• Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    On one hand yes, knowingly endangering lives like that could be worth a heftier fine, on the other hand everything made plus ten percent seems like a pretty good fine to use if you want to actually discourage behavior across the board.

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      6 months ago

      Exactly. Fines don’t work for corporations or the mega wealthy because they don’t have teeth. Pegging the fine to the actual income earned from the crime, and ensuring it’s no longer more profitable to just pay the fine and continue doing what you’re doing, is like, the only way to continue if we want to use fines as a deterrent.

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Pegging the fine against the personal assets of the executives/board responsible for the crime would be more effective.

        Fining a corporation just hurts the the employees.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I mean, that’s fair. We can talk specifics, just something to make sure the fine has teeth. How we decide to do that is another topic.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, this should be the standard. No fixed penalty amounts, no negotiated settlements. Revenue +10% would be a great standard.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Reminder that it’s all revenue PLUS 10%. So it effectively makes whatever bullshit money making scheme they want to use, cost money instead.

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Good to know you dont mind the profiteering off fraud.

          Fine is a penalty, not a cost of business, not a sales tax. A penalty.

          100k fine on 1 mill refund is nothing. 1 mill fine on 1 mill refund is a fine.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            My guy. Reading comprehension. I did not say 10%. I said 10% ON TOP OF ANY EARNINGS.

            As in, if a corp earns 1 million, the fine levied would be 1.1 million.

            Christ, go back to 2nd grade.

            • Wooki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Stop conflating refund as earnings and a fine. Its not. They didn’t earn shit, they committed fraud and stole money. Forced refunds are not fines

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You’re getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn’t quite mesh with your preferences. We’re clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.

                You’re like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a “different” opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they’re saying, you’d realize you’re on the same fucking page.

                • Wooki@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  You’re perpetuating it as a win. Its not. Its not close to bare minimum. The cost of this should have been:

                  1. Sales refunds
                  2. Fine (much larger because its to small and because they are flying lose with personal safety)
                  3. Damages to customers. It would be safe to assumed every person was placed in harms way that purchased these devices.

                  Incoherent ramblings.

                  Cool story bro

                  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I’m making. Actually, don’t bother, you’re not worth my time any longer.

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.

            • Wooki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Don’t conflate refunds from fine. Its not an earnings, its a refund.

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.

                Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.

                • Wooki@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  And here in lies the problem.

                  You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.

                  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.