There needs to be penalties that piece the "limited liability" because otherwise it's just "pay to get away with it" as we currently have.

I've been for a "corporate death penalty" (if companies are people, they can be executed) which would result in the shareholders losing everything along with executives being perp-walked.

▲

ndriscoll 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not just executives. They don't will these things into existence. Someone had to build functionality to send user data to Facebook.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

Not to side with this behaviour, but I think if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them?

	▲	ndriscoll 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The point of laws is that T&Cs don't matter if the law has something to say. If the law e.g. were to criminalize sharing health information in this way, then it doesn't matter if the users agreed; you still go to prison for doing it.
	▲	inetknght 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> if you consent to it in the Ts & Cs then it's legal. No. In a paper contract, you can scratch off things you don't agree with. You can negotiate. You can't do that in Ts & Cs. For example, Ts & Cs often unilaterally change with no ability for you to review or cancel or undo. It's trivially easy to write software which uses services without ever agreeing to Ts & Cs. So it's not really a legal contract. > And that makes sense - otherwise how else do you agree to things or not agree to them? Through a real negotiation. With a paper contract, that both parties sign, and both parties receive a copy of, and that can't be unilaterally changed.