Democrat Proposes Jail Time For Tech Companies Who Steal Your Data
52616 upvotes
1282 comments
skoalbrother
2 weeks ago
trofire.com
Democrat Proposes Jail Time For Tech Companies Who Steal Your Data
CivilServantBot
1
2 weeks ago

Welcome to /r/Technology! Please keep in mind proper Reddiquette when engaging with others and please follow the Reddit sitewide rules and subreddit rules when posting. Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is against the rules and will be removed.

If you are looking for technical help or have technical questions, please see our weekly Tech Support sticky located at the top of the sub, or visit /r/techsupport, or /r/AskTechnology. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns for the moderator team, please send us a modmail.

Demonae
3679
2 weeks ago

Who in the company? I mean I get it, and I approve of the sentiment, but who is going to jail?

sidyagami
1901
2 weeks ago

Exactly, companies will pay off some employee to be the scapegoat and face the sentence. Every time a big corporation account tweets something controversial they fire some intern and release a statement on how they dealt with the situation, there's no way for us to know if they actually punished the real culprit.

chalbersma
570
2 weeks ago
sleepsoundsam
185
2 weeks ago

I never liked that show, but that skit was amazing.

TokemonMaster
105
2 weeks ago

You should give it another shot. Definitely one of the best sitcoms ever made... just gotta get past the laugh tracks.

gregpxc
97
2 weeks ago

Yep, all 8 seasons of it

thisnameis4sale
63
2 weeks ago

8 seasons of laugh tracks... I don't think I can.

WhatTheFuckKanye
18
2 weeks ago

I find the laugh tracks to be bearable in HIMYM. Friends and That 70s Show on the other hand are super loud and annoying. At least the laugh tracks in HIMYM are rather realistic.

Kiwi-Red
22
2 weeks ago

Fyi, friends at least was filmed in front of a live audience.

WhatTheFuckKanye
5
2 weeks ago

I know, that makes no difference in the viewing experience though. HIMYM wasn't filmed in front of a live audience and still the laugh tracks sound natural. Friends was filmed in front of a live audience that was told to fake LOL every 3 seconds. Annoying as fuck.

f0nel
15
2 weeks ago

I think the reason the HIMYM laugh track is more bearable is because it's not filmed in front of a live audience, so the actors don't take pauses to wait for the crowd to stop laughing.

algernonsflorist
4
2 weeks ago

Married With Children is literally the only laugh tracked/studio audience show I can watch anymore. HIMYM is painful.

Criticalmak
3
2 weeks ago

Laugh tracks work fine if the material is funny. The only reason we notice them is because they are often added to unfunny "jokes".

TheEdward162
1
2 weeks ago

Shame they never made more of them

somebodysbuddy
2
2 weeks ago

Yeah, the whole show was about them meeting the mother, and they don't even show Ted and the mother talking.

shamanic_panic
71
2 weeks ago

I hate the show too, but it was fucking brilliant. Main reason I hated it tbh was Ted and the premise of the show. When the plot focus was on the other characters it was way funnier. Redeemably funnier in fact.

pipsdontsqueak
30
2 weeks ago

The point, a little bit, is that Ted is the straight man so is less zany than the rest and consequently a little less likable. HIMYM is probably the last good laugh track sitcom to come out...most likely ever unless that style makes a big comeback.

shamanic_panic
51
2 weeks ago

It wasn't how straight he was that bothered me, it was that every plot involving him was the same, but dressed up differently. We know Barney is on the pull so the fun is in his new method or the compromising position he ends up in. With Ted we know this isn't the mother of his kids but there's nothing interesting about the plot cycle and his behaviour and attitudes are sinister enough to make you really just not like him.

Even the ending, where effectively he stole his best friend's wife and is telling his kids about all the women he banged before meeting their dead mum. It just summed up how much a piece of shit he is but with no comic relief to offset it.

You can have a straight man that's still comical. Look at Holt from Brooklyn 99, and Santiago. Very likeable characters, very straight.

I dunno. HIMYM left a sour taste in my mouth. There's so many in jokes that I love (papa bear needs traction) and it was brilliantly written, except for Ted.

lincolainen
25
2 weeks ago

Ooh. Never got that joke, Holt as a gay straight man. I feel stupid.

riverave
2
2 weeks ago

He's the least straight straight man around. Also one of the best since Margaret Dumont

GoingAllTheJay
4
2 weeks ago

To be fair, Barney stole her first.

Beingabummer
4
2 weeks ago

Happy Endings is great too, where there's a straight man (Dave) but he's not the focus of the show at all.

FuckingQWOPguy
14
2 weeks ago

Well Seinfeld had laugh tracks. I don’t like them but if one of the best did it, it can’t be that bad.

shoe-veneer
10
2 weeks ago

Never really thought of it that way. Seinfeld basically molded my sense of humor as a kid, but I always felt the laugh track was much less intrusive than HIMYM's. Maybe Im too hung up on it, either way, I feel there's too many other shows at my fingertips now for me to go back and actually enjoy it.

Opset
7
2 weeks ago

Seinfeld went over my head as a kid. When I was an adult and Curb came out, and everyone said it was Seinfeld 2.0, I got the humor much better.

narf007
15
2 weeks ago

I still don't understand the hype for Seinfeld. Seems to resonate heavily here on Reddit. Some episodes are outrageously funny but most are mediocre, imo. It just falls short.

I hate laugh tracks though. I could only really deal with them in Fresh Prince, Red, Green Show, and IT Crowd.

To each their own. I'm glad y'all enjoy it.

Ashitattack
8
2 weeks ago

From my understanding Seinfeld was supposedly a progenitor of a lot of modern comedy. I say supposedly because I genuinely don't know

Opset
3
2 weeks ago

I forgot that The Red Green Show had a laugh track. It was completely unnecessary.

Criticalmak
2
2 weeks ago

I too don't get the hype and I've watched the whole thing.

It's a decent show. It definitely has it's moments but it's not a patch on Curb.

That's the real masterpiece.

RadicalRaid
6
2 weeks ago

It's certainly not a bad show, but one of the best sitcoms ever made? That's quite the claim.

The Office is a sitcom as well for example, Community, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Those are some difficult examples to beat, in my opinion.

PM_ME_YOUR_THIGHS___
4
2 weeks ago

And the ending

_RandomHomoSapien
7
2 weeks ago

Holy shit that was incredible

spherical_idiot
2
2 weeks ago

Eh. How could you not? I also abhor laugh tracks. But there are two shows I'll endure it for. This and Seinfeld.

This show just had killer writing.

themadnarddog
2
2 weeks ago

The ending will forever slay me

WayeeCool
140
2 weeks ago

It needs to be the Chairman of the Board. That's the person with real power. The board members have the real power and the CEO really is just the public face that carries out the board's wishes. I wish the American and European media would start actually mentioning the members of a companies board of directors whenever a company does something illegal. So often they get away with no damage to their reputations when they are the individuals who bare the most responsibility.

Ofc you should make sure to throw the CEO in prison too, because I'm pretty sure it has been established that the Nuremberg Defense is bullshit.

ProGenji
121
2 weeks ago

This is sort of dumb.

Most boards are Independent Non-Executive Directors, as in they just go to vote and discuss things boards do.

Which is, Audit, Investments, Compliance, Remuneration, and few others depending on sector.

They have no direct day to day impact on running the firm because they are Independent and that is good for corporate governance.

Issues start occuring when the board is executive & non-independent.

Which is to say they're actual management.

These also have a nasty habbit of CEOs being the actual Chair (Elon & Zucks being good examples of bad corporate governance).

So in a sense, the Chair does get a lot of shit? Because for companies that get into a lot of shit they are the Chair.

  • I know random Internet Man but I do board advisory work so I can tell if someone is being a complete dummy and this here is it.

Edit: This is for Commonwealth Firms

US Large Caps will be mostly Executive Chairs doubling as CEOs.

Which begs the question, why burn Chairs as at all in the Pyre when you can just burn a CEO on the pyre to get the job done?

WayeeCool
36
2 weeks ago

Whenever I see people "debating" the topic of holding corporate directors and executives criminally accountable for the criminal activities they order their companies to carry out... I can't help but be reminded of this video.

There are already laws in place that make someone higher up in the chain of authority of an organization criminally accountable. We just never apply them to extremely wealthy individuals. A prime example would be the RICO Act.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeeringand allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970) and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 19611968. G. Robert Blakey, an adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under the close supervision of the committee's chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.Beginning in 1972, 33 states adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.

copy & pasted from another response

You are thinking of the British model of the corporate structure... where the Chairman is really just a powerless spokesperson for the board, that makes suggestions but has no real authority over day-to-day company matters. In the United States, most companies have a CEO and then what they call a "chairman" but is really an "executive chairman" due to their level of authority compared to the British model.

Many U.S. companies have an executive chairman, and this method of organization is sometimes called the American model. Having a non-executive chair is common in the United Kingdom and Canada, and is sometimes called the British model. Expert opinion is rather evenly divided over which is the preferable model overall.\39])

Examples of companies with both an executive chairman and a CEO include Ford,\40]) HSBC,\41]) Google,\42]) HP,\43]) and Apple.\44])

Non-executive chairman

Non-executive chairman – also a separate post from the CEO, unlike an executive chairman, a non-executive chairman does not interfere in day-to-day company matters. Across the world, many companies have separated the roles of chairman and CEO, often resulting in a non-executive chairman, saying that this move improves corporate governance.

The non-executive chairman's duties are typically limited to matters directly related to the board, such as:\38])Chairing the meetings of the board.Organizing and coordinating the board's activities, such as by setting its annual agenda.Reviewing and evaluating the performance of the CEO and the other board members.

Executive chairman

Executive chairman – An office separate from that of CEO, where the titleholder wields influence over company operations, such as Larry Ellison of Oracle,Douglas Flint of HSBC and Steve Case of the former AOL Time Warner. In particular, the group chairmanship of HSBC is considered the top position of that institution, outranking the chief executive, and is responsible for leading the board and representing the company in meetings with government figures. Prior to the creation of the group management board in 2006, HSBC's chairman essentially held the duties of a chief executive at an equivalent institution, while HSBC's chief executive served as the deputy. After the 2006 reorganization, the management cadre ran the business, while the chairman oversaw the controls of the business through compliance and audit and the direction of the business.

source

Board of directors

A board of directors is a recognized group of people who jointly oversee the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency. Such a board's powers, duties, and responsibilities are determined by government regulations(including the jurisdiction's corporations law and the organization's own) constitution and bylaws. These authorities may specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and how often they are to meet.In an organization with voting members, the board is accountable to, and might be subordinate to, the organization's full membership, which usually vote for the members of the board.

In a stock corporation, non-executive directors are voted for by the shareholders and the board is the highest authority in the management of the corporation. The board of directors appoints the chief executive officer of the corporation and sets out the overall strategic direction. In corporations with dispersed ownership, the identification and nomination of directors (that shareholders vote for or against are often done by the board itself, leading to a high degree of self-perpetuation. In a non-stock corporation with no general voting membership, the board is the supreme governing body of the institution;\1]) its members are sometimes chosen by the board itself.\2])\3])

source

catofillomens
20
2 weeks ago

On the other hand, as a former federal prosecutor says: IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT

But how do you know? I haven't even described the case yet.

It's never RICO!

I mean, not literally never. But I can say with a very high level of confidence that if you're asking me, it's not RICO.

