This is so unrealistic but I do agree personal liability should come into play more for people who knowingly act inappropriately.

▲

ndsipa_pomu 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately "knowingly act inappropriately" is going to be tough to prove. I think it's better to pin the responsibility onto the top executives unless they can prove that it was a specific bad actor despite systems put in place to prevent that. Otherwise, it's too easy for execs to ignore privacy and security concerns just because they are not familiar with that side of things.

We should also make it much easier for company employees to whistle-blow or even initiate stringent audits of security and privacy.

▲

p_l 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's already a rh>ng for critical infrastructure companies in EU.

▲

rectang 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's perfectly reasonable, and if something perfectly reasonable is "unrealistic", then the system is corrupt.

▲

bix6 3 days ago | parent [-]

Bankrupting everyone who does business by making them repay 300% of earnings is unreasonable.

The liability shield is too strong though so I do agree it’s causing problems.

	▲	rectang 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The socialized losses vastly exceed 300% of earnings - they're analogous to a company mishandling toxic waste and ruining everyone around them. The way they are running their business is catastrophically irresponsible, and if they can't afford the consequences, they shouldn't have gone into this business.