Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 337 posts

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#201

Post by bdowling »

gowld wrote: post #196
bdowling wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my…

> punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol? > the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. Do they?

> Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol?

Because they invested money into the corporation when the corporation issued stock.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#202

Post by paranoidrobot »

bdowling wrote: post #192
nathanyz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment.

> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my…

I think that reasoning is at best, shortsighted.

Shareholders are responsible, albeit indirectly, for the corporation they've invested in. If shareholders have a reasonable chance of signfiicant loss of value, then they're more likely to require the company take steps to mitigate that (i.e don't do shady stuff).

As for prosecution of employees for crimes - that, too, is often rarely done, or focuses on the wrong people. Plenty of cases where it was the whistleblower, or someone who was raising red flags that gets the harsher penalty, rather than management who deliberately ignored it and has better paid lawyers to go for some light-weight bs

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#203

Post by texasbigdata »

brokensegue wrote: post #66
arcticbull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You totally can pay the government in stock, you just have to sell it or set it aside in a trust. There's prior art, this is what the IRS makes folks who are attempting to renounce their citizenship (or give up a green card held for over 8 years) do for illiquid assets when paying the expatriation tax.

but LiveNation doesn't hold stock worth $16B and cannot easily issue new stock.

That’s not the right way to think about it. Enterprise value is some number say $19B (shares plus debt less cash; think of the equity in your house). Assume existing debt is $5B. You “give” a debt-like instrument to govt, say $10B.

Debt is ahead of stock. The stock is now “worth” a few billion. No new stock issued.

The Nobel prize in economics was won for this concept in 1990 iirc: the value of the firm is independent to how it’s financed. Just like how the value of your house has nothing to do with what interest rate you pay in your mortgage.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#204

Post by jazzyjackson »

bdowling wrote: post #192
nathanyz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment.

> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my…

Liquidate criminal corporations and you have 2 simultaneous outcomes:

Shareholders lose their investment

Investors that didn't invest in the criminal corporation get to buy the assets for pennies on the dollar.

Perfect harmony.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#205

Post by not2b »

Less than 0.1% of their market cap, in exchange for detroying a rival, a move that probably netted them well more than $10M. Cost of doing business, a message to all companies that they might as well do this kind of thing because any fine will be far less than the profits gained.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#206

Post by ineedasername »

hchz wrote: post #188
Escapado wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with (financial) protection for those who refuse to partake and report the crime. I guess the person pressing the dump button would usually make just above minimum wage and would be considered unimportant enough to fire if he stood up for what's right so there is no incentive except for a moral one which I would argue is not enough for most people.

CWA, CAA, CERCLA, and RCRA provide these protections for whistleblowers and a framework for financial incentives, though these incentives are paltry compared to SEC whistleblower rewards. https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations https://www.whistleblowers.gov

The problem is also that the power imbalance is severely stacked against the whistleblower. Sure, retaliation isn't allowed, but it's a far stretch to think it doesn't happen.

I've seen it happen, or what probably was retaliation, but how do I know for sure? They said the person wasn't competent or doing their job when they got fired. I don't know for sure if that was true, but I do know they reported significant theft that would likely have involved someone higher up, and not long afterwards he was fired.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#207

Post by hurt_and_afraid »

Spivak wrote: post #186
Escapado wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with (financial) protection for those who refuse to partake and report the crime. I guess the person pressing the dump button would usually make just above minimum wage and would be considered unimportant enough to fire if he stood up for what's right so there is no incentive except for a moral one which I would argue is not enough for most people.

As much as the liberal-libertarian crowd on HN likes to be vocal against most forms of government licensure, protection from ethical breaches like this is one of the best things about them. You can tell your employer to pound sand because neither you nor anyone they could replace you with will be willing to risk their license to do something unethical. And even if they could find someone sketch to try and push it thr…

[dead]

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#208

Post by not2b »

nightcracker wrote: post #178
nickff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't people constantly arguing that deterrence is ineffective against individuals, and that rehabilitation is best? I don't take a personal view on these things, but I would imagine that the people arguing for more severe 'punishment' of corporations and white-collar criminals are the ones arguing for lenience in violent and other individual crime.

The idea that companies and humans are in any way equivalent is preposterous. Companies can not be rehabilitated because they aren't moral beings. They only understand one thing: profit. Thus for companies the financial deterrent is effective and appropriate.

Exactly. If fines are less than the profit gained, the only price is the bad publicity and that often fades away after a few news cycles. This verdict sends a message that you might as well destroy a competitor in this way because the price will be insignificant even if you're caught. There might be personal risk if an individual is charged, but they can give some flunkie the job, make sure nothing is in writing, and then blame the employee or contractor if anything goes wrong.

We really need the "death penalty" for companies: dissolve the corporation after a certain number of offenses, sell the assets off to raise money to compensate the victims.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#209

Post by not2b »

sscotth wrote: post #184
soupson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point still stands, but a better comparison I think is cash on hand, since valuation doesn’t mean much in terms of paying fines. You can’t pay the government in stock. LYV had $2.6b on hand last quarter.

My cash on hand is significantly less than my net worth too.

If you commit an offense that has a large financial penalty, no one will care about that, you'll have to sell assets to raise the cash.

Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business

#210

Post by bdowling »

atty wrote: post #198
bdowling wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my…

I think there’s two points to address here. 1) it’s rare, if ever, that a CEO, CFO or COO faces jail time for crimes the company committed that are similar or worse compared to jail-able offenses by individuals. So your second point doesn’t really happen in practice. 2) shareholders SHOULD be punished for the actions of the company. If my dog maims you because of my negligence to control it, I’m liable. If a corporat…

> So your second point doesn’t really happen in practice.

It happened in this case. From the article, "Zeeshan Zaidi, the former head of Ticketmaster’s artist services division, pled guilty in a related case to conspiring to hack the rival company..." Anyone else who conspired with him could be charged with the crimes.

> shareholders SHOULD be punished for the actions of the company.

The entire purpose of the corporate entity is so that investors can share in the ownership of a business that they do not manage without risking personal liability. Shareholders can completely lose their investment because of liabilities of the corporation, but they usually don't face personal liability.

Post reply on HN