But it 's an important case! And the facts are terrible! This defendant did really bad things.

That's not what RICO means. RICO is not a fucking frown emoji. It's not an exclamation point. It's not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something. It's not a petulant foot-stomp.

RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.

Jynxmaster
10
2 weeks ago

Which countries does this info cover?

ProGenji
13
2 weeks ago

Commonwealth Firms Mostly,

US to is around 70% Executive Co-Chairmanship in the S&P100 and about 50% for the S&P500. With Smaller Caps having better overall governance than large caps.

Which, is to say, the Chairman doesn't even exist for large Cap US firms so why bother burning them on the pyre when buring the CEO will get the job done just as good?

WayeeCool
18
2 weeks ago

Which, is to say, the Chairman doesn't even exist for large Cap US firms so why bother burning them on the pyre when buring the CEO will get the job done just as good?

The reason is that US companies often have a separate CEO under the executive chairman. When something illegal happens and the government actually chooses to come down on them, they normally throw the CEO (more often the CFO) under the bus and the executive chairman walks away scot-free. Over the years, I have come to suspect this is an intentional act of smoke and mirrors for creating plausible deniability for the executive chairman position.

The structure most American companies use is really a series of loopholes and legal hacks for shielding those who are the actual top executive of a company from any criminal and civil liability.

I think what many people are saying, is that we need to revise American laws to match the reality that American corporations have over the past decades shifted their corporate structure to create some pretty major loop-holes and get outa jail free cards for their top decision makers.

[deleted]
6
2 weeks ago

Someone needs to hire my as their fall guy while simultaneously getting me a job with those that have the powers to implement changes in legislation.

Well if it isn't gonna be me, it's gonna be that guy... And we don't want it being thaaaat guyyyy...

None of this will change anytime soon. None of it. Bad times.

Choppin_Brokkoli
6
2 weeks ago

Not America, that is for sure.

Jerzup
4
2 weeks ago

He/she literally named Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Did you read?

EighthScofflaw
5
2 weeks ago

Most boards are Independent Non-Executive Directors, as in they just go to vote and discuss things boards do. Which is, Audit, Investments, Compliance, Remuneration, and few others depending on sector.

Which is, Audit, Investments, Compliance, Remuneration, and few others depending on sector.

Compliance

The stockholders are the ones making money from a company. If they're making money while the CEO is doing illegal shit, the CEO is just the well-paid fall guy. Hold the board accountable for their capital, let the shit flow downhill. If they want to stay out of jail, they can exercise their authority as they should have been doing in the first place.

HisNameWasBoner411
4
2 weeks ago

If I give my drug dealer buddy 10k as an investment every few years and he gives me 10% of all profits in return do I not get in trouble if we get caught?

Why is different for drug dealers and not these guys? Both are making money off illegal shit but only one is punished.

jon_k
31
2 weeks ago

So often they get away with no damage to their reputations when they are the individuals who bare the most responsibility.

That's by design. Most media outlets are owned by CEO's these days.

ketzu
17
2 weeks ago

It is even worse, they are lead by CEOs /s

[deleted]
4
2 weeks ago

It's funny that media outlets in America fight for free speech and then....

Pussy out.

da_clig
11
2 weeks ago

Modus operandi - CEO/Chairman gets caught presiding over bad practices. Resigns and gets golden parachute. gets another cushy position, repeats practices as they are invariably profitable. Rinse, repeat.

MazeRed
3
2 weeks ago

What, the CEO and other executives run the company, but they answer to the board.

They elect a chairman, so are all the other board members going to jail if the chairman does something without telling them. Or if the CTO instructs someone in a basement somewhere to “steal” your data?

Obviously people need to be accountable for the people they oversee, but does that mean if there is even the slightest oversight someone that had nothing to do with it goes to jail?

Edit. I’m dumb, read comment below mine

WayeeCool
12
2 weeks ago

You are thinking of the British model of the corporate structure... where the Chairman is really just a powerless spokesperson for the board, that makes suggestions but has no real authority over day-to-day company matters. In the United States, most companies have a CEO and then what they call a "chairman" but is really an "executive chairman" due to their level of authority compared to the British model.

Many U.S. companies have an executive chairman, and this method of organization is sometimes called the American model. Having a non-executive chair is common in the United Kingdom and Canada, and is sometimes called the British model. Expert opinion is rather evenly divided over which is the preferable model overall.[39]

Companies with both an executive chairman and a CEO include Ford,[40] HSBC,[41] Google,[42] HP,[43] and Apple.[44]

Non-executive chairman

Non-executive chairman – also a separate post from the CEO, unlike an executive chairman, a non-executive chairman does not interfere in day-to-day company matters. Across the world, many companies have separated the roles of chairman and CEO, often resulting in a non-executive chairman, saying that this move improves corporate governance.

The non-executive chairman's duties are typically limited to matters directly related to the board, such as:[38]

Chairing the meetings of the board.

Organizing and coordinating the board's activities, such as by setting its annual agenda.

Reviewing and evaluating the performance of the CEO and the other board members.

Executive chairman

Executive chairman – An office separate from that of CEO, where the titleholder wields influence over company operations, such as Larry Ellison of Oracle, Douglas Flint of HSBC and Steve Case of the former AOL Time Warner. In particular, the group chairmanship of HSBC is considered the top position of that institution, outranking the chief executive, and is responsible for leading the board and representing the company in meetings with government figures. Prior to the creation of the group management board in 2006, HSBC's chairman essentially held the duties of a chief executive at an equivalent institution, while HSBC's chief executive served as the deputy. After the 2006 reorganization, the management cadre ran the business, while the chairman oversaw the controls of the business through compliance and audit and the direction of the business.

source

Board of directors

A board of directors is a recognized group of people who jointly oversee the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency. Such a board's powers, duties, and responsibilities are determined by government regulations(including the jurisdiction's corporations law) and the organization's own constitution and bylaws. These authorities may specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and how often they are to meet.

In an organization with voting members, the board is accountable to, and might be subordinate to, the organization's full membership, which usually vote for the members of the board. In a stock corporation, non-executive directors are voted for by the shareholders and the board is the highest authority in the management of the corporation. The board of directors appoints the chief executive officer of the corporation and sets out the overall strategic direction. In corporations with dispersed ownership, the identification and nomination of directors (that shareholders vote for or against) are often done by the board itself, leading to a high degree of self-perpetuation. In a non-stock corporation with no general voting membership, the board is the supreme governing body of the institution;[1] its members are sometimes chosen by the board itself.[2][3]

source

expansiveEdumacation
3
2 weeks ago

Don't you have laws explaining these things?

In my country the employer is held responsible. The region manager in my company almost faced jailtime because employees had worked too many hours.

"Employer:

1-8

(2) Med arbeidsgiver menes i denne lov enhver som har ansatt arbeidstaker for å utføre arbeid i sin tjeneste. Det som i denne lov er bestemt om arbeidsgiver, skal gjelde tilsvarende for den som i arbeidsgivers sted leder virksomheten.

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62/KAPITTEL_12#%C2%A71-8

(2) In this Act, the term "employer" means any person who has employed an employee to perform work in his service. What is stipulated in this Act concerning the employer shall apply correspondingly to the person who, in the employer's place, directs the business.

Emphasis mine.

Ie, the person with manager autonomy for how business is run is considered the employer and is responsible.

ZooAnimalsOnWheels_
3
2 weeks ago

I feel like you don't know how companies operate. Board of directors only meet like 4 times a year or maybe a couple extra times if something major is happening. Board members don't really have that much power. They're more of a safeguard to protect shareholders in case the company starts doing something idiotic. They're also in charge of firing a really bad ceo as well. But in terms of day to day operations, a lot of board members have essentially no say. I picked a random company, pepsico, and it has the ceo of Colgate, the ceo of 3m, the cfo of JPMorgan, ceo of heinz, etc. These board members mostly all have jobs that take up 99% of their time.

viscountsj
2
2 weeks ago

CEOs are often in charge and face the board as a kind of approval for overall things like how much money you have to spend.

The chairman is often the biggest Investor, or in some cases, someone the company wanted to give a position that sounds good to placate them. They chair meetings, so they can control things to an extent like agendas etc, but they often don't have too much power - it depends what the regulations of the company say.

Last company I worked in with that structure, the chair was someone who failed as the CEO. He had voting rights of half a vote, basically meaning it was useless unless there was a tie vote.

I suppose the takeaway is that company structure at C level didn't give automatic power to any particular person.

If we did this, we'd need to specify a specific person to have both power to change office on certain things and responsibility for fails. CIO might be a good role for this.

WayeeCool
1
2 weeks ago

Agreed.

Since American class Cs are often intentionally organized to create plausible deniability through no one individual having more than a 50% say in any one decision... maybe laws should be revised to cover a group of decision makers and hold them all equally accountable. I imagine that even in companies with rotten culture, it would give directors and executives who are aware of problems a vested personal interest and more importantly an excuse to express dissent when the law is being potentially broken or problems are intentionally being ignored that could down the road lead to legal issues.

Ideally, an audit would be able to track down the group of upper-level decision makers who took part in whatever decisions ultimately led to the law being violated. The rate of turn over for certain positions in many large American companies also makes pinning down a single person that a prosecutor can hold fully accountable especially difficult.

When decision making is shared or deligated, it's very tempting for a group of people to pick a fall guy and convince them to take one for the team should anything go wrong and they get caught... but if they know that the law will hold all of them equally responsible, in theory at least, it would encourage them to all stay vigilant to any negligence that could lead to legal repercussions.

Imnotsureimright
2
2 weeks ago

It’s never going to be straightforward like that.

I work for a small private tech company that doesn’t have a board at all. Our president/CEO is beloved by employees and the reason the company is successful. The VP is the tyrant making the terrible decisions about day to day things (and trying very hard to ensure the CEO doesn’t find out - he sees that product x was delivered to customer y, not that the manager of product x was forced under threat of termination to do some unethical things to deliver that product.) Our CEO is also the only thing keeping the VP from imposing his full psychotic ideas. The company would be far worse without the CEO.

Now, say that the unethical thing that the manager was forced to do involved what this law is meant to address. And he didn’t even do it himself - he instructed the people working for him to do it. Maybe the VP didn’t even say “steal customer information,” he said something else for which that was the only solution, maybe he knew this and maybe he didn’t. Maybe the employees took it upon themselves to solve an impossible situation by stealing information and the manager also didn’t explicitly say to do it. Who goes to jail? How do you even find out who it should be? No one is going to whistleblow, all are terrified of losing their jobs.

At larger companies it might be a whole room of VPs or managers who make the decision to do it collectively in a meeting. Do you put all of them in jail?

candyman420
1
2 weeks ago

Yeah, dream on, with that shit. No chairman of the board or CEO is going to jail because some tech guy forgot to install an update.

poop_stained_undies
1
2 weeks ago

Can’t agree with this more

Farsa1911
4
2 weeks ago

Well there's an easy fix for that. We target the goddamn CEO. Who else?

