[dibstern]

Completely disagree. I don’t know how you could say that. Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions, and senate hearings is one way we have of them doing that. And as wybiral said, it was a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Maybe I’m jaded, but your response reminds me of those from Theranos employees on this very forum when it was criticised.

[ams6110]

"Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions"

We have a law enforcement and judicial system for that. Most Senators don't know anything about business or technology.

[wybiral]

The Intelligence Committee is more "with it" when it comes to technology and information warfare than the senate pool at large.

[lr]

Who do you think passes the laws that are then (supposedly) enforced by law enforcement and the judicial system?

[Retric]

In practice, Lobbyists write these laws. Passage or non-passage is less important than content.

[RIMR]

Politicians are the ones that introduce these laws, and these companies answer to the people, not just to lobbyists.

You seem pretty consistently dismissive of the democratic process in this thread. I don't think I should have to remind you of how critically important it is.

[mbesto]

> Politicians are the ones that introduce these laws

Technically yes. But politicians (the actual rep's themselves) do not really write the laws - they just agree on the spirit of the law of which they're pursuing and then basically sell it to other members.

It's the equivalent of engaging a Partner at a big 4 consultancy. They show up for the sales call, but are nowhere to be found when the solution they sold actually gets implemented.

[Retric]

I am not saying these things are pointless, just that the value is different than what you're suggesting.

Sound bytes are an important part of the democratic process. Politions need to differentiate themselves from the pack by standing on one side or the other of any given issue otherwise the general public would be voting randomly.

[newnewpdro]

Personally I'm interpreting a no show as a vote of no confidence.

And given the footage I've seen of late from such hearings, I too have no confidence in their abilities.

[Zelphyr]

I agree that business leaders have to answer for their actions. But that is clearly not what is happening at these inquiries. The CEO of Equifax was called to one when they had their major security breach last year. What came of that? Can we all honestly say, a year later, that he answered for his company's actions? Nothing of consequence happened to him, very little if anything of consequence happened to his company, and as far as I know only minor changes happened to their industry.

My point in my original post is that these inquiries should have WAY harsher consequences than they have. Larry Page should be facing the real possibility of jail time right now for not having shown up. Policy changes should be coming from these inquiries.

But, sadly, none of that is going to happen and we all know it. Because you don't put a guy who helps fund your campaign in jail.

[pdonis]

> these inquiries should have WAY harsher consequences than they have

As another commenter posted, we have a judicial system for that. We have separation of powers in our government for a reason. Congress should not be acting as judge and jury.

[tssva]

Why should he be facing jail time? He was invited to attend and didn't. Declining an invitation isn't a crime.

If Congress really thought it was necessary for him to attend they would have used their subpoena power either initially or after he declined the invitation. Refusing a congressional subpoena is a crime.

The fact that they haven't should tell you how important they really think it is. Most of them are probably happier that he didn't because it gives them more chances for sound bites.

After all the hearing were just for show. The real questions they wanted answered were submitted to the companies in writing and all of the companies including Google/Alphabet provided written responses.