Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:18:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2421 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@lugnet.com>...
> 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?
Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement.
This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the
corporation can just disolve itself and avoid the judgement (note that in
current US law, while the liability of the CEO and stockholders is limited,
it is not zero, so the CEO can't just take all the corporate assets and say
"sorry", if he does, he's going to find himself in jail).
What is so hard about understanding that SOMEONE must always be responsible?
> > 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"?
No, but if they don't immediately report it to the police after discovering
it, and removing it as soon as the police have complete their
investigations, they would certainly be guilty of a crime. Assuming the
police investigation doesn't discover that it was not really a hacker, the
corporation (and CEO) have little or no responsibility.
The point I see constantly getting missed, and maybe I've not made it well
enough (Larry, help me if I'm confused here), is that while the CEO is
ultimately responsible, he also has the option of making an appropriate
response to whatever problem is at hand, and avoiding a personal lawsuit or
a criminal trial. If someone in the company screws up badly, and the CEO
makes sure that the wrong is righted, and holds the person(s) who screwed up
responsible, things are going to go well. If the CEO denies the problem, or
covers it up, or stonewalls, he should find himself in court, and if he
fails to follow the court judgement, he should find himself invited for a
stay in the local lockhouse until he is willing to follow the court
judgement (or wins an appeal). What is so wrong with this?
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid either-or trap. Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so. Companies (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
