Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by pseudolus on Sunday December 20, 2020 @01:12PM
(#25488236)
Calls to "lock up the bastards" might give some short-lived emotional satisfaction but rarely translate into anything resembling victory (see the war on drugs). The burden of proof in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm somewhat doubtful that prosecutors, faced with an onslaught of defense counsel and sympathetic jurors, will meet that burden in white collar crimes. The answer isn't jail but rather developing the will to overcome regulatory capture and to enforce existing legislation which is more than sufficient to counter monopolies.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by ClumsyPilot on Sunday December 20, 2020 @02:06PM
(#25488686)
To me this reads like a generic argument to de-criminalise white collar crime and fraud.
Untill we have prosecution for executives, events like 2008 and boeing will keep coming.
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by lmeyerov on Sunday December 20, 2020 @01:32PM
(#25488415)
Bigcorps are veto-driven as no one wants to be the one to kill the cash cow, and VPs will do unethical things as long as they are legal and benefit the company + their immediate team, justifying it as 'good business leadership.' So jailtime and meaningful fines shifts burden from 'a fee smaller than your bonus / company profit' to 'oh shit.'
Truly bug and evil stuff happens, but most normal VP politics has email + file trails due to design docs, legal agreements, etc. Harder part seems like knowing what to subpeona and in time :)
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by ashtonkem on Sunday December 20, 2020 @02:09PM
(#25488706)
White collar crimes often include a special requirement that other crimes don’t have; a requirement that the accused were aware of the illegality of their actions. This is an extremely hard bar to clear for prosecutors, which is why they often don’t pursue criminal charges that seem obvious from the outside.
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by zarkov99 on Sunday December 20, 2020 @02:05PM
(#25488675)
Do you feel the same way about the malfeasance that brought on the financial crisis?
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by pseudolus on Sunday December 20, 2020 @03:54PM
(#25489414)
The malfeasance that brought on the financial crisis is illustrative. It ultimately led to one criminal prosecution that involved a small single digit number of branches Chinese-American community bank (Abacus Bank). The prosecution was ultimately unsuccessful. If the government couldn't pull off a successful prosecution of such a small fish then why believe they'll be successful with the likes of FAANG? Best to devote the limited resources the government has to proactively utilizing its powers and enforcing anti-monopoly legislation. If it was readily capable of doing so in the past, why not now?
In passing, the debacle that was the prosecution of Abacus Bank was the subject of a great documentary 'Small Enough to Jail' [0][1]. It's demonstrative of whom the government will ultimately always chose to prosecute. In the case of Abacus Bank, an institution that had a significantly lower default rate than most large banks.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/video/abacus-small-enough-to-jail-suqmxe...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus:_Small_Enough_to_Jail
Re:Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face ...
by alisonkisk on Sunday December 20, 2020 @01:14PM
(#25488251)
And taxation, to make evil geniuses less interested in the activity in the first place, creating room for less evil geniuses.