News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on $718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi devices (2015). Parent comment

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by imgabe on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @01:26PM (#13320733)
Right, I just thought they would usually be liable to the owner, and the owner would be the one legally liable. Now, if the owner got fined because MC Dean screwed something up, they could turn around and sue MC Dean for the amount of the fine. But separately fining both the owner and the contractor for the same infraction seems like double dipping on the part of the government, unless they're being fined in proportion to culpability or something like that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by jessaustin on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:57PM (#13321520)
IANAL, but "someone hired me" is not a defense for any crime. Perhaps Marriott could use ignorance as an excuse for hiring a wireless communication firm to break a wireless communication law (under the somewhat silly theory that they are only experts in hotel law), but the wireless communication firm itself certainly can't.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @04:25PM (#13322192)
"Double-dipping" is allowed in criminal cases. If two people cooperate to murder someone both can go to jail for the full sentence; they don't split up the sentence between them.
[ Parent | on HN ]