Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors • Hacker News Board

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#271

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

ugwigr wrote: post #270

jacquesm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you expect HN to work the way you want it to, instead of the way it already worked when you joined. You've been here 8 years, enough time to familiarize yourself with what's in the package. Besides that, a moderator going out of their way to mention that they have made an edit to your post, as well as specifically what edit they made is more than you could reasonably expect, and you already have that. Anything o…

- "you expect"- wrong! - at no point did i express my "expectation". I was voicing my opinion on how I think the UX should work for this use case - "instead of the way it already worked when you joined." Just because it worked this way does not mean it is right. - "HN -> HN's rules." Yes, Captain Obvious. this does not mean their rules make sense and certainly does not mean a user voicing an opinion on how the rules…

This "captain obvious" stuff isn't helping you; it's just going to get everything you have to say flagged. You sound upset. I don't think I understand why --- having links replaced is totally standard HN practice, happens all the time, and works to the overall benefit of the community. But I don't have to understand why you're upset for you to feel that way. Rather, I'd just say, step away from HN for a bit until you can write with a clearer head.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#272

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

ugwigr wrote: post #246

dangrossman wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it's always worked here on HN.

does not mean it is right

You're right, it doesn't mean that. But independently of that point, what HN does here is right.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#273

Post by dymk » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #200

vkou wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws don't prevent murder, but they are an after-the-fact tool we can use to beat a killer over the head with.

Agreed, but we already have laws against fraud and bribery. The controls are the things that don't seem to be very effective at stopping fraud.

The prosecution serves as a warning to those thinking they can do the same thing. Had these compliance laws not existed, there would be no incentive to _not_ commit fraud.

Unless you think nobody is going to look at this and go “these are consequences that could apply to me”?

SOX compliance builds a paper trail so crimes like this are recorded and uncovered.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#274

Post by batch12 » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

ugwigr wrote: post #251

batch12 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly disagreed until I saw your point (I think). The post still has your name beside it and you disagree with someone changing your words. While I don't find it a big deal with this, I kinda agree in spirit. Maybe the poster name should be changed too. However, folks would then be upset about not getting their sweet, sweet karma.

ok. what did you disagree with if not my point? I do not care in the least bit about HN's karma

A better way of phrasing would be -- until I understood your point. I meant "saw your point" as in "I see your point".

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#275

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #272

ugwigr wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does not mean it is right

You're right, it doesn't mean that. But independently of that point, what HN does here is right.

And more than any other online forum would do, it's in fact an exercise in transparency, and super labor intensive to boot.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#276

Post by rand846633 » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #241

bozhark wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With so many DDs, do you have any pointers or directions for those looking to learn better DD?

I'm the other DD guy (besides jacquesm, who btw is very knowledgable) that regularly posts here. Happy to answer any questions. There really isn't any "public" info about tech DDs that I could share. The tech DD world is growing likely crazy so if you have a business and tech mind, you'll likely find companies hiring for roles, even if you don't have specific experience. These are two books that might help you provid…

> Happy to answer any questions.

Assuming the receiver uses a proper offshore construct to accept the payment, this would go by unnoticed by your DD?

But most interesting: What is your best guess - Your partner says you find “a hand full” from a few hundred - how many of these cases do you miss because the recipients use a not easy traceable proxy entity to collect the payment?

Do you try to uncover such hidden actions, if yes, how?

Also, is there a good reason why someone would not use a offshore proxy/holding?

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#277

Post by loopercal » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #120

eganist wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/understand/care

Perhaps I'm naive, but I think the number of people who know and don't care is a small fraction of the people who honestly don't understand that they're doing something wrong. I mean, obviously this guy knew he was doing something wrong, but a lot of people just can't imagine that their own unethical behavior wouldn't be obvious to them.

I think a lot of people feel "clever" and like what they're doing is, while not expressly allowed, not forbidden either.

See a bunch of people in this thread finding out they're probably committing tax fraud by underpaying themselves from their own s-corp to dodge taxes.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#278

Post by ludocode » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #221

ludocode wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely believe he should go to prison. If a fine is the only punishment for a crime, then that law only exists for the lower classes. The only way to punish a rich person and deter other rich people from crime is to take away their freedom.

This isn't necessarily true in the general case, let alone in this specific case. In the general case, some countries calculate fines according to the criminal's income for this very reason. In this specific case, fines or, in the case of a civil lawsuit, damages in excess of the amount of money the person illegitimately gained would be sufficient.

Fines as a percentage of income do not solve the problem. If I'm a poor person living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over for savings, a 5% fine would be devastating. If I'm a rich person living off of (debt secured by) my investments, a 5% fine, even if it's hundreds of thousands of dollars, is pocket change compared to my true income and wealth.

A fine is obviously not sufficient given how widespread this practice is. If the fine is double what you gained but you are less than 50% likely to get caught, logic dictates you should commit the crime. Again, prison is the only deterrent that works on the rich.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#279

Post by SavantIdiot » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

rkalla wrote: post #56

whymauri wrote: post #12

>In his own memorandum to the court, requesting that he be sentenced to a year of house arrest, Kail, 49, described himself as a “global power leader, top dev ops influencer and a thought leader.” So very humble of him.

He also has a church and is a life coach on Only Fans... you know, real classy person. :smh-forever:

Well, you gotta admit he does a lot of work. I'm too wiped after my 8-5 to even work on fun stuff, so I'm kinda impressed how people find the time to do all this.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#280

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

funnyflamigo wrote: post #148

Aeolun wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don’t understand how he can possibly think saying something like that is a good idea. He must be living inside his own reality distortion field.

Seriously, given - > Kail faces a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice his gross gain or twice the gross loss to Netflix, whichever is greater, for each count of a wire or mail fraud conviction, and ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each count of a money laundering conviction. As well as > Kail was indicted May 1, 2018, of nineteen counts of wire fraud, three counts…

He "faces" a maximum 20 years, but that number doesn't mean anything; it's just the maximum possible sentence that would apply if every count was sentenced at the highest possible level and served consecutively. The prosecution is asking for something like 6 years.