TacoChowder
4
2 weeks ago

There’s a subplot in Veep about firing an intern because of a fuck up

Hewlett-PackHard
1
2 weeks ago

Let's make it everyone responsible... the person directly responsible, the scapegoat, but also everyone responsible for them... so their Manager, Director, VP, CEO, etc. the whole chain of leadership... plus all the rest of the corporate officers just for good measure.

knullc0n
1
2 weeks ago

Ha. You thought you they were thinking this true. It only sounds good. See: new green deal

shitty_mcfucklestick
447
2 weeks ago

Corporations fought long & hard to be recognized as persons under the law. They should face the full breadth of that privilege with the ability to be "jailed" (suspended from doing business in their entirety) and executed (struck from the corporate record.) You force a business to shut down for a few weeks and you'll find that they will take laws and regulations a lot more seriously. None of this slap on the wrist fines bullshit.

Finna_Keep_It_Civil
124
2 weeks ago

This is the correct answer. Once the shareholders see that their investments are at stake of legal jeopardy...

Koolachoo
17
2 weeks ago

Could you imagine if google turned off the lights for a month? No google search. Maps. Google drive. Gmail. YouTube. Translate. Android. Chrome. Google scholar. Android auto. Google fibre. Plus the mass of other companies and government agencies which rely on googles many api’s. They even turned down a 10billion dollar pentagon AI contract.

A massive swath of the internet would literally disappear.

Pipedreamergrey
11
2 weeks ago

Are you saying Google is too big to jail?

balderdash9
2
2 weeks ago

That seems like a different problem

SerfingtotheLimit
2
2 weeks ago

I'd riot. That would actually affect me. While my data getting stolen is annoying I literally couldn't work if google shut down.

Tulki
60
2 weeks ago

This is great until a big company fucks up and thousands or tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the fuck-up lose their jobs.

It should be a fine that scales with revenue (so they can't sweep it under the rug as a cost of doing business) or they should confiscate executive compensation, so they have to make security a priority or they don't get paid.

JarasM
160
2 weeks ago

By that logic you also shouldn't fine companies because that hurts the bottom line and can lead to lay offs.

mesasone
42
2 weeks ago

Too big to fail

Tulki
20
2 weeks ago

That's a slippery slope argument... any kind of punishment hurts the bottom line and translates into layoffs or less compensation for employees. But that's better than instantly killing the entire business and firing everyone.

Some companies are so big that they dominate employment and spending in the city they're based out of. You kill them instantly, you don't just lay those people off. They're also going to stop spending until they can figure out another job. At that point you're hurting everyone in a city, not just this particular company.

jk410
47
2 weeks ago

What do you think happens to the families of criminals?

JakeDogFinnHuman
4
2 weeks ago

What should we do for the families of criminals? Just curious.

RDSTRNG
7
2 weeks ago

It def gives an incentive to stop punishing entire families because some dad/mom was caught with a tiny amount of bud or some nonviolent crime that gets em a weirdly long sentence.

JakeDogFinnHuman
7
2 weeks ago

I absolutely agree with that. But what about serious crimes?

LadyCailin
2
2 weeks ago

Well, the point of prison should be rehabilitation, so if we carry that into the corporate world, you basically would need to instead of fining them (except for actual damages), you fire the CEO/CotB (with no golden parachute), then inject regulators that don’t care about profit into the company for oversight purposes for some time after, that are allowed to change aspects of the business that are not in compliance.

Or something like that. Maybe there are issues with this particular solution, but my point is, it should be about rehabilitation, not punishment.

StuChenko
1
2 weeks ago

Anonymous whistle blowing maybe?

gelinrefira
2
2 weeks ago

Too Big to Fail.

Breaking-Away
5
2 weeks ago

Maybe we shouldn't allow anyone out younger than 60 or older than 70 to drive because 60-70 year olds have the lowest accident rate and any deviations from that range means more auto related fatalities.

RDSTRNG
9
2 weeks ago

Lol what is that true? Old people and young teenage girls seem to be the most dangerous people on the road.

Maybe they don't wreck... But how often are they unknowingly causing wrecks because they're pulling out in front of people or driving 35 in a 55.

In my experience they tend to be oblivious to the danger they're causing on the road.

Edit. Just looked it up and you're totally right. It isn't a huge difference but it's there. One thing that was interesting is the difference is decreased when looking at fatal crashes. I guess cause they're old and frail, if they wreck they're more likely to die.

1975-2050
2
2 weeks ago

when one’s personal experience means diddly vs reality

shitty_mcfucklestick
26
2 weeks ago

Or, they could stop doing heinous corrupt shit with your personal information. No crime, no punishment.

[deleted]
25
2 weeks ago

[deleted]

drunksquirrel
3
2 weeks ago

I'm with you on the very last bit. Unemployment benefits with some mandatory company matching for any innocent workers possibly put out.

Alternatively, legislation installing workers into boardrooms with voting power could help reign in this kind of horseshit.

Slotos
3
2 weeks ago

And that is why you build society with safety nets. So that you don’t have to deal with these conundrums when it comes to criminals facing the consequences.

dashanan
3
2 weeks ago

Yeah it's terrible that when a mass murderer is executed, then the spleen and pancreas who had nothing to do with the murders end up being killed too. It was entirely the brain's fault.

hansn
2
2 weeks ago

Jobs already are at risk if a company screws up.

KFPanda
2
2 weeks ago

Well shit, I guess we need to prop up all those MLM pyramid schemes too, otherwise how would those huns pay for little Timmy's naturopath and essential oils appointment.

brain_is_nominal
6
2 weeks ago

Speaking of fines, it should be proportional fines (for example, 5% of revenue/profits). Millions of dollars of fines are a pittance and have no deterrence value.

SlingDNM
6
2 weeks ago

Thats way to little, the Fee needs to be Higher than the gain. So 100% of everything related to that offence + 10% of that amount extra would be nice

JapanesePeso
2
2 weeks ago

Corporations are legal entities not people. The whole "corporations are people" strawman is lagestagecapitalism nonsense.

Cardeal
4
2 weeks ago

Yeah. Just force them to unplug all of their servers and close their stores for a month or more according to their offense. They would start behaving better.

Edit: but paying the workforce all the same.

Koolachoo
2
2 weeks ago

That will show them. I’ll just jump on google and.. it’s down. YouTube? Down. What about my family photos in google drive? Fuck. What about other sites? Dam, google fibre and chrome. I’ll just use my phone internet.. and.. android.

Time to call up my local government. Shit. Looks like they are using google contracts and api’s and cant be reached. Shit.

KypAstar
1
2 weeks ago

LMAO are you fucking serious? The executives? They're fine.

Anyone who makes under 250k a year? Absolutely fucked.

Natolx
54
2 weeks ago

What if a company going to jail meant it was "nationalized" for the duration of the sentence?

Just like we use prisoners as near slave labor during their sentence, we could use a company in the same way (run it "not for profit" during the sentence)

WF1LK
19
2 weeks ago

Meaning profits go to state or just... "disappear"?

Natolx
23
2 weeks ago

Make the company not legally beholden to shareholders for the time and any profits the the company does get would need to directly go to the salaries of to their "non-management"(or maybe just non executive) employeess.

Something like that anyway. Obviously this isn't well thought out lol.

Breaking-Away
16
2 weeks ago

Isn't this basically what happens to corporations convicted of tax evasion? The IRS forces them to pay back what they owe (and whatever the fine is) out of their liquid capital and future profits in such a way as to not force the firm to go under but still pay back the taxpayer what they owe.

Yocemighty
2
2 weeks ago

Maybe the firm should go under. Another company will arise and fill the vacuum.

Spilge
7
2 weeks ago

Yes but in the meantime the employees and any consumers relying on them are fucked

KypAstar
4
2 weeks ago

Better thought out than just "Shut down the company! That'll teach em!"

fiddel_fabulous
2
2 weeks ago

Its not better thought out if we just enforced antitrust law and monopoly laws. Trouble with axing companies who commit these crimes is they employee entire sectors of an industry.

  1. Crush monopolies.
  2. Allow capitalism to sow new seeds.
  3. Enforce shutdown 'like' laws.for crimes.

It would take time but its puts breath back into industries all but consumed by say only 4 companies in 20 industries with unlimited influence and cash ala besos, zuckerfuck, comcast, [insert monopoly]

Harbenger
48
2 weeks ago

some mid-level scapegoat more than likely

BootsyBootsyBoom
10
2 weeks ago
shwag945
3
2 weeks ago

I need more Better Off Ted in my life.

urgoingdownbitch01
30
2 weeks ago

Presumably the head of the department who allowed it to happen but that's just a guess.

mast3rbates
14
2 weeks ago

because the head of the department has final say about what that department does right?

Setepenre
30
2 weeks ago

it has to be the responsiblity of someone and that someone has to put in place the necessary steps to oversee those kind of things.

Someone creating a policy without the means to enforce it or check compliance is as guilt as someone that did not even create the policy. as such not knowing is not an excuse and does not protect you from prosecution.

did the CEO put in place a policy ? was the policy passed down to management and was the policy enforced.

Breaking-Away
9
2 weeks ago

This is why we have a separation between civil and criminal law.

urgoingdownbitch01
10
2 weeks ago
DrapeRape
2
2 weeks ago

Don't you kind of give them a right to sell your data when you agree to their ToS though?

How is it stealing if you agree to this in exchange to access to their platform or service?

I get people are thinking of FB, but google builds profiles of people and does this shit too

davesFriendReddit
29
2 weeks ago

When a company commits fraud, the Board of Directors is usually the people held responsible, not everyone in the company.

If the Board wants to shift blame to an employee, they'd better have already distributed an Employee Handbook.

TheMainTank
22
2 weeks ago

It says right in the article linked in the OP

they could face massive fines of up to four percent of their annual revenue, which would result in billions upon billions of dollars for some of these companies and possibly even jail time, jail sentences, prison for the CEOs and executives of these companies who knowingly leak our data or sell our data and then lie to us about it.

There's even a link within that article that includes some more details and quotes from Senator Wyden.

Penalize large companies that submit false information in their annual privacy report. Penalties could amount to 4 percent of annual revenue – a number that could run in the billions of dollars for the biggest social media companies. Executives could face jail time up to 20 years.

There's quite a bit more illuminating detail in both the OP's article and the page linked to within that article. All just a click or two away!

I know that like... nobody actually clicks through to the articles. We all just come and shitpost in the comments. But there needs to be some level of decorum. At least PRETEND you read the article. Are we men or are we beasts?!

JustinCayce
3
2 weeks ago

Hello, you appear to be unfamiliar with Reddit, if like to welcome you to the site. If you are expecting informed and well-reasoned, civil, discussion, you have to be brand new.

Lastmanlaughing
8
2 weeks ago

Corporations are people, give them jail time and repo the money

Either that, or the owners of the company

MazeRed
9
2 weeks ago

What if it’s publicly traded?

If Comcast is convicted of some shady shit, because Comcast, and I own a share, am I going to jail for 15 seconds?

8483
22
2 weeks ago

You'd be out in 8 seconds if you behave well.

davorzdralo
3
2 weeks ago

In the past, you actually could have lost all of your property like this because you had full responsibility for what a company did, no matter how many shares. And then we invented LTDs.

I_monstar
1
2 weeks ago

It would regulate stock valuations and the attitude of the board if their stockholders could get punished for bad decisions. Maybe your 15 seconds in jail is being forced to watch an add featuring the culprit, their name and likeness and what they did wrong.

Etrensce
7
2 weeks ago

I sure hope I don't go to jail for owning a few shares.

sour_llama
2
2 weeks ago

I'm just sure we can find a way to sort out who was making bad decisions.

JonathanMendelsohn
2
2 weeks ago

Yep. Plus it removes both the tendency to take down a mid-level scapegoat as well as the "even if we were stealing data, what could I have done about it" defense.

