Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:53:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2392 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:47:31 GMT, Christopher Weeks
<clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it
No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly.
And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take
that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either
huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance premiums and/or risk, or to
a completely flat power structure, neither of which is a good thing at
all.
> wouldn't be fair the law just decided that person X is now liable for
> whatever some random Y does. But that's not the case being discussed.
That's _exactly_ what's being discussed. Very obviously so when you
talk about a system that is trying to pass those laws.
> No, the CEO is part of a joint responsibility for anything the _company_
> does, regardless of who within the company made the decisions. People
> must be responsible, because companies can't be.
Why not?
>
> If bob the janitor is caught selling kiddie porn on the net at home, the
> employers is not guilty of the same.
Why not? And what if he hacked the corporate server to host his
kiddieporn site?
Is anyone whose server gets hacked into delivering porn and/or
copyrighted material automatically a criminal, because "they obviously
didn't have enough protection in place"?
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system. Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we adopted a gradual aproach to the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
