[petertodd]

That was probably a sound legal strategy. Selling location data without consent is obviously unethical behavior that should be illegal. A jury is more likely to rule on the basis of that; with a judge maybe there's a chance that a technicality in the law leads to a ruling in their favor.

Anyway, this practice should be criminalized with companies and their employees receiving criminal penalties like jail time.

[kevin_thibedeau]

It won't because the US government relies on third parties to funnel data into its panopticon as a constitutional side step.

[thrwaway55]

Replace employee with exec. An employee may need a job and can be coerced for reasons they don't control.

[petertodd]

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

Besides, one reason why they can be coerced is because these actions aren't clearly illegal. If they are, the employee can just report what they're being asked to do to the police. Workplace safety has been dramatically improved in western countries simply by making many unsafe practices illegal and creating entities to report illegal work to. While this did require criminal charges for some managers and employees, because safety has improved so much, they're really not that common.

I remember when I had workplace safety training as a poorly paid university lab monitor. They made clear that I had potential criminal legal liability if I allowed egregiously unsafe things to happen. So they didn't.

[soulofmischief]

That same position legitimizes basically all police brutality.

[akoboldfrying]

It doesn't legitimize all police brutality, only whatever amount of it is necessary to keep your job.

And legitimising this is appropriate. The only other position -- requiring people to behave in a way that doesn't meet their basic needs for survival -- would be inappropriate. It is the responsibility of those in power to prevent society from degrading to a point where police are forced to be violent in order to keep their jobs.

[soulofmischief]

No brutality is legitimate. First of all, if police get this pass, then so do the street criminals they deal with. And then you just have a never-ending conflict since both sides get moral passes to put themselves above the greater good.

If you study game theory such as the prisoner's dilemma, you'll understand that these are perverse incentives where actors are certainly "rational" given their constraints, but the overall system is harmed. In a feedback loop such as society, this can have a runaway effect until eventual societal collapse.

> legitimising this is appropriate

For who? Who decides this?

> It is the responsibility of those in power to prevent society from degrading to a point where police are forced to be violent in order to keep their jobs.

Maybe you now understand why this is circular logic. If those in power are just doing what they "have to do" in order to keep their job and survive, and civilians do what they "have to do", and police do what they "have to do", the buck gets passed to no one. Every single culpable party gets to say it's not their fault or their responsibility to introduce structural change through personal sacrifice.

[Frieren]

If a doctor fucks up is liable for bad practice. If an architect fucks up is liable for bad practice.

CEOs, CTOs, etc. of organizations with the budged of small countries can be stupid, unknowledgeable and reckless and there are no consequences (unless it affects shareholders money). Executives should be held legally accountable of the damage that their companies do.

Accountability is required for a civilized society. When the people with the most power do not need to follow any rule we get into anarchy and chaos. Just watch the news to see that it is already happening.

[zelphirkalt]

What makes this more infuriating is that they always point to their additional responsibilities, when it comes to pay/salary. Oh yes, they need to manage sooo much responsibility! But when these things happen, no one seems to be taking the responsibility. Very strange. Almost as if some people only want the upsides of "responsibility".

[baranul]

Also known as "have your cake and eat it too".

[zelphirkalt]

Ha, yes! I was actually thinking about using that exact phrasing, but then wasn't 100% sure, whether that is basically the definition of that phrase. Thanks for confirming.

[baranul]

There are also various ways that big companies have to influence judges or increase the odds of getting favorable ones, not even mentioning outright corruption, where quickly and randomly selected jurors are harder to touch.