That has nothing to with the point in the post you are responding to. My point was that the shareholders are taking the profits, and they can take the losses. I don't know why you're driveling on about the specifics of what people know or don't know.
This decision, unfortunately, did not limit the personhood of corporations. It just limited what "personal privacy" means, to exclude business dealings. This standard applies the same to natural persons as it does to corporations, but since corporations have only business dealings by definition, nothing they do falls under "personal privacy". What we really need is for corporations to be ruled non-persons when it comes to rights generally, and this decisions goes nowhere near even touching that issue.
Seriously. I didn't find Supreme Court T-shirts in the few months I was there, but I did find Supreme Court hats. They have the words "Supreme Court" embroidered on them in flowing quasi-cursive like it was the name of the local minor league ball club.
we still have quite a few other personal rights that have been given to corporations that shouldn't have
I'll be glad when this fad goes away.
It's not a fad. It's a position based on serious reasoning (both moral and legal) and it won't go away until our government stops treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons.
The whole reason for corporate personhood is to protect the rights of the people involved with the corporation.
False. The whole reason for corporate personhood is that a court reporter inserted a headnote into his report of a supreme court decision in order to make the decision assert corporate personhood, and that has been treated as precedent ever since. He did this because he stood to profit immensely from his involvement in railroad corporations if those corporations had far greater rights. In other words, the whole reason for corporate personhood is to enhance corporate power. Prior to the granting of corporate personhood, there is no record of the rights of the people involved with a coproration ever being trampled on simply because their corporation didn't have those same rights.
If the US dismantled the corporate personhood machinery, it would have to be replaced with something else that does pretty much the same thing. Else groups of people would have their rights trampled. It's not rocket science.
I would be very interested to see your evidence of this. What individual rights would be trampled on for individuals if corporations were not also guaranteed them? What evidence is there that actual rights-trampling would occur?
I went based off of a wrong doing perspective. So if we take this to a higher level, say dumping toxic waste into a lake, and the shareholders and board are unaware, but some director somewhere said that he found a good, cheaper way to get rid of the waste, we should still take it from the shareholders?
Yes. They are the ones who profited from the improvement to the bottom line that the dumping caused, and they were perfectly happy to take their dividends and not ask questions. If they can profit from misconduct, they can pay for the exact same misconduct.
"Do you think just because your ownership is in the form of stock, that you have no responsibility to even investigate whether the people generating your dividends are trustworthy enough not to lie, cheat, steal, maim or kill?"
Yeah. I have IRAs and mutual funds that are made up of dozens of stocks. Maybe you have the time and resources to investigate all of their chief officers and board directors, I don't.
All right, I'll make you a deal. When I get cancer because some company knowingly dumped carcinogens in my drinking water for thirty years because it was more profitable than disposing of them properly, instead of suing, I'll just say to myself, "schwit1 might own some stock in this company, through his IRAs and mutual funds, and it really wouldn't be fair, after letting him profit from the same actions that gave me cancer, to then take some of that money back from him, because gosh darnit, he just doesn't have the time to make sure these things don't happen!"
When a company is fined, who pays the price? For public companies (most of the companies we care about), the answer is basically shareholders -- almost all of whom had no part in the wrongdoing.
False. Their part in the wrongdoing was voting for the board that hired the people (...that hired the people...[repeat as necessary]) that did the wrongdoing. Do you think just because your ownership is in the form of stock, that you have no responsibility to even investigate whether the people generating your dividends are trustworthy enough not to lie, cheat, steal, maim or kill?
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
How? Almost all "corporate crimes" are charged against individuals anyway, and almost all policing of corporations goes through civil actions. When the attorney general sues a corporation, that's not charging it with a crime, that's a civil action.
They've found _one_ meteorite with the ingredient, so we know for a fact that it was 'brought' to earth... Or are you trying to claim that meteorite was planted there by some meta-physical being?
