[Daycrawler]

Banning things works relatively well for people because they fear having trouble with law and justice. Doesn't work that well for corporations whose law department is just like any other department. In this case you must assume that if it's technically possible then it's done.

[codedokode]

This argument can be used against any law, like antitrust law. Having a law department doesn't give you a free pass to break laws.

[brewdad]

Unless we start throwing the legal department and higher ups into prison then it basically becomes a free pass to break laws. Currently, we assess fines to corporations that violate these laws.

It then becomes a cost/benefit analysis weighing the likelihood of getting caught * cost of potential fine vs business value of ignoring the law. Ignoring the law is frequently the correct decision.

[pteredactyl]

Agreed. There needs to be criminal liability for folks like Stumpf and other big bankers/corporate overlords.

But do you think our government will ever stand up? Doubtful

[monetus]

Maybe not, but when the cost of breaking the law is less than the gain, it seems logical. A law department is probably better equipped to make that calculation.

edit: Reading into the context of 'too big to fail' and 'collateral consequences' reveals exactly that kind of behavior.

[gm-conspiracy]

No, but when there are only civil penalties at risk, it becomes a business decision, not a moral one.

[pteredactyl]

Exactly. I assume that's part of the point.

But having a law doesn't mean people or corporations won't break it out of the 'kindness of their heart'. Or because they're 'good people'.

For example, look at 'No gun zones'. You think a criminal is not going rob a bank at gun point because the bank is a no gun zone? If anything it incentivizes them because they know they'll have a monopoly of force upon entering ( if they have a gun, and can fairly assume no one else will because of 'no gun zone' policy )