
New bill ensures Jailtime for CEOs that lie - elsewhen
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5qd9/new-bill-promises-an-end-to-our-privacy-nightmare-jail-time-to-ceos-who-lie
======
tibbon
Good. I find it unlikely to pass, but I'd like it to pass.

If a CEO says publicly, "Our product is safe and good for the public, and
there should be no concern" and it turns out they knew their product was
actively harmful, or that they were marketing it in harmful ways (see:
cigarettes, opiates) then they were willfully misleading the public and jail-
time should be a very real possibility.

~~~
LoSboccacc
I agree plenty times the command chain was let scot free from scandals because
of the diluted liability on the corporate actions as whole and the limited
personal responsibility granted by hiding behind a corporation, something
personal to pierce the corporate veil is needed at this point in time as
correction to the rampant abuse from execs

------
sarcasmatwork
This might be an issue with 1A , but we shall see.

It's about accountability imho. From CEO's to our elected leaders to law
enforcement to celebrities. This is very generalized, but there is a huge lack
of people being held accountable for their actions and decisions in this
country. It's always someone else. I.E I think here, Jussie Smollett is a good
recent example.

The Equifax hack for example is an example of where the CEO failed. Easy fix,
and could have been addressed but it was not. Equifax should not exist imho.
They are in the business to keep our data private, and they clearly failed.
Why do they get to continue to operate as nothing happened? They exposed
millions of users private and confidential info, and all we get is credit
reporting, and some of us get maybe a few dollars. _sigh_

~~~
awinder
False statement of fact is not protected free speech, and has a long history
of case law. So I'm not sure about hand-wringing over the constitutional
impacts is really a serious concern.

~~~
Shivetya
That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech is.
Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public.

I am always of the opinion, government first. As in, want to apply an
accountability rule; or any law for that matter, apply it to those who write
the law first and make their penalties more severe.

In this case, this is a lot of election year posturing. We already have
accounts of government officials leaking private information and that rarely
lands with anyone being penalized.

~~~
Judgmentality
> That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech
> is. Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public.

Why can law enforcement lie to the public? I honestly don't know what you're
alluding to.

~~~
curryst
They can, for instance, tell you that one of your supposed cohorts has already
told them what happened, but you can still receive a reduced sentence if you
confess. I can also recall a few cases where they have lied to suspects about
their rights, I believe largely within the CBP. I'm not sure how that
interacts with your Miranda Rights (i.e. they have to read your Miranda
rights, but are they then allowed to lie about them?).

~~~
davvolun
That's an entirely different class of thing though, possibly civil vs.
criminal, I believe. If I'm signing a contract with you, and you tell me "no
one is going to ever offer you a deal like this," even though you fully know
many people would offer me a better deal, that's not illegal.

This is more akin to the chief of police making an announcement that a
building is safe to enter, knowing there is a gunmen ready to shoot people as
they enter. I don't know the exact definitions here, IANAL, but I'm pretty
sure my scenario would be legally actionable.

Similarly, freedom of speech is limited at least in one way by "imminent
lawless action."

I'm not sure about the issue you mention regarding CBP, but I believe there
are certain differences between how the law treats citizens and non-citizens.
The Exclusionary Rule, disallowing evidence illegally obtained, doesn't apply
to civil matters, including immigration, apparently
([https://www.halt.org/things-cops-do-that-are-illegal-
what-a-...](https://www.halt.org/things-cops-do-that-are-illegal-what-a-
police-officer-cant-do/)).

Law enforcement can omit or lie about your Miranda rights, but they can't use
evidence obtained from what you say without reading your rights. So if a cop
saw you shoot someone, and you're still holding the gun, they don't really
need to read you your rights; they don't really need anything from you at that
point.

~~~
curryst
> If I'm signing a contract with you, and you tell me "no one is going to ever
> offer you a deal like this," even though you fully know many people would
> offer me a better deal, that's not illegal.

Is it not illegal to get someone to sign a contract based on a known
falsehood? I.e. if I offer to sell you my house and tell you that it has no
issues, but it turns out termites have eaten half of it and I knew that, is
the contract not invalid? I think your solution only works because it's common
sense that that is not a statement of fact.

------
kerkeslager
Good.

In a more general sense, we as a society need to take a long, hard look at
limited liability. We cannot call for more personal responsibility in society
with one hand while with the other hand letting malicious decision-makers walk
away with their personal fortunes while workers and shareholders take on the
cost of their actions. People need to be held accountable for their actions,
and this is _especially_ true for people in positions of power whose actions
can affect millions of people.

~~~
leetcrew
on the flip side, limited liability allows smaller players to enter the market
without necessarily risking their entire life savings.

~~~
kerkeslager
So maybe the "long hard look at limited liability" I suggested concludes that
limited liability applies only to small players entering the market.

Nobody is confused about why limited liability exists, so I don't think it
needs to be brought up every time someone points out the problems with it. It
generally comes across as just trying to shut down the conversation, and
refuse to admit there are very large downsides to limited liability.

~~~
leetcrew
what "very large downsides” are you talking about? the possibility that a
company might be unable to repay a debt? do you also think we need to take a
long hard look at bankruptcy? to me, the fact that I can hold a few thousand
dollars in stocks without risking everything I own seems pretty good. I'm not
sure how you could change it in a way that wouldn't shift the balance of power
even more towards the well-capitalized.

~~~
kerkeslager
Ideally, limited liability wouldn't apply to people making decisions for the
company: if a CEO decides, for example, not to recall deadly exploding cars
because of a cost/revenue analysis, _the CEO 's_ 401k should not be off limits
as a source of funds for a settlement against the company.

I don't know why you assume you benefit from this not being the case: when
Ford was sued for the Pinto, shareholders of Ford lost money which they
wouldn't have lost if the decision makers had paid more of the settlement.

One possible way to regulate this is related to voting and non-voting shares.
If you want to invest in a company without taking on liability, you can invest
in non-voting shares--since you can't make any decisions for the company, you
can't be held liable if the company decides to do something wrong. But you
shouldn't be able to take part in the decision making of a company without
also taking responsibility if you decide to do something wrong.

------
tossAfterUsing
Would be neat if we could get one of these for politicians that lie!

~~~
SN76477
One problem at a time please

------
tzm
Personally, I think Andrew Yang has a bold position for data privacy that I
hope Congress will embrace.

Data as a property right: [https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-
right/](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/)

~~~
adolph
_Data generated by each individual needs to be owned by them, with certain
rights conveyed that will allow them to know how it’s used and protect it._

If I were to set up an device that associated different electromagnetic
spectrum emissions, would that data belong to me or to the people who emitted
it?

------
cabaalis
I was initially sceptical, because lying is generally not illegal. CEOs are
people, and people have first amendment rights. However, it seems it's
narrowly classifying the act of hiding what you do with personal data as
criminal fraud, and I'm on board with that idea.

------
dang
Bill proposals rarely count as on topic for HN. Most bills never go anywhere.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
The _content_ of this bill seems like it would be pretty important for HN,
though.

------
donretag
I rather they start with the financial companies. How many bankers were even
charged after 2008? Rhetorical question of course.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's a pity we didn't take a page from Iceland.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-t...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-
to-iceland-where-bad-bankers-go-to-prison)

------
ficklepickle
What's with the title? I thought Jailtime might be a new apple product. It
should be "jail time".

------
BrandonMarc
Yeah, that's a bill that will never see passage.