I took "ingredients of life" to mean "the ingredients from which life was made", not "a bunch of stuff chemically similar to the ingredients from which life was made".
Anon provided more ammo for those who want to implement multiple forms of 'internet controls' or harsher punishment for 'cyber' crime. They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.
Not really. Everybody even casually familiar with the situation, even people who know nothing about hacking or security, comes away from this story feeling like Aaron Barr is a colossal douche who had it coming to him. I think that fortifies our position, that further controls are unnecessary, by demonstrating that further 'internet controls' would only protect people who stick their penises into hornets' nests.
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.
How is this any different from any of the previous Anon attacks? There are always logs, and nobody ever gets caught, except maybe a few sheeple who downloaded and ran LOIC without even realizing it would expose them. I'll believe the core of Anonymous getting de-anonymized when I see it.
What? I'm pretty sure the Russian mob (one of the most notorious black-hat hacking gangs in the world) would have half of Anon sobbing into their mothers' skirts within about 10 minutes if they ever got challenged by those hacker wannabes.
You wanna test them? I'd very much like to see this Russian mob--Anonymous showdown. If you have any mob connections, make it happen.
And if the antics of Anonymous were 100% legal, you'd have a point. As many of their antics are clearly illegal (like hacking into a security firm), you really have no damned point and just look like an idiot. You are not free to break the law.
Laws are nothing more and nothing less than devices for controlling people.
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
Slashdot Mirror
That has nothing to with the point in the post you are responding to. My point was that the shareholders are taking the profits, and they can take the losses. I don't know why you're driveling on about the specifics of what people know or don't know.
This decision, unfortunately, did not limit the personhood of corporations. It just limited what "personal privacy" means, to exclude business dealings. This standard applies the same to natural persons as it does to corporations, but since corporations have only business dealings by definition, nothing they do falls under "personal privacy". What we really need is for corporations to be ruled non-persons when it comes to rights generally, and this decisions goes nowhere near even touching that issue.
Where can I get Supreme Court fan T-shirts?
China.
Seriously. I didn't find Supreme Court T-shirts in the few months I was there, but I did find Supreme Court hats. They have the words "Supreme Court" embroidered on them in flowing quasi-cursive like it was the name of the local minor league ball club.
Should people working together as a group have less rights than those same people if they are working on their own?
No. Fortunately, corporate personhood has nothing to do with this hypothetical of yours.
Again, a corporation is its people. It's not its own person.
A human is made up of cells. It's not its own lifeform
Shut up stupid troll. That is the worst argumnet ever.
A troll is made up of words. It's not its own argumnet.
we still have quite a few other personal rights that have been given to corporations that shouldn't have
I'll be glad when this fad goes away.
It's not a fad. It's a position based on serious reasoning (both moral and legal) and it won't go away until our government stops treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons.
The whole reason for corporate personhood is to protect the rights of the people involved with the corporation.
False. The whole reason for corporate personhood is that a court reporter inserted a headnote into his report of a supreme court decision in order to make the decision assert corporate personhood, and that has been treated as precedent ever since. He did this because he stood to profit immensely from his involvement in railroad corporations if those corporations had far greater rights. In other words, the whole reason for corporate personhood is to enhance corporate power. Prior to the granting of corporate personhood, there is no record of the rights of the people involved with a coproration ever being trampled on simply because their corporation didn't have those same rights.
If the US dismantled the corporate personhood machinery, it would have to be replaced with something else that does pretty much the same thing. Else groups of people would have their rights trampled. It's not rocket science.
I would be very interested to see your evidence of this. What individual rights would be trampled on for individuals if corporations were not also guaranteed them? What evidence is there that actual rights-trampling would occur?
I went based off of a wrong doing perspective. So if we take this to a higher level, say dumping toxic waste into a lake, and the shareholders and board are unaware, but some director somewhere said that he found a good, cheaper way to get rid of the waste, we should still take it from the shareholders?