This is the right answer. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time applies in blue collar crime, but data theft is forgivable all the sudden. Nuh uh, I don't think so.

ZDHELIX
3
2 weeks ago

Barney Stinson

Ausernamenamename
3
2 weeks ago

Some intern who really wants to fetch Bezo his coffee in the next five years after he is out of jail. In China the rich already do this. Find a doppelgänger and pay them to ride out prison sentences.

filthysanches
4
2 weeks ago

I'm a proponent of corporate death penalty.

Yocemighty
2
2 weeks ago

We dont need no water let the mother fucker burn.

atomicllama1
1
2 weeks ago

CEO CFO and their first born.

kabulein
2
2 weeks ago

It says in the article "possibly even jail time, jail sentences, prison for the CEOs and executives of these companies who knowingly leak our data or sell our data and then lie to us about it."

There is a lot that needs to be considered. The article also mentions that companies are supposed to take specific precautions. However with tech developing so fast, I hope they get the balance in the definitions right with being specific enough but also not making certain technologies which might be out of date in 3 years.

MrdrBrgr
2
2 weeks ago

And to further this, when you authorize them to gather and use your data in any way by agreeing to the EULA, at what point is it actually stealing instead of just buyer's remorse because you failed to put any thought into the consequences?

chadillac83
2
2 weeks ago

Don't worry, no one will go to jail. You didn't read the TOS agreements and they're not stealing anything. This is another all bark no bite bill pushed by a bunch of know nothing political hacks.

McMacHack
2
2 weeks ago

The unpaid intern hired 3 days before the indictment. It will be suggested that the CEO resign and go enjoy their Million to Billion dollar severance package. But there isn't really any consequences for the super rich.

Ninja_Arena
2
2 weeks ago

That's a good question. That's why a lot of people love corporations. LLC....
I would prefer more accountability with stolen data as well. Seems to be a bigger issue.

tragicdiffidence12
2
2 weeks ago

Whoever oversaw the decision. Yes it’s easy to pass the buck, but someone needs to sign off on these things or check the code. coders will have a strong incentive to tell their bosses to give the orders for this in writing, and bosses will have a strong incentive to tell the CEO to screw off

wreckedcarzz
2
2 weeks ago

Everyone. One fuck up, and everyone from the CEO to the cleaning crew. The issue will resolve itself in record time.

liquidthc
0
2 weeks ago

Didn't you read the title? The company. The company is going to jail.

Monstertruck_Gnar
2
2 weeks ago

Well companies ARE people in a sense. Im for sending the company to jail.

Gfiti
1
2 weeks ago

The janitor of course

jrhoffa
1
2 weeks ago

The entire company. Not the employees, but the organization thereof. Dissolve it for a while.

-Already-Taken-
1
2 weeks ago

Companies are people. Put the company in jail!

MagicAmoeba
1
2 weeks ago

Yes. All of them.

radical_badger
1
2 weeks ago

It's not putting someone from that company in jail per say, it's the essence of what jail is to a person applied to a company. Can you work and earn money in jail as a person? No, so take that away from a company and that company, treated by law as a person gets punished like a person. Of course this has the side effect of punishing many innocent individuals too, so it's a hard one to get right.

commit_bat
1
2 weeks ago

The company itself. They're people, too, you know.

Fatty_Wraps
1
2 weeks ago

Some middle management scape goat presumably.

SuperSlovak
1
2 weeks ago

The lowest common denominator obviously

DMann420
1
2 weeks ago

Anyone who knew it was happening and did it anyways.

pm_boobs_send_nudes
1
2 weeks ago

I'd assume the directors would be liable for the company.

Tubbles242
1
2 weeks ago

I would hope whoever gave the order to do it or if it can be proven, anyone who contributed to the idea/policy of it hopefully with lesser penalties because of their indirect reslonsibility.

Best case scenario would probably be that; anyone who was unaware of it, didn't know it was illegal, or weren't aware of the practice, would be granted a lot more leniency than the people who pressured/forced them to do it.

JWoftheNorth
1
2 weeks ago

Executives.

What happens on the low levels reflects on the upper level. If the janitor is caught napping on the job, that's one thing. That's not the CEO's fault. If the company is built to steal data, that's no accident. That's someone's fault. Someone decided that's what the company will do. Someone benefits from it. And that someone is the CEO. So that's who goes to jail.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Oldini
1
2 weeks ago

The CEO and all stockholders naturally.

citationsplz
1
2 weeks ago

Jimothy in accounting, he was late last Tuesday

187ForNoReason
1
2 weeks ago

CEO or GTFO

valhalla0ne
1
2 weeks ago

It'll be more realistic if they said "fine" and tech companies can plan accordingly...

Edheldui
1
2 weeks ago

Whoever is higher up. They get more money than everyone else because they have responsibility, not because they work harder. Therefore, they take responsibility.

1LJA
1
2 weeks ago

I propose shareholder culpability. That would surely change the dynamics of the game.

grando205
1816
2 weeks ago

What about other companies? I’m looking at you, Equifax.

10260909569552752544
906
2 weeks ago

They should have gone after Equifax. They did more immediate and long term harm to US citizens than data mining companies.

goldencrisp
504
2 weeks ago

I understand the hate Facebook gets but some of that energy needs to be directed towards Equifax. Fuck Equifax. They even had the audacity to try and sell customers on a service to check if their data was on “the dark web.”

Shit companies are ran by shit people.

foomprekov
174
2 weeks ago

They steal your data and sell it without your permission every day

BrixSeven
138
2 weeks ago

That's their entire business model. All credit agencies have the same model. You can't even choose to not sign up.

humanatore
31
2 weeks ago

Sounds exactly the same as the shit for which Facebook has been in the news.

phome83
31
2 weeks ago

But worse, because Facebook is optional.

_Aaronstotle
35
2 weeks ago

They still track you even if you aren’t a member

BrixSeven
30
2 weeks ago

But they don't have information that lets people steal your identity, or impact your ability to get loans or jobs. The credit agencies are much more high stakes than knowing your web history.

humanatore
20
2 weeks ago

Which is why what Equifax did should be criminal negligence. And then whatever charges for not disclosing it immediately and instead selling shares.

BrixSeven
4
2 weeks ago

I think technology makes it an issue of volume and scope. If it's some guy with a clipboard asking for names (because how else would they know who you are and enough information to sell it) you are opting in... to an extent, there is still a level of trust that your info won't be used in a way you don't agree with... and they can only get so many names gathered by a person.

Enter technology, where cameras using facial recognition and looking at every single person, matching them up to their profile, which has their contact info, friends, family, hobbies, buying profile, etc.

With technology you're now getting EVERYONE, and you're trying to know EVERYTHING. And if that is your business and the only thing you can say to people is "trust me" when it comes to security, then you better be rock solid on that shit. The fact that breaches seem to happen every other week on a large scale, and places like Equifax had their entire DB open to the public, tells me that these companies can't be trusted with this volume and scope of data.

manicmonkeys
3
2 weeks ago

I definitely agree that technology makes it a more complex topic, as basically any topic. I'm especially interested in where people think we should draw the lines, and why. It's easy to point out egregious wrongs like the Equifax breach, the fine lines are where we have to set boundaries though yknow?

BrixSeven
2
2 weeks ago

I think the smaller cases fall into a gray area where the side of the line will be based on intent.

abcrcb
29
2 weeks ago

They don't steal it, they ask the credit providers to give to them. They then consolidate it and sell it to all and sundry, including the credit providers who gave them the data in the first place.

Official_RadioDisney
14
2 weeks ago

Delete your Facebook. It’s 2019

wulfgang
2
2 weeks ago

But then how will I know the political views of people I barely knew in HS?

Official_RadioDisney
2
2 weeks ago

“I wonder what my dad’s friend from college thinks about the president.”

statepawn
2
2 weeks ago

Is it your data? Legally, its pretty ambiguous who owns it.

Ilyketurdles
8
2 weeks ago

You have to sign up for FB. And if you're under the assumption they are keeping your information safe and private, I don't know what to tell you. But it's still a choice.

Can't be said for Equifax.

skittlkiller57
2
2 weeks ago

I remember hearing that and my mom yelling at me because EVERY TIME it would piss me off abd I'd rant. It's called tge dark web CUZ ITS DARK, UNTRACKABLE, INVISIBLE, NADDA UNTRACEABLE. Fuck that, the fact that advertising that is even legal is bullshit.

foomprekov
31
2 weeks ago

Equifax's business model is no different from the breach they had.

geeky_username
34
2 weeks ago

Only difference is the breach got it for free

gollum8it
12
2 weeks ago

Exactly. We're all still really fucked. I can't change my past or SSN

Feels like there's nothing I can do but wait.

The_Tightest_Anus
10
2 weeks ago

Equifax confirmed they let my SS# get stolen, in the following month I had $10,000 in loans taken out against my name.

I found out too late.. while I won’t have to repay the loans, it’s been nearly a year of seemingly endless pursuit of claiming and proving fraud on a plethora credit & loan applications.

In total, 13 attempts were made, 2 successful, in 1 week’s time.

GiantPurplePeopleEat
7
2 weeks ago

Over $75,000 was loaned to someone in my name in 2014. It's taken me almost 5 years and just this week I was notified that $57,000 was taken off my credit score. That leaves $18,000 more to go, which brought my credit score up to an even 500.

I had a 750 before this started. Never had any bad debt and have always made payments on time. The last 5 years have been tough. Denied on housing, credit cards and possibly jobs. I have to pay my bank to have a savings account. I've had to pay cash for everything.

Combined with stagnant wages and minimal benefits; it seems hopeless at times. Something needs to change. The less I have to lose, the more radical I become.

AsAGayJewishDemocrat
7
2 weeks ago

You realize who controlled Congress when Equifax happened?

Zeratav
19
2 weeks ago

It was 2017 so 100% republican controlled congress + president.

CMDR-ProtoMan
10
2 weeks ago

The protect-the-rich-at-all-costs Republicans!

Cause you can bet your ass if the Democrats were in control, Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB would've tore equifax a new asshole.

slim_scsi
2
2 weeks ago

The CFPB is being run by admin that wants to shut consumer protections down though.... Right Wing America casualties.

dirtmaster
43
2 weeks ago

Or change how data works. The system is old and not up to our current technology. Leaks will always happen you will never prevent it. Don’t care who or what you are.

We’re using a system that relied on paper documents held in physical secure locations. We now have a different method of holding data.

BrixSeven
71
2 weeks ago

The Equifax breach should have caused the government to take on creating a new national ID system to replace the diver's license and social security number. And it should be done in a way where these breaches, no matter how bad, don't fuck you.

Who will be running their presidential campaign with this as their platform? They have my vote. No one is even talking about it. It blows my mind.

Toats_McGoats3
28
2 weeks ago

Likewise. I was furious when the Equifax thing went down. I will never understand how everyone seemed to just "shrug" over the whole debacle.

Legit_a_Mint
5
2 weeks ago

People want credit. We're not going to get cheap, easy credit without some kind of third-party verification, so we accept the downsides of that in order to improve our lives significantly.

itty53
2
2 weeks ago

Also, people don't want privacy. They say they do. Their actions say otherwise.

fdc7719
2
2 weeks ago

Fundamentally, most people simply can't even begin to explain how data security, aggregation and big data work in even the most basic of terms. People don't know or understand enough to be upset or concerned. What's worse, is this shit keeps happening and people choose to be ignorant about it.

