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

241–250 of 337 posts

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

#241

Post by [deleted] »

nathanyz wrote: post #155
ipqk wrote: post #148

Compare this slap on the wrist to Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[15] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

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.

[deleted]

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

#242

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wpietri wrote: post #219
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river. Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for exa…

I agree, and I would go slightly farther. One of the lessons the mortgage bubble taught us is how much executives benefit from plausible deniability. For corporate crime, I think the standard of "knew or should have known" should apply. If CEOs are going to hoover up a lot of the profits when things go right, they should hold at least as much responsibility when things go wrong on their watch.

One of the things I found incredible about the antitrust hearings this past year was how heavily every Big Tech CEO relied on "I don't know", "I don't recall", or "I'll have to get back to you". Often about things I, an outsider, know of.

It strains plausibility they didn't know, they're just punting to a time they aren't under oath.

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

#243

Post by 533474 »

ipqk wrote: post #148

Compare this slap on the wrist to Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[15] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

Nice reminder of how unbalanced and corrupt our system really is.

I am not saying that our system doesn't work. It just feels that there is so much left to do.

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

#244

Post by harry8 »

sunir wrote: post #238
harry8 wrote: post #236

So you're a CEO of a company. Other employees of the company commit crimes. You know about the crimes. The company profits from the crimes paying your salary &/or bonus. You do not inform the police. How is this not a criminal conspiracy engaged in by the CEO (either before or after the fact) resulting in Jail time for the CEO? Is it just because "with a computer" that the CEO isn't facing charges? What crimes commit…

This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article. Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual? It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people. However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporati…

Looks to me like the person who holds the job title CEO has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. For profit. Is that really not how it looks to you?

Has the CEO been charged? How bad does the crime have to be before the CEO being involved in it before it happened, or becoming aware and profiting from it after without informing the police before the CEO is themselves charged for the CEO's criminal behaviour in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with respect to that crime.

I'm hoping if the crime was murder, conspiring by the CEO would result in charges. Yes?

What level of crime is sheielded? Should any crime be sheielded like this?

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

#245

Post by oauea »

Spivak wrote: post #187
eropple wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are. The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Fictional sums of money, sums that may be less than likely to ever really be paid, are more easily reckoned with than jail time.

Still not a great system unfortunately. Time based punishments still disproportionately punish the poor who have less of it. Suffering based punishments hurt everyone equally, they don’t waste a person’s time they could be contributing something positive to the world and can be scaled to fit the crime. One hell of a deterrent too.

Wait, are you advocating torture?

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

nathanyz wrote: post #155
ipqk wrote: post #148

Compare this slap on the wrist to Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[15] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

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.

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by wpietri »

bdowling wrote: post #226
wpietri wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "head I win, tails you lose" here dynamic that is pernicious. Executives and shareholders can get rich off the monetary extracted via a company's activities. But when something bad happens, suddenly they had nothing to do with it. It seems to me if they're responsible enough to get paid for the good parts, they're responsible for the bad parts too.

> It seems to me if they're responsible enough to get paid for the good parts, they're responsible for the bad parts too. Executives involved in crimes can face personal liability for those crimes. The corporation can also be wiped out and the shareholders can lose their investments.

I'm less interested in "can" than "do". The 2008 financial crisis, for example. Anthony Mozillo, just to pick one representative miscreant, was one of the most severely treated. His penalty? To pay back a portion of his gains.

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

#248

Post by superfrank »

m463 wrote: post #89
femto113 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that TicketMaster also paid $110MM to "acquire" SongKick in order to settle the original (civil) lawsuit.

This could be a business model.

It basically is a business model for dating sites. Get big enough to be annoying and then wait for Match Group to make an offer.

Match Group owns Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, Hinge, and PlentyOfFish as well as a metric fuck ton of niche sites.

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

#250

Post by gameman144 »

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #170
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.

IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river. Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for exa…

I like the concept of this, but it seems like it'd be tough to validate that something was actually illegal from the individual actor's level. For instance, if management made clear that the hack here was illegal, the individual person doing the typing is just as culpable. It seems like it'd be very easy to mask that from above, however (e.g. telling a junior developer that there was a contract with Songkick and they needed to just do a database dump).
Post reply on HN