Depends on the country.

Mine was founded by some overseas family that can still come over and start telling us what to do as they please.

So uhhh, yeah, can confirm, Canada’s laws basically revolve around keeping old money wealthy without providing any value to anyone.

The British Crown hasn't had real power since 1649, but please continue complaining about nothing.

No you just (by constitution) have to swear allegiance to the crown to become a lawmaker, which makes you a perjurer if you don't acknowledge their power.

Also is the monarch not commander in chief their armed forces? I thought being under the command of the queen / monarch was part of their oath.

Yeah, it's crazy to me that the UK has no armed forces, the military are all personally bound to the monarch. The king has interfered in politics too, so arguments based on royalty not being active are off to a bad start.

It's hilarious that even though I think my comment was misread, it turns out I think we both are right.

You read it as me talking about the military in the UK.

No I was talking about the Canadian military. They are bound to the queen and swear an oath to such, you know the one that lives in the UK.

It really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.

Ah, I suspected you were talking about Canada, but wasn't sure if it might be Australia. I guess your situation is more absurd.

There's still a 10% difference in wealth on average between people with noble Norman family names and everyone else in UK.

So if I leave my front door unlocked, I should go to jail when someone steals from me? What nonsense.

Your front door and the items in your house are not analogous to having sensitive information on a machine connected to the internet.

Probably not. But if you owned a warehouse and you left it unlocked without security, and someone steels from it stuff that is owned by somebody else, then maybe you are liable somewhat.

Fiduciary responsibility [1] is closer to the concept that applies here in my opinion. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the company and thus the investment in the company for the investors and shareholders.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_responsibility

Surely this comment does not fit HN comment guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

If you feel it's appropriate, flag the comment.

So it’s OK for individual vigilantes to punish them, am I right?

Yes, punish the victims is the best policy.