Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:35:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2446 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:18:01 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>
> Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement.
You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble.
> 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).
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 management liability.
> What is so hard about understanding that SOMEONE must always be responsible?
What is so hard about understanding that the person who should be
responsible should, by golly, be the person responsible? Not his
manager, let alone the CEO three levels higher?
> > 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
So why aren't they criminals for letting it be there while they're
reporting it to the police? It is currently illegal to host illegal
material, regardless of how it got there.
> 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.
That's not only a point that's not being made well, it's a point that
has not been made at all, and in fact has been contradicted.
> If the CEO denies the problem, or
What if he doesn't yet know about the problem at the time?
("Finally a question I could answer with utmost honesty and no
stonewalling!"
"Uhh, Prime Minister, you know that answer you gave them about that
phonetapping business... it could be said that, while true to the best
of your knowledge, it was still not completely technically correct"
"Why wasn't I informed?"
"Because we felt it was not necessary for you to know."
"Why not? From now on, I want to know _everything_!"
(and the next day, Hacker takes home 200 kg of paperwork, consisting
of 'everything' for that day... including paperclip requisitions by
the Brideshead Department of personnel) )
Note that this was only a very informal rephrasing, and not in any way
close to the original sketch.
> 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?
Nothing. But it's not what we're talking about.
And even the CEO stonewalling or denying does not suddenly shift the
blame from the person responsible to the CEO.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