BrixSeven
2
2 weeks ago

What's to understand? Equifax had all your personal identifiable data, enough for someone to steal your identity and turn your life to shit... and they put it on display for the world to see, and now at any moment from now until you die... unless the government does something... you need to worry about having your identity stolen, through no fault of their own.

That's really all someone needs to understand to be pissed.

Then, to top it all off, the best way to protect yourself is to keep your credit locked, and some of the places are still charging for it. So because Equifax fucked up, we need to pay money to these company to keep it from getting worse. Locking/unlocking should be free. And if the other 2 agencies need money to offer the service, Equifax should be footing the bill for everyone.

humanatore
8
2 weeks ago

Yes!! 100% what you said. The gubment had the opportunity to implement a new system & have Equifax help foot the bill, and civilians would have been very receptive to the cost of fixing the problem at the time.

Instead we just totally let Equifax off the hook.. for fucking over > half the US population. Bullshit cover up and an absolutely glaring reason why we should dismantle Big Media -- they are an enemy of the people.

MowMdown
5
2 weeks ago

The Equifax breach should have caused the government to take on creating a new national ID system to replace the diver’s license and social security number.

You do realize why we don’t have one in the first place right?

BrixSeven
6
2 weeks ago

Because we don't have one, the SS# became one.

You mention in another comment that having one would infringe on civil rights. How? If it is free, easy to get from wherever you are... what civil right is it interfering with?

Like it not we have them... SS#, Driver's License... do we want something purpose built and secure, or a scrap of paper with a number on it where the only security is "don't tell anyone your number", but you need to give that number to your bank, employees, land lord, bank, etc to identify you as you. That's your national ID right there. It just sucks at it. How would something secure be any different? Clearly something to identify you and link your identity together between different systems (bank, IRS, job, etc) is needed. Names don't work, you need a unique ID... this is like any database ever created. What is the common foreign key in every DB to link back to you so that these systems can all work together? Today it's the SS#, but we need something better.

Legit_a_Mint
9
2 weeks ago

Or change how data works.

Why has no one thought of this? Just change data, so it works better!

bmatthews111
2
2 weeks ago

Make data great again!!!

BrassHandJohn
2
2 weeks ago

And Wells Fargo. And Chase. And BOA.

anonymouse5440
2
2 weeks ago

I work with (not for) Equifax. Six months after their highly-publicized breach I started receiving e-mails from them boasting about "now being PCI compliant". For every week after operations started my company faced a $500K fine for not being PCI compliant. You don't get the kind of leniency that Equifax was afforded unless the lawmakers own a stake in your business.

BoBoZoBo
1076
2 weeks ago

Grandstanding. Make it illegal, first.

probablyuntrue
142
2 weeks ago

Then lock! Them! Up!

_db_
88
2 weeks ago

Jail is the only thing that will stop them. Fines get negotiated down to a manageable business expense and do not act as a deterrent but rather as an incintive to do a better job of hiding their activities.

Whiterabbit--
29
2 weeks ago

you don't think jail time gets reduced or completely bypassed?

droric
40
2 weeks ago

No this is reddit. The only reasonable response it to make the poster above you look stupid and for your post to appeal to more than them. Tis how reddit works.

Weltmacht
23
2 weeks ago

Shut up, dumb dumb.

GadreelsSword
2
2 weeks ago

“you don't think jail time gets reduced or completely bypassed? “

Perhaps but the point is the executive becomes personally liable where currently the wealth of the company buffers the executive. Even if the jail time is dropped he/she has a criminal record

Simply dropping fines allows companies to get away with all sorts of underhanded nonsense.

My brother in-law worked for a company when he was a teenager.

His job was come in at midnight then go to a valve and open it and illegally dump a chemical waste tank into the Patapsco river. He would get paid $200 a night to do this. If they ever got caught he was to tell the investigators it was a mistake and he opened the wrong valve. The company would then pay the fine.

He regrets having done this and said he didn’t really understand the impact of his actions.

Whiterabbit--
2
2 weeks ago

In general executives & board members have personal legal liability for illegal actions of the corporations. Corporation can shield some financial liability but board members still are responsible legally for their actions. see Enron board back in early 2000's.

GadreelsSword
2
2 weeks ago

Criminal charges against executives are rare unless it’s high dollar, wide ranging criminal conspiracy such as the case with Enron. Environmental crimes are almost always fines and penalties. Look up the “Koch method” for beating environment regulations.

Criminal charges occur but are rare. Maybe we need mandatory sentencing. I mean if they can have mandatory sentencing for all sorts of minor crimes why not willful corporate crimes?

CasualObservr
37
2 weeks ago

In fairness, he’s been out in front on this issue for a while.

DenizenOfBellona
21
2 weeks ago

Wyden is one of the best advocates we have with respect to surveillance and privacy.

Edit: he also has a bill to decriminalize weed.

imicit
11
2 weeks ago

the last thing i want is for these dinosaurs to decide what is what in techmology, while have lobbyists in their ear actually dictating shit.

so yeah, that's a strong no fucking way.

Eshyj
36
2 weeks ago

Many of the "dinosaurs" in their 60s are in the generation of people who built the tech industry in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s to even make the internet as we know it possible.

Every "salty" System Administrator or Network Engineer I know is 40+.

Acting like the current 40-60 crowd doesn't and can't know anything about tech is annoying because 90% of the stuff things we use were probably created by the 40-60 crowd.

I've met just as many people younger than me that don't know the first thing about tech as those older than me. Hell I'm 28 and I'm the youngest person in my office by 6 years.

superdago
25
2 weeks ago

Except congress isn’t that 40-60 crowd but rather the 60-80 crowd. These laws won’t be debated and voted on by your peers or even your parents, rather your grandparents. Still confident they’ll know what the hell their doing?

thehighplainsdrifter
9
2 weeks ago

the average age of the current congress is 57.8 years.

Heroic_Dave
13
2 weeks ago

So 2.2 years younger than the person above suggested. I am less than reassured.

BryanJEvans
10
2 weeks ago

57.8 is actually inside the 40-60 range though, and not in the 60-80 range so he's more right than the other guy

thisdesignup
2
2 weeks ago

I don't think average age is useful in this topic. If you look at there ages the majority are 60 to 85 https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age

70% of them are 60+ years old.

TheJollyLlama875
7
2 weeks ago

What's the median age?

Eshyj
6
2 weeks ago

Lets be honest, the average person still doesn't understand it.

VladDaImpaler
5
2 weeks ago

That means shit. I’m in the generation of people who created AI and blockchain, doesn’t mean I’ve absorbed and knowledge of it magically. I think we al have parents, at a certain age if it’s not something you’re in to, or have a need to learn it, you don’t just magically know it.

benballa
3
2 weeks ago

Implying that the people in congress have a nuanced understanding of anything to do with high tech is laughable. These are fucking politicians, not programmers.

That said, you don’t have to know everything to be a good policy maker, you just have to listen to people who know what they are talking about. But I am not sure that’s something most of them are willing to do.

detachabletoast
2
2 weeks ago

I dunno man... I've got a feeling these people respond to computers the same way cats do to vacuums... They're a scary box thing everyone yells at them for using because they won't stop falling for phishing scams even though they don't even like that band

Wizzle-Stick
2
2 weeks ago

Technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years. Most of the people in positions of power never had to use the technology of the last 20 years for their daily activities. They dont check email. They have interns and aids to do that shit for them, and they have for a long time. They are out of touch because they havent had to use the shit. The people you are describing have to work for a living, thus they are in the field and have hands on experience with it. Its no different than you know nothing about working as a leatherneck, or as a pilot. Sure you know a little, like that it exists and such, but you dont know any of the finer details of those jobs. I am in the IT sector and am around 35 years old. I have been in drenched in tech since around 90 and know a shit ton about a wide array of topics regarding tech. Doesnt mean I know SHIT about politics because its not in my daily wheelhouse. Those guys had alternatives when they were younger, such as dictionaries and such, now they have aids and interns. They dont HAVE to touch an electronic device for their daily lives. You and I do. That is where the age/tech savvy gap comes from.

Trumip
2
2 weeks ago

Conservatives:

Dem proposes bill: GRANDSTANDING!

Trump proposes wall: OMG HE'S SO DREAMY! MY DREAMS COME TRUE!

scottg96
6
2 weeks ago

Is that not what's happening here? How can one get sentenced to jail time as a result of federal legislation and have their actions not be illegal?

leavemethefuckalone
2
2 weeks ago

it is, it’s just the article is titled in a way that makes it seem like it’s putting the horse before the cart. how can one be jailed before it’s illegal?

me_wannabe
453
2 weeks ago

The thing is, how do you clearly define the borders of stealing data? Will an app using my location service to provide better route for my uber driver and then using the history of said route to provide better usage plan constitute a data theft? Do I have to, in the future, analyze and make singular decisions for any and every permissions asked by an app?

Will google no longer be able to analyze my search pattern to provide better results? What is data? Even bits and bytes are considered data in the face of law. How?

Sometimes political jargons and tabloid issues like this are infuriating. They provide selling headlines and not much else.

dlerium
150
2 weeks ago

It's sad when the technology subreddit hardly discusses technical issues but just jumps on headlines like a bunch of uninformed idiots. Glad there are several people who can at least do critical thinking here.

MowMdown
3
2 weeks ago

You expect too much from your fellow humans.

cookiesareprettyyum
36
2 weeks ago

Personally I like paying for things with my data. Makes ads more relevant and keeps websites free. Definitely would require more info before I could support such a bill.

me_wannabe
10
2 weeks ago

The sad thing is that 'grand standing reductionism' is the best selling policy out there. Followed by intense lobbying from corporate interest groups to defuse said policy the next debate session. Politicians make their own supply and demand.

KingPickle
2
2 weeks ago

Sadly, you're probably right about that. Our media does thrive on hyperbole.

me_wannabe
2
2 weeks ago

It is hard, really hard to sell good stories for a price.

davorzdralo
3
2 weeks ago

nuanced and thoughtful debate

Which has been done years ago in EU before the GDPR was proposed. No need to pretend this is new territory.

RedSpikeyThing
21
2 weeks ago

extremely simple

GDPR is 55,000 words lol

me_wannabe
13
2 weeks ago

And that's a good thing, but what I meant with what I said was pointing out the hipocrisy with which politicians are handling this. They are shifting gears from one fear to another for the sake of votes and prolonging uninformed fear among common folk.

The way technology works today ensure that privacy is but a thing of the past. Even something as fundamental as a GPS is a two way system. Device to device communication is now growing to become the basis of our everyday appliances.The problem is that people often place identity theft on the same platform as data theft. This is very dangerous because it plays to the fear of people who have yet been informed of the difference between google machine learning your route to provide better emergency options and a confidence man stealing your cvv number.

derrida_n_shit
2
2 weeks ago

Data theft can result in identity theft. In fact it's one of the first methods used to get into accounts. A simple Facebook search of a person can lead to you breaking into their accounts.

There are enough Facebook Crawlers out there for Facebook to know this is happening. But the company, as a whole, doesn't care.

cryo
2
2 weeks ago

I don’t know why you’re making this complicated when it’s extremely simple.

Because it’s definitely not simple, much less extremely simple.

GDPR has already done this. You need to ask for clear consent for the exact thing you’re doing, and that’s all there is to it.

