Hacker News Reader

Comment by facetube | Hacker News Reader

I'd fully support criminal charges. If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison.

They're getting fined minutes of revenue, that's practically the same as prison!

Approximately 24.67 minutes for what it's worth. Marriott made > $12 billion last year and was fined $600k. I'm curious how much revenue the wifi fees bring in and whether that fine even makes a dent in income from that alone.

The article says they were charging meetings up to $30,000 for internet access alone. I'd guess it was probably profitable.

... revenue is absolutely meaningless in this conversation. You should be looking at profit. It doesn't matter what Marriott charges, it matters what they make, and saying they "made > $12 billion" is totally false: they made at the high end something like $2 billion (which is still high enough that you could have used those numbers as an honest ratio instead of distorting the discussion by looking at revenue).

I'd say revenue's probably the better number. Profit varies by quite a number of factors, but revenue is a reasonably reliable yardstick for the size of the business.

For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20...

Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.

Nobody uses profit when determining the appropriate fines for an individual. A court doesn't look at an offender making $100,000/year and say, well, they're only saving $5/month, so we'll only fine them $60.

If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.

> If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison.

Is this true? Can someone cite examples of this happening?

Here's a fellow who spent 15 months in prison for jamming ham radio, so not even for profit:

http://www.eham.net/articles/3908

This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same:

http://www.eham.net/articles/14858

Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.

I want the board to go to jail, not some low level janitor. Or do we only go as high as the paper trail takes us? This lets companies erect firewalls and appear innocent like the vw CEO...

The alternative is imprisoning people without evidence. I'll take guilty people going free anyday.

Or, tweaking the law along the lines that corporate executives are vicariously liable for the job related misdeeds of their underlings, if it can be shown they did or should have known about the goings on and did nothing to stop it.

Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..

Owners and board members of companies should be liable not just for the action of their employees but also the actions of their subcontractors. Otherwise, we will have situations like the one John Oliver mocked in the North Dakota petroleum industry.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...

I don't agree. People should not go to prison for crimes committed by others. We should still have to show each individual is guilty, including the executives. But I don't think that would solve the problem anyway. Owners and shareholders will still be immune. They will simply hire figurehead executives to sign things and speak at events.

These people are financially motivated, so the punishment should be financial. Most criminals don't think they are going to be caught anyway, so prison isn't a disincentive. Financial punishment may not be a disincentive either (but I suspect for most shareholders it would), but it has the effect of reducing the efficacy of bad actors, leading to better outcomes overall.

The real problem is the fines are usually far outweighed by the profits from acting in this manner. Make the punishment an audit at the end of which they must pay the costs of the independent audit (whether done by private third party or government) as well as a multiplier on whatever profits were determined to stem from the elicit activity.

Yes, fines might be effective if they were bigger.

Many of the people I found while searching got fines that probably equated to something like a year's salary. Fine these companies an amount comparable to a year's revenue and I bet things would change in a hurry.

I didn't say anything about prison, but the term used was carefully chosen in that in some capacities, you are liable for the actions of other people.

While I agree with you about prison not working, fining a multibillion dollar company the equivalent of a few day's profits aren't good enough. The fines need to be much more strident, along the lines of administrative dissolution or something else that would motivate the top brass via angry shareholders.

At what point are we willing to entertain a fine large enough to bankrupt an enterprise?

Should we consider the economic impact to the neighborhood, city, state, or nation when levying fines?

Do you think VW shareholders are angry? I think not. They know management did what it had to do. I'm just mad that they threw the programmers under the bus.

It doesn't seem like we consider the economic impact of fines to individuals. The government looks to be more than happy to bankrupt people as part of punishment. Why should corporations get special treatment. "Too big to fail"?

Well the odd thing is, in prison where you are not permitted a cell phone if you "had" one the authorities are not permitted to jam it.

They could take it since you're a prisoner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com