[izacus]

> You're in favor of holding executives hostage to demand access to data? If they actually did something illegal, they can be arrested/tried for that, but arresting executives as a means to coerce companies into doing stuff is a total perversion of the rule of law.

Turns out that witholding data as a company executive is outright illegal, so yeah, we're in favor of it and they can get arrested and charged for for it.

[gruez]

>Turns out that witholding data as a company executive is outright illegal, so yeah, we're in favor of it and they can get arrested and charged for for it.

Except in this case it's not the executive that has the data. The data is sitting on some cloud server somewhere, and the executive no longer has access because the CISO got wind of the raid and locked his account. If you're holding the executive, you're not holding the executive because he's refusing to cooperate with a warrant, you're holding the executive as a hostage so HQ would turn over the document.

[account42]

So?

If executives don't want to sit in jail due to their company's shady tactics they can just not approve those tactics.

Alternative would be to shut the business down completely until they cooperate.

[gruez]

>they can just not approve those tactics.

You think the VP of Uber France was involved in the approval of global IT policies regarding locking accounts when there's a raid?