Yes. They are the ones who profited from the improvement to the bottom line that the dumping caused, and they were perfectly happy to take their dividends and not ask questions. If they can profit from misconduct, they can pay for the exact same misconduct.
"Do you think just because your ownership is in the form of stock, that you have no responsibility to even investigate whether the people generating your dividends are trustworthy enough not to lie, cheat, steal, maim or kill?"
Yeah. I have IRAs and mutual funds that are made up of dozens of stocks. Maybe you have the time and resources to investigate all of their chief officers and board directors, I don't.
All right, I'll make you a deal. When I get cancer because some company knowingly dumped carcinogens in my drinking water for thirty years because it was more profitable than disposing of them properly, instead of suing, I'll just say to myself, "schwit1 might own some stock in this company, through his IRAs and mutual funds, and it really wouldn't be fair, after letting him profit from the same actions that gave me cancer, to then take some of that money back from him, because gosh darnit, he just doesn't have the time to make sure these things don't happen!"
Problem is, "the public" is not what you think it is. that does not mean you or me but "major shareholders" which is the top 1% of the population...
the public was sold a bag of goods that was rigged from the start to protect the riches of the top 1% and NOT that of the public.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(in fact, I think you just defined it not to mean what you think it means...)
When a company is fined, who pays the price? For public companies (most of the companies we care about), the answer is basically shareholders -- almost all of whom had no part in the wrongdoing.
False. Their part in the wrongdoing was voting for the board that hired the people (...that hired the people...[repeat as necessary]) that did the wrongdoing. Do you think just because your ownership is in the form of stock, that you have no responsibility to even investigate whether the people generating your dividends are trustworthy enough not to lie, cheat, steal, maim or kill?
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
How? Almost all "corporate crimes" are charged against individuals anyway, and almost all policing of corporations goes through civil actions. When the attorney general sues a corporation, that's not charging it with a crime, that's a civil action.
Hand in your geek card.
If this were not Slashdot, I would agree with you, but...this is Slashdot. Everyone's supposed to know what HBGary Federal is by now.
They've found _one_ meteorite with the ingredient, so we know for a fact that it was 'brought' to earth... Or are you trying to claim that meteorite was planted there by some meta-physical being?
I took "ingredients of life" to mean "the ingredients from which life was made", not "a bunch of stuff chemically similar to the ingredients from which life was made".
...been "brought" and "could have brought".
Article says the theory is that metorites brought it required ingredients to Earth.
Summary says might.
Title says did.
Shush, you with your accurate distinctions!
I agree with everything you just said.
Anon provided more ammo for those who want to implement multiple forms of 'internet controls' or harsher punishment for 'cyber' crime. They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.
Not really. Everybody even casually familiar with the situation, even people who know nothing about hacking or security, comes away from this story feeling like Aaron Barr is a colossal douche who had it coming to him. I think that fortifies our position, that further controls are unnecessary, by demonstrating that further 'internet controls' would only protect people who stick their penises into hornets' nests.
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.
How is this any different from any of the previous Anon attacks? There are always logs, and nobody ever gets caught, except maybe a few sheeple who downloaded and ran LOIC without even realizing it would expose them. I'll believe the core of Anonymous getting de-anonymized when I see it.
"...the most badass hacker gang in history."
What? I'm pretty sure the Russian mob (one of the most notorious black-hat hacking gangs in the world) would have half of Anon sobbing into their mothers' skirts within about 10 minutes if they ever got challenged by those hacker wannabes.
You wanna test them? I'd very much like to see this Russian mob--Anonymous showdown. If you have any mob connections, make it happen.
And if the antics of Anonymous were 100% legal, you'd have a point. As many of their antics are clearly illegal (like hacking into a security firm), you really have no damned point and just look like an idiot. You are not free to break the law.
Laws are nothing more and nothing less than devices for controlling people.
How was this man allowed to keep his job after his shenanigans were made public?
They couldn't fire him without getting