Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, one person was already fired for buying this kind of IBM, but that was just the director general of the authority that leaked the data. The thing most swedes have an issue with is that the government tried to silence the leak for like two years (people really dislike being actively lied to). If they had owned it, I don't think it would have been such a big deal.
It is an old truism that it is the cover-up that gets you. I.e. when we look at scandals, the thing that people generally get in trouble for was part of the cover up rather than the original scandal. Given that this is common knowledge, why do cover-ups keep happening? Theory (A): the failed cover-ups we hear about are only a tiny fraction of the successful ones, so on average it is rational to try and cover things u…
In this way we end up with cover ups that cause more damage and are more costly than the original incidents, even though at the onset just owning up to the error would be less costly in the long term.