| |
| ▲ | buzer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? From what I understand e.g. Stored Communications Act might allow suing T-Mobile in this case, at least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration. And possibly even government under 18 U.S.C. §2712. Of course then it's up to judge to determine if the request was valid or not. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? And lose time and money, which they also likely don't have? | | |
| ▲ | buzer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Both SCA and 18 U.S.C. §2712 can grant punitive damages and attorney fees. So there might be lawyers who would take it on contingency, and in this kind of case some non-profit could also have interest in litigating the issue. And as this is something that has already happened there isn't much else the person in question can do. Third parties always have option to just disclose information to whoever asks it, at most you can hold them accountable for it later if it was unlawful. And what accountability exactly means depends on what laws exists. If you want some real accountability for the people/companies involved in these kinds of decisions then get Congress to pass such laws (however impossible it might be). | |
| ▲ | xg15 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. You might as well immediately close all lawsuits and declare the party the winner that has more capital. It doesn't (yet) work that way. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Ιf you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. I did. I'll still file a lawsuit if I'm forced to, but I gave up in the idea that it functions in any singificant way as to not declare the winner the party that has more capital. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thayne a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration But binding arbitration is pretty standard in terms of service. | | |
| ▲ | buzer a day ago | parent [-] | | It is, but T-Mobile's terms at least used to allow you to opt out from what I remember. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in one basket or the other. Humans don't biologically change to amoral creatures when they pull into the office parking lot (despite theories to the contrary or attempts to encourage it), nor are they absolved of human responsibility when doing things for which they are paid. | | |
| ▲ | schubidubiduba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss. | | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent [-] | | > The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Citation needed. | | |
| ▲ | fwn 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | If this area of research interests you, look into Thompsons "Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations" from 2017 or Bovens ur-werk "The Quest for Responsibility" from 1998. Diffusion of moral responsibility in complex organizations is not a new observation. The Wikipedia article leans a bit too much on the psychology and not on the organizational design / decision architecture, but is still a good entry point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility |
|
| |
| ▲ | hackyhacky a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky a day ago | parent [-] | | > The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one. The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do. > It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it does not mean money. A fiduciary duty is a duty to manage money in someone else's best interests. It's confusing because "fiduciary" sounds like you have to optimize for the mercenary interests of shareholders, but that is not true. Not every corporation is founded to turn a profit; what do you think the fiduciary duty looks like for a nonprofit? The general obligation for the company to behave morally comes from two places: specific laws and the fact that its employees want to sleep at night. These are more powerful than a lot of people want to give credit for. | |
| ▲ | nativeit a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How are unsustainable decisions and practices working in the best interests of the shareholders? | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They aren't, and as such, deciding to forego short-term profit by making sustainable decisions and practices is of course not illegal whatsoever, nor does any company ever get sued for it. | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Investors are motivated by short term gains. | | |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both. The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What is that based on? It's based on the (US) law. Corporate officers failing to advance the interests of the company can be prosecuted civilly or criminally. There is no analogous legal obligation to act morally or in the interest of the general public. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo... | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is absolutely not true. Your link is focused on the UK, the "interests of the company" are independent of "the interests of shareholders", and the duties/breaches listed there revolve around betraying the company (not shareholders) for individual gain. Insider trading, embezzlement, leaking, conflicts of interests. Nothing at all like "making a decision that prioritizes morals over short-term profits". | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Required amorality is a widely told story (by the amoral), but it's disinformation. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | deaux a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No , you're spreading misinformation [0]. The company's board does not have a legal obligation to "act in the interest of stockholders regardless of moral impact" in any meaningful manner. Anything, including "positive moral impact", can be spun as being in the interest of shareholders. What you're implying is a legal duty towards short-term profit maximization. Absolutely nothing of the sort exists. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975048 | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Can be spun" is doing a lot of work in your argument. In fact, corporate officers are routinely sued (or even criminally prosecuted) for failing to advance specifically the company's interests. Trying to "spin" general moral good as a net positive for the company when it negatively impacts share price typically does not sway a jury. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo... | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're now entering complete FUD territory. Firstly your link is aimed at the UK. This thread started about Google and talked about the US. But hey, let's imagine it's focused on the US. Let me quote what you were claiming: > the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact. Yet now you're saying yourself: > failing to advance specifically the company's interests You silently swapped the "stockholder's" interests - which is what this thread, and the oft mentioned "fiduciary duty", are about - for the "company's" interests. In this legal context, these are two very different things. And then if you actually read the duties they list (i.e. the ones to the company, not the shareholders) and the breaches they talk about, it's stuff like self-dealing, conflicted transactions, usurping corporate opportunities, securities law violation. This has nothing to do with making business decisions in order to prioritize short-term shareholder value. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Not sure what this means That's quite a statement. > I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty" No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand. > the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact. That's a theory of the ~1980s that people who suffer from its consequences still seem to latch onto - perhaps it's simplicity is appealing, maybe its algorithmic decision-making appeals to the IT world - but not true. Even now, when such things are at historical extremes, corporations take into account other issues. Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. But you are kidding yourself if you think Apple is willing to sacrifice billions of dollars for a "moral good". I'm not saying (publicly traded) companies never act morally. I am saying that given a choice, they will always choose profits over morality. > Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced. And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. It's performative posturing to improve the company's image in pursuit of profits, not a real moral stand. How does Raytheon putting a rainbow in their advertising for one month a year help anyone? And as soon as they feel the cultural tide shift, they drop those policies like a hot potato. > That's a theory Not a theory. It's literally the law. | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Not a theory. It's literally the law. It is not, which is why you've failed to show that law, or indeed any cases in the last 50 years of companies having been successfully sued for such a thing. It's honestly so obvious that this couldn't be the law that I can't assume good faith here. It's completely untenable as a principle, it wouldn't be possible to run a business if it were the law. Imagine what that law would look like. Would it be short term profit maximization? Would it be long term? What would that term be? You're literally saying that there's a law that would ask judges to decide whether business decision X maximizes Y-term profit. A child could see how that would be impossible. It's asking for a fortune teller on a subject that is inherently very volatile. The whole point of running a business is believing that you can make decisions that you think are right to succeed. If this were real, you'd genuinely see companies running from the US because it'd be untenable to run a business there. This is the worst case of FUD I've seen on HN bar none, because it's one person being so persistent about a complete myth. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. As I said in the GP, Apple's engineering investment in privacy is far beyond what customers understand and what helps sales. Lots of companies simply add the word 'privacy' to their marketing and do nothing about it that has an impact ('we use 256-bit encryption to protect your data!' seems popular on websites). > And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. Which studies? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hobo123 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could say that the difference between "don't be evil" and having no backbone at all is quite a strong incentive (and strongly influences your brand valuation), but once your reputation is in the gutter, maybe it doesn't matter anymore. | |
| ▲ | ajross a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply From the space between the lines in the article, it seems pretty clear that Google denied the request, and its employees were the source for the claim being reported at all. Yes, they absolutely could be evil in principle. They appear to have been good in practice. And in times of extremis like this, maybe it's important to call out those little victories and find allies where you can. Even if you happen to be a HN Apple stan. | |
| ▲ | michaelt a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons Ehhh, seems to me a cloud provider that wants to back up my documents, communications, photos, passkeys etc has a very strong business case for ensuring the data is as safe with them as they would be in my own home. | | |
| ▲ | thayne a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They have an incentive to maintain a perception that it is at least as safe with them as any of their competitors. That isn't quite the same thing as having an incentive to protect your privacy. | |
| ▲ | loloquwowndueo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sweet summer child. |
|
|
