- ndriscoll 5mo ago
  Not just executives. They don't will these things into existence. Someone had to build functionality to send user data to Facebook.
  - philipallstar 5mo ago
    Not to side with this behaviour, but I think if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them?
    - ndriscoll 5mo ago
      The point of laws is that T&Cs don't matter if the law has something to say. If the law e.g. were to criminalize sharing health information in this way, then it doesn't matter if the users agreed; you still go to prison for doing it.
    - inetknght 5mo ago
      > if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. No. In a paper contract, you can scratch off things you don't agree with. You can negotiate. You can't do that in Ts & Cs. For example, Ts & Cs often unilaterally change with no ability for you to review or cancel or undo. It's trivially easy to write software which uses services without ever agreeing to Ts & Cs. So it's not really a legal contract. > And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them? Through a real negotiation. With a paper contract, that both parties sign, and both parties receive a copy of, and that can't be unilaterally changed.