Yeah for personal data, but the definition isn’t clear cut. Sure there are easy cases, but not all of them.

SeriousGeorge2
11
2 weeks ago

If the way it's talked about in Reddit is any indication then people would like this to extend to any and all data that could possibly construed as being even tangentially related to you. I mean, I as a person am allowed to know what you look like, what your name is, that you told me your birthday, et cetera, but a lot of people act like it's a heinous offense for a company to recall these things.

RedSpikeyThing
2
2 weeks ago

I'm not personally worried about single companies. There are two main issues in my view:

  • Companies overcollecting data and then not securing it. That's how credit card numbers get leaked, for example.

  • Joining "anonymous" data. A very large portion of the US can be uniquely identified by gender, birth date, and zip code but some companies treat that as anonymous. So if data leaks from that company it can be abused by joining it with data from another company.

awesome357
8
2 weeks ago

This is what happens when someone who doesn't understand technology tries to use it to get attention.

STiKZeR
6
2 weeks ago

I agree. They would be better served going after those that give away and sell your data without your explicit permission. Go after those that don't make an honest effort to protect your personal data. Most of these companies aren't stealing data. They can't steal what you give them. It isn't their fault that people don't read the TOS.

I would, however, like to see them be forced to make it more apparent as to what data they are collecting and what they are using it for. There are a lot of people out there that would have a hard time following and understanding a companies TOS if they decided to try and read them.

MikeyPh
3
2 weeks ago

This. I was going to comment that tech companies really aren't stealing our data, we're consenting to be monitored. And a law like this would cripple all the services we use.

I mean you could pass laws for transparency about how exactly your data is used, but if you don't want your data out there, don't use the internet.

jaredjeya
2
2 weeks ago

Do I have to, in the future, analyze and make singular decisions for any and every permissions asked by an app?

It’s how GDPR works, and it’s working just fine.

mathmagician9
2
2 weeks ago

The sad reality is likely to be used in favor for large companies. You're a researcher and you wanna scrape linkedin for job postings? Jail.

You wanna scrape Google maps because their API price increased by 1000% and your small non-profit depends on it? Jail.

The word stealing is not very applicable to data. Obviously there is PPI that is actually a big deal to keep secret from what I've experienced. But then there's a grey area about what's public and what isn't public.

Suppose someone posts a picture of you without your consent on their company's Facebook. Is that stealing data? What if their profile is public and a third party scrapes and runs a facial recognition algorithm on it and notes the time and location. Is that stealing data?

Now what if they did it because a private investigator paid them? Now what if they did it because their company specializes in finding pictures of you on the internet?

Google reverse images?

BigBlueDane
2
2 weeks ago

Yeah I bet what they’re calling stealing data every user technically consented to in the TOS. It sounds nice at first glance but it’s an extremely complicated and nuanced issue.

Urdaris_Nox
2
2 weeks ago

I work in a related field. I will try to simplify it.

Company A gives Company B data from users in exchange of €€€€, that’s SELLING data. This exchange could be legalized IF the company asks and gets explicit permission from users to do that exchange.

This request should also explicitly say to the user that company A gets money from it.

If company A however engages in that exchange without permission then it’s STEALING data.

bazzaretta
359
2 weeks ago

That's gonna be no for me dawg. As if jails are not already overpopulated with non-violent offenders. Hit them where it hurts the most - heavy fines.

mast3rbates
218
2 weeks ago

yes, HEAVY FINES, not just drop in the bucket shit that literally costs them less to break the law than the profit they attain from breaking that law.

Tearakan
126
2 weeks ago

Percent of revenue not just profits. Do it so they feel it in stock prices.

MrMcKoi
13
2 weeks ago

The tough part about that is that not all revenue figures are created equal. A grocery store of equal size/profitability is going to have exponentially higher revenue than a tech company just because of the industry they're in. Increasing the fine % based on the financial gain from the illegal act or the last several years of profits makes a lot more sense than basing it on revenue figures.

ingen-eer
5
2 weeks ago

Personalized fines. 5-10% of the individual stock holdings of all of the top 3 levels of leadership. Make them sell and forfeit the money.

BraveT0ast3r
2
2 weeks ago

That’ll also make stockholders hurt and jump ship from a garbage company. That’s a great point.

probablyuntrue
13
2 weeks ago

Tax em or eat em

Cladari
23
2 weeks ago

A thousand bucks per person effected should do it. Write the law such that the enforcing agency can't strike a deal with the offender.

MazeRed
1
2 weeks ago

Bankruptcy, and operate as normal.

They will just pay the debt over 1000 years.

tnturner
3
2 weeks ago
Heroshade
7
2 weeks ago

A percentage of their profits made in the time period they were known to be violating the law. A large percentage.

vessel_for_the_soul
1
2 weeks ago

Oh Okay

I would think not

xanacop
37
2 weeks ago

You mean how companies will pay the fine as long as money gained from stealing your data is more than the cost fine. They'll gladly keep doing it.

pantbandits
15
2 weeks ago

Then make the fines considerable. Keep increasing them until this behavior stops

mtbox1987
14
2 weeks ago

Wouldn’t going to jail hurt you more than a heavy fine?

UnpossibleJim
33
2 weeks ago

Who goes to jail, in this scenario? The head of IT? The CEO? The CTO? Everyone in the company, including the janitor?

SushiAndWoW
4
2 weeks ago

Who goes to prison when a gang murders someone?

The person who pulled the trigger; as well as the people who gave the order.

creamersrealm
32
2 weeks ago

You would be amazed at some of the cloak and dagger crap you can do in a company.

trees91
17
2 weeks ago

Lol is this a joke? You’re comparing gang members murdering people to engineers/businessfolks/designers doing their jobs— and think they should be put in prison?

You can’t just make up laws and retroactively apply them lol. Gang members know murder is illegal. People doing their jobs now that might involve things you’re not happy with aren’t breaking any laws (yet).

bobdanderson
8
2 weeks ago

Nobody else benefits from it though, it’s just a drain on the system.

SushiAndWoW
18
2 weeks ago

Taxpayers pay for prison to reap the benefits from people not doing things that will land them in prison.

Unethical acts by corporations are decided on by people. Real people who make unethical decisions that affect other real people should be concerned about real consequences to themselves, not just to a corporate fiction.

[deleted]
17
2 weeks ago

[deleted]

James_Solomon
6
2 weeks ago

Didn't Iceland jail bankers for practices that resulted in the 2008 crash, or do I misremember?

[deleted]
7
2 weeks ago

[deleted]

mast3rbates
1
2 weeks ago

tbf it could also turn into a ridiculously large revenue stream that could potentially be abused.

davorzdralo
1
2 weeks ago

The benefit is that no other CEO will risk absolute ruin of his life after those few are jailed.

Ignorant_Slut
1
2 weeks ago

Not if you're Oprah rich.

beatle42
3
2 weeks ago

I've long tossed in my mind the idea that first you forfeit all revenue based on the illegal activity, and then on top of that you are assessed fines. So you are penalized, and also do not get to keep any of the profits associated with the illegal activity.

ike111
1
2 weeks ago

And give us the money. A lot of money

yuckfoubitch
1
2 weeks ago

Yes. I’m in the financial sector and we have very hefty fines for literally everything under the sun that’s unethical. The tech space needs fines associated with unethical practices too.

oldDotredditisbetter
1
2 weeks ago

as in "cost of doing business", what it is currently

Pvt_B_Oner
129
2 weeks ago

Kind of off topic, but what does party affiliation have to do with any of this?

djveneko
80
2 weeks ago

Because people including people here in Reddit treat politics like a fucking sport Democrats vs Republicans!!! The democrats did this!!! The Republicans did that!!!

I would have preferred to have the name of the person and which state in the title. I could care less which party came up with it, all I care of I agree with it or not.

emperorOfTheUniverse
3
2 weeks ago

Of course a 2 party system turns into a game.

Get rid of first past the post voting to fix this.

shake1155
33
2 weeks ago

Was a Democrat senator that drafted the bill. He is a representative of not just the people that elected him but of his party. I would like to have seen the state also (Oregon btw) for clarity.

A lot of people just vote along party lines and don’t look at the names of people. You are a Democrat, the person on the ballot is a Democrat, you vote for them because they represent the party you support and both of your views should align.

If they don’t then you know not to vote for them next time. If they do then you know that your representative is representing your political views accurately.

fdc7719
7
2 weeks ago

The party system really, really needs to go away. It perpetuates the idiotic state of affairs. Let a person stand by personal merit to be elected into power. Don't let them simply decide which logo to slap on their name for idiots to know who to pick without knowing a goddamn thing about them.

SophieTheCat
3
2 weeks ago

Party system definitely has its issues. But what is better? Are you going to forbid a group of people from banding together? If not, then you just got a party.

Even in countries with parliamentary democracy (like where i come from), there are a ton of parties (as opposed to a 2 party system), there is always pandemonium and it's difficult to get any substantial reforms passed because they always get watered down to appease those of the fringes to be able to get votes.

So, I am not sure what can be a better system.

mooncabbages
41
2 weeks ago

Not sure if this was meant to be ironic, but last I checked the Democratic candidates had taken far more from megapacs than did the Republicans. I'm from California and am by no means a republican but just making sure we get the facts right here .. again I'm not sure of the sentiment of this statement but sometimes I feel like it's ignorant statements that put us behind in any real sort of conversations

dabuttmonkee
25
2 weeks ago

Unless you can find a better source, open secrets says that Republicans way outspended Democrats in super pacs: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=S

And in overall funds Republicans and Democrats were essentially tied last year but in 2016 Republicans outspent Democrats by 200mm.

SophieTheCat
2
2 weeks ago

In the presidential elections, Hillary spent almost double what Trump did. $1,191M vs. $646.8M (saved u a click).

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

dabuttmonkee
2
2 weeks ago

Yes, open secrets also shows that’s Democrats spent more on the president: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

But like I said they spent less overall.

FlippingandDipping
2
2 weeks ago

That's funny, because I noticed the exact opposite.

Tearakan
3
2 weeks ago

How? Voting clearly shows republicans only supporting shit that helps the rich.....

TheSecretMe
10
2 weeks ago

American politics revolves around antagonism. You can't point fingers at the other team if you don't keep track of who proposes what.

illini211
4
2 weeks ago

For real, I’m tired of the reddit super left shit, I’m not right by any means but Jesus Christ it’s annoying.

astra-death
2
2 weeks ago

Mind if I ask why it matters? Seems the be beyond party affiliation in my mind but I would assume Democratic Party since it’s having to do with imposing regulations. However, this particular topic seems to be at the forefront of a lot of republican conversations lately it seems.

SC2sam
81
2 weeks ago

That's going to be a lot of Chinese companies in "jail".

erdogans_nephew
16
2 weeks ago

I know people in the bay area normally have their noses placed on the cusp of their anus at the best of times, but all these CEOs of global companies hang around there and the tech industry seems to be just selling everything off at treasonous levels to their "chinese ventures" which is basically a front for the chinese government.

hugokhf
4
2 weeks ago

Because if you Chinese firm got the money. You don’t sit in Silicon Valley and say no when someone want to pump 100 million into your startup. That’s the whole point of the Silicon Valley, to get those big investment

f0urtyfive
70
2 weeks ago

What the fuck is "The ring of fire networks" and how is it a credible source?

scurriloustommy
21
2 weeks ago

It's a news organization based online/radio, and it includes people like David Pakman, Sam Seder, Farron Cousins, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Mike Papantonio. It's not really "news," but they give pretty great political analysis. I don't like some of their contributors, but I listen to Sam Seder's content almost daily, and I'll occasionally tune into David Pakman. I'd say it's trustworthy, since they frequently bring in experts/journalists relevant to the discussion.

JabbrWockey
9
2 weeks ago

It's political talk radio, hence the clickbait title.

i_forget_what_i_do
3
2 weeks ago

A good example for something more specific would be Facebook skimming SMS messages that they didn't have permission to view on your phone.

purplewhiteblack
2
2 weeks ago

If you sent an SMS then they definitely shouldn't have that without permission. If you sent a message through Facebook then that is your own fault for imputing data into their system.

ratZ_fatZ
56
2 weeks ago

Can't steal what's given freely, look at these people who use facebook,twitter Instagram. It's in the EULA and these people give out their information gladly.

Ignorant_Slut
11
2 weeks ago

In many places they aren't enforceable, and for good reason.

MazeRed
10
2 weeks ago

They can’t make you give p your rights, afaik there is no American right to your own data.

Ignorant_Slut
2
2 weeks ago

I'm not sure, I haven't done the research. I'm just saying that in quite a few countries blanket eulas are unenforceable so if the country says you can't sell data then it doesn't matter what eula someone ticks "I agree" on says, the same could be done in the US but it would have to be ruled upon before any law about selling data were passed. They couldn't pass a law then arrest Zuckerberg, they'd have to pass it and he'd have to continue selling data.

Edit: a word

brootsmcgoots
2
2 weeks ago

Ultimately Facebook, Twitter, etc aren't stealing our data, we are giving it to them. And companies aren't just willy nilly letting breaches happen, they're being handled poorly and not divulged soon enough. That's where they should get in trouble. Hell even the EULA bits about privacy and user data take no time to read and are not confusing in the slightest.

Edit: hit send too soon

Ignorant_Slut
2
2 weeks ago

That's fine, I'm just addressing the EULA aspect of it. In order for this proposed law to be able to go into effect they would have to pass one striking down EULAs first, or else it's pointless.

That said, while we are giving them data often it's after being told x and y will be done with it so if z is done with it then they'd be liable and there might be a case. I wouldn't call it stealing, but definitely breach of contract and invasion of privacy (maybe not invasion but violation)? I dunno, either way it's more complicated than just saying "no stealing data" because that's beaten with a simple "we aren't" (as you said).

brootsmcgoots
2
2 weeks ago

Oh man, I totally meant to just comment this on the main post. You raise a good point though, in your initial post as well.

Ignorant_Slut
2
2 weeks ago

All good, I think we've all done it.

JabbrWockey
1
2 weeks ago

In civil court. It wouldn't matter in a criminal court where defense exhibit A is you agreeing to give over your data.

Ignorant_Slut
1
2 weeks ago

Depends, in the US slavery is illegal and yet people create slavery documents all the time. Regardless of that document slavery is a crime and that person would be imprisoned for it. Or fined, not sure what the penalty is.

RufusYoakum
30
2 weeks ago

How about jail time for politicians who steal your income?

photoguy9813
8
2 weeks ago

Why not both?

MowMdown
3
2 weeks ago

And also who propose unconstitutional laws!

johnyann
26
2 weeks ago

Steal is such a loaded word. People will sign away their privacy for the convenience of modern tech.

Trumip
3
2 weeks ago

He's not talking about data that has been giving with consent. But you already knew that.

killerturtlex
19
2 weeks ago

But they don't steal our data... We give it to them

RufusYoakum
10
2 weeks ago

Don't let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned pitch-forking riot.

hmbeast
14
2 weeks ago

So this article is misleading. Wyden isn’t really proposing jail time for companies who steal your data, he’s proposing jail time for the executives of companies that lie in their annual privacy reports.

If you click the article that this article references, you can read this:

Penalize large companies that submit false information in their annual privacy report. Penalties could amount to 4 percent of annual revenue – a number that could run in the billions of dollars for the biggest social media companies. Executives could face jail time up to 20 years.

brain_is_nominal
3
2 weeks ago

If you click the article that this article references

I wish people would link original sources more. It's a disservice to the readers and to the reporters who did all the hard work.

Trumip
3
2 weeks ago

The article isn't misleading. It says exactly that if anyone here took the trouble to read it. The problem is right-wing websites like Reddit freak out when anything involving their corporate masters is suggested.

Tweenk
10
2 weeks ago

this shit will stop tomorrow

And "this shit" refers to what exactly?

The article is intentionally vague about what exactly is "data", mentions that the bill does not criminalize negligence (like in the case of Equifax), and makes false claims about Facebook selling data (which is not what actually happened). Most of it is about revenge fantasies and not actual policy. This bill is pure posturing and it wouldn't affect tech companies, because they are not doing the things this guy claims they are doing.

ohpise
9
2 weeks ago

Democratic party funded Obama, whose campaign exploited Cambridge Analytica to harvest information from facebook.

Did the democrats just implicate themselves ?

PM_ME_LULU_PLAYS
3
2 weeks ago

Didn't basically everyone though?

Dont-be-a-smurf
3
2 weeks ago

You don’t go to jail.

Jesus do people think petty theft lands you in jail?

You MIGHT spend one day, if that. You’ll likely get an OR bond and a court date that leads to a fine and “don’t ever go to that store again” order.

Unless you’re stealing more than $500 or it’s more than once... then you might get jail time.

alliwnnabeiselchapo
2
2 weeks ago

Yup and then you sell what you stole for huge profits to pay your fine and still be super rich afterwards. oh..wait..

Trumip
2
2 weeks ago

But... but... but... the prisons are overcrowded. How are we going to house 10 CEOs if we already have a 1,000,000 prison population? (Actual top comment)

98PercentChimp
7
2 weeks ago

How about bankers who steal your money? No? Okay, just thought I’d ask...

MazeRed
7
2 weeks ago

I mean you need to start somewhere.

Today it’s equifax, tomorrow it’s Facebook, day after it’s Wells Fargo. Next week it’s the people that spray shit in public bathrooms.

brave_new_whirl
6
2 weeks ago

Lets start by jailing corrupt politicians.

brain_is_nominal
3
2 weeks ago

Mueller is working on it.

brave_new_whirl
4
2 weeks ago

I'm trying to be hopeful, but there needs to be broader accountability. One man can't fix the system.

brain_is_nominal
2
2 weeks ago

Very true. Baby steps, I guess. I'm pretty dang cynical but I think once Mueller makes his reports there will be a big upheaval in politics as we know it, especially in the GOP.

brave_new_whirl
3
2 weeks ago

Nothing would make me happier, but watching how virtually everyone from the Bush era got away with literally murder, I'm not tremendously confident the system is capable.

Mordred478
7
2 weeks ago

This proposed law has been needed for years. The first time a web site or online service gathered and sold your personal data without your knowledge and consent, this law should have been put in place. I would suspect it is only because of the phenomenal amounts of money that have been made this way by industries whose lobbyists line the pockets of members of congress that it's taken this long.

Thecklos
6
2 weeks ago

Let's start with jail time for bankers who steal money instead. LIBOR fixing, fraudulent accounts, illegally done foreclosures, laundering cartel money, et al....

NationalGeographics
5
2 weeks ago

Looking in my mailbox is a federal offense. Why this is different for electronic mail is beyond me.

Siddarthasaurus
2
2 weeks ago

Looking at you, Google...

TMhorus
5
2 weeks ago

How about we enforce basic anti-trust laws and break up Alphabet and Disney.

Rutok
5
2 weeks ago

Why not treat those cases like illegal music downloads? When they are caught, the judge looks at the amount of data they took, multiplies it by some insane number for "possible infringement damages" and then fines them a few million bucks. No reason to reinvent the wheel, the music and entertainment industry did all the legwork on this one.

Possumpipesup
6
2 weeks ago

Awesome. Now do the same for bankers and oil companies.

brasco975
2
2 weeks ago

And data throttlers

Auslander808
4
2 weeks ago

The trick here is to remember the names of the politicians who champion this. Then a year or two from now after the tech companies have had a chance to donate to the squeaky wheels, note which ones have changed their tune entirely. I'm a cynical prick, I get it.

Napalm3nema
2
2 weeks ago

Ron Wyden won’t be on the list of those who change their tunes. Wyden lives and breathes consumer protection and citizen rights. He is a good one.

Auslander808
2
2 weeks ago

I do hope you're right. I just followed him on Twitter. Oregon is a good spot for that fight.

Siddarthasaurus
2
2 weeks ago

Cynical and experienced and not wrong...

Woolybugger00
5
2 weeks ago

How about who can’t keep it safe too... cough Equifax ...

CatalystEXE
2
2 weeks ago

Kinda feels like everyone just forgot about this...

piedpipernyc
4
2 weeks ago

I approve of jail time for all:
CEOs
Board Members
Executive Officers
For any all wrong doing committed by a company.

For far too long, companies have been able to justify illegal or immoral actions by running a cost benefit analysis.

Logan_Mac
5
2 weeks ago

Good luck with that.

Champie
4
2 weeks ago

Do you honestly believe the people that rich are going to go to jail. Once you reach a certain threshold of wealth you're basically immune to any kind of jail sentence, unless you really really really fuck up. I e Bernie Madoff

cupofspiders
3
2 weeks ago

Yes, that's how it is now. And that's why it needs to change.

isiramteal
4
2 weeks ago

Yes, theft is a crime.

Clap for me please.

shelfless
4
2 weeks ago

What about the banks?

kali2455
5
2 weeks ago

When it comes to identity theft and fraud, the law does not go far enough.

InspectorSpaceLime
3
2 weeks ago

I mean, if civilians can get jail time for stealing corporate data and piracy, shouldn't corporations be held to the same law?

xCurb
3
2 weeks ago

What about banks that sell your data...? To the point where you legally can’t opt out of it.

Seems more like something you should agree to opt in to.. not be forced upon.

6816973186732
3
2 weeks ago

This is an odd combination with his VPN proposal.

DamonHay
2
2 weeks ago

Meanwhile, all tech industry lobbyists have reportedly started pissing themselves..... Laughing, that is.

saffir
4
2 weeks ago

can we jail the politicians who spy on us first?

NiggBot_3000
2
2 weeks ago

Why not both?

BenedictWitcherBatch
3
2 weeks ago

For anyone interested I just listened to an episode of the CYBER podcast that discusses this exact topic and even has Mr. Wyden come in and speak about it.

cooldog10
3
2 weeks ago

i dont see bill passing any time soon but man this would be great bill pass right now so mamy ceo would go to jail i would love it

ninijon1
3
2 weeks ago

Do it! Do IT!

Vicvinegar9984
3
2 weeks ago

Jail time for anti-vaxxers!!!

Von32
3
2 weeks ago

This is a bipartisan issue

I feel like putting “Democrat” in the headlines is going to mobilize opposition.

ghastlyactions
3
2 weeks ago

Like 100,000 Tmobile employees go to jail, or...?

TheWrockBrother
3
2 weeks ago

Did anyone here actually read the article? It's just a transcript where Sen. Ron Wyden talks about the same bill he proposed last November. Wake me up if and when the bill actually passes.

WillLie4karma
2
2 weeks ago

Lets do the same for telemarketing to people on the no call list, because fines don't work.

mmmmchick3n
2
2 weeks ago

“Government seeks to protect stupid people who don’t read the terms of service for the free website the sign up for and post most of their life on. “

foomprekov
2
2 weeks ago

It's literally in the terms of service. Now, credit reporting agencies sell my data and I never gave them any permission at all.

MalHeartsNutmeg
2
2 weeks ago

Jail? For theft? I don't know, that's a bit crazy.

pdxtina
2
2 weeks ago

Feels like this thread is full of robocallers and paid shills in cahoots with the telecoms to sell, track and steal personal info from consumers.

Reply All - Episode #135, Robocall: Bang Bang has a pretty good frickin' summary of what's happening. Needs to stop. https://castbox.fm/x/ZPZu

Coded__Ragon
2
2 weeks ago

For a person who does not like both sides of the political spectrum; i, for once, say fucking finaly.

monneyy
2
2 weeks ago

I don't understand how this is even up for proposition. If I steal employer data, I know where I am headed to.

cool_hand_luke
2
2 weeks ago

Isn't stealing data already a crime?

...and already not a big deal at all?

I'm much more concerned about companies purchasing my data without my consent.

PaleFlyer
2
2 weeks ago

Good idea. But practice is either jails overload with scape goats, or the entire tech industry implodes, and takes the world with it.

irishjoker44
2
2 weeks ago

By the same ppl who fund him? What a joke

JadenCrux
2
2 weeks ago

"cough" government...."cough" ... hypocrites

cloverlief
2
2 weeks ago

What defines stealing/theft.

This is important as it can be a fine line.

Is Google/Waze maps that use cumulative movement data from everyone using it for navigation theft?

What about companies who provide free services because the show ads? There needs to be data and demographics in order to target the ad.

If we consider these theft then how do these services get paid for.

There are cases, eg. Where a company exploited algorithms to collect unshared days, but that was the model of the company supplying the data.

Unless this is very clearly defined it is dangerous.

Could it eventually shut down Twitter and blogs that have gossip?

strandenger
2
2 weeks ago

I’m sure the GOP will call this a power grab

Astros_alex
2
2 weeks ago

I think the punishment should be reimbursement to us data cattle. They sold our information for compensation. We deserve they compensation.

AustinJG
2
2 weeks ago

Better avenue would just be to shutter the corporation then jail those responsible.

praefectus_praetorio
2
2 weeks ago

Steal? People are giving the shit away for free. What we need is a system that allows us to own our data, and monetize on it directly. If companies want it, they’ll need to pay us. I hope this changes soon and we all realize data, our data, is much more valuable than gold.

PsySick
2
2 weeks ago

How about seizure of assets and we find the nearest strong branch.

TrooperCX
2
2 weeks ago

And how about jail time for financial companies that steal money or leak data

Dont-be-a-smurf
2
2 weeks ago

They're trying to build a prison They're trying to build a prison They're trying to build a prison They're trying to build a prison For you and me to live in Another prison system Another prison system Another prison system For you and me

JStonePro
2
2 weeks ago

This should be a nice bipartisan bill.

thenationalblade
2
2 weeks ago

I'm just going to point out that all those "surveys" that fast food restaurants, groceries, and other businesses want you to fill out are not really because they care about your opinion.

They want your personal information. They want you to download their apps. They want to direct market to you.

Most importantly, they want to match you up with all the other data that has been gathered about you Online so they know exactly how to best exploit all of the above.

blue18979109
2
2 weeks ago

Well Microsoft collects plenty more than Facebook ever did so good luck researching how much and where collection starts and ends. Nobody will believe or research it enough to really know. This is simply because Microsoft has become so large it's harmless, so people seem to think. Also how many would get jail time for working with them? I bet that wasn't even a thought for really massive tech companies but I like the sentiment.

JMCatron
2
2 weeks ago

I'm amazed this wasn't law 20 years ago.

dangolo
2
2 weeks ago

We absolutely need this. I'd prefer we include it in a larger anticorruption bill that also contains language for a corporate death penalty.

We’re almost at almost 100 percent of us have either had our data leaked or stolen. If we’re in one of those online communities, some of us, depending on how many of those years have had our data stolen and leaked multiple different times by multiple different companies. And here’s the real kicker. Nobody’s gone to jail, no CEO, no executive running these companies that routinely lose our data.

This bill puts the blame exactly where it belongs: The CEO decided to not protect the data, or ignored data compliance recommendations. The IT staff are usually recommending it on a yearly basis but it's always the last thing to get budgeted.

The only time executives care about compliance is PCI compliance and only because you'll immediately lose the ability to take Visa/mastercard/whatever.

We need a corporate death penalty asap.

Blackwater first

Then maybe Exxon

Honorable mentions:

Comcast

A bunch of American health insurance agencies

EA

Experian

Facebook

Bank of America

Halliburton

Monsanto

...

poo_licker_420
2
2 weeks ago

How about we get some actual privacy laws first?

AnimeFreak0210
2
2 weeks ago

I’m looking at you NSA, ATT, Verizon, Google, Apple, IRS, Microsoft, Twitter, SEC. etc..

Patches67
2
2 weeks ago

Isn't this already illegal?

michaelb1
2
2 weeks ago

The question is why is stealing data currently legal? It’s stealing.

melificently
2
2 weeks ago

That’s from my Senator, Ron Wyden! He’s awesome. Wyden is also responsible for ‘420’, the recent bill to legalize marijuana federally.

Babblerabla
2
2 weeks ago

I just want a cut, to be honest.

Tolmos
2
2 weeks ago

The headline gave me amusing imagery. Citizens United claims that corporations are people, so for a company to get jail time makes me imagine them shutting the company down, taking the articles of incorporation to prison and tossing them in a cell for x number of years. The company can open its doors again when the jail sentence is done.

DrunksInSpace
2
2 weeks ago

If the data you steal is a $0.99 song you go to jail. If you steal and distribute 1,000,000,000 private passwords, addresses, shopping habits and credit card numbers you get a tax break.

HacktoriHanzo
1
2 weeks ago

The legal agreements that people accept when they join these networks will cover their asses. The social pressure to be on some of these platforms at the height of their popularity outweighs any bad things in these agreements and a lot of people wouldn't even know the implications of accepting. So even if this passed I doubt it would be effective.

muchgreaterthanG_O_D
1
2 weeks ago

Damn first legal weed, now this. This guy is on a roll.

cantdothis2nite
1
2 weeks ago

Why not? Majority think our data is private. We also agree, that our privacy is worth more than products at these convenient stores. Stealing is Stealing. My privacy is worth more than anything you can buy from the store. They do no time for leeching our data but you would. If you took anything worth more then $10 at the store? Am I understanding this wrong? Help

humanreporting4duty
1
2 weeks ago

Did they steal it or just see that we weren’t using it?

therealpork
1
2 weeks ago

How often does data theft actually happen? A lot of our personal data is surrendered because we agree to the TOUs and EUAs or whatever massive book a company provides before we use a product. And these agreements that very few people read often say the company can sell the data to others.

Rettun1
1
2 weeks ago

I mean, companies are people, right?

Oh only when they want to use “speech” (money) to “endorse” (bribe) policy makers

mreg215
1
2 weeks ago

or we get paid for our data instead and consider it personal property subject to legal recourse.

Jaeris
1
2 weeks ago

Jail time for thieves? What a crazy idea!

siliconflux
1
2 weeks ago

How about jail time for beaucrats that allow the agencies to conduct mass surveillance on your data.

Are these assholes looking like hypocrites to anyone else?

jonboy333
1
2 weeks ago

Data use should be opt in and the money should go to utility infrastructure. ISPs should be state run.

delmiguel
1
2 weeks ago

It's all pointless. Americans are incapable of holding those in power accountable for their actions. Just look at the comments in this thread for proof. We are more worried about "who do we blame" than "how do we fix it". We COULD take a hard line approach to the issue, but we seem to be too scared of blaming the "wrong person" to actually do anything about it, so instead we will continue to make excuses and come up with bullshit reasons as to why we can't fix the problem, all out of fear of wrongly accusing those in power.

Grow a fucking pair, America. Seriously. Stop caring about them and start caring about yourselves for once.

elguerodiablo
1
2 weeks ago

How about we go after polluters first?

ComedyOutOfContext
1
2 weeks ago

Why not first put the tax stealers in jail, like Amazon?

angrymonkey
1
2 weeks ago

K, when are the Equifax execs going to jail? Or the architects of the 2008 financial crisis?

Arknell
1
2 weeks ago

Has there ever been a modern (1960-) government with capital punishment that gave punishment based on the amount of harm caused, not just the nature of the harm? So the premeditated murder of one person gives life in jail with chance of parole depending on circumstances (defense of loved one), but if an industrialist knowingly allowed asbestos in kid's toys or knowingly owned a chemical plant in a mangrove swamp in India, which killed entire villages through pollution, he and his closest co-conspirators would get the death penalty? As a more effective deterrent?

UrMomsNewGF
1
2 weeks ago

O look the gov wants some of its money back. Lol

Longpotatopants
1
2 weeks ago

This is just a tool to be used by dems to receive compliance from tech companies. They want control of everything.

jxtip
1
2 weeks ago

That's a story? I think we all propose this.

matt_maselli
1
2 weeks ago

How typical - any policy that spends taxpayer money with no long term consequences is the defining of Democrat's spending.

CrustyBuns16
1
2 weeks ago

How do you give a company jail time?

TigerUSF
1
2 weeks ago

r/nottheonion territory

Dutch-Jesus
1
2 weeks ago

What will happen to the Zucc....

[deleted]
1
2 weeks ago

[deleted]

svayam--bhagavan
1
2 weeks ago

Ya, they are going to imprison their own masters. Right. Is it election time already?

NiggBot_3000
1
2 weeks ago

(defeatist comment)

geek_here
1
2 weeks ago

This time I'll vote for Democrat.

xpandaofdeathx
1
2 weeks ago

I’m still waiting on my equifax check

DEUK_96
1
2 weeks ago

Not gonna happen as much as i would like it to

GeneticsGuy
1
2 weeks ago

After Obama got elected in 2008, campaigning on locking up the people who caused the financial collapse of 2007, then did a 180 when asked about prosecuting them and he basically just said he didn't want to focus on the past, just the future, whilst handing them all another 700 billion stimulus cash package, I learned that politicians do a lot of grandstanding and not a lot of follow-through.

RDSTRNG
1
2 weeks ago

Too easy to throw a random employee under the bus.

Make it a fine based on a percentage of their revenue. None of this "5 mil fine" for a company making billions, and made an extra hundred million on the crime they committed.

slackator
1
2 weeks ago

What about the politicians who take their money to vote for them the ability to do this?

lukwes1
1
2 weeks ago

So basically GPDR?

thisisnotatoaster
1
2 weeks ago

Heh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who brought up GDPR. Thank you.

Zak_Light
1
2 weeks ago

Not only is there a problem on who will face the jail time, as "tech companies" is vague, we also really need to clearly define what stealing data is the first time. We need professionals to weigh in and draft these bills because, let's be honest, most current legislators do not know jack shit about technology, as demonstrated in that dumb Mark Zuckerberg hearing.

frostiegraham
1
2 weeks ago

What is up with Americans and jail time? And all those weird cop shows where they "lock'em up"!

Jpf123
2
2 weeks ago

“Lock’em up!”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

This might be part of the allure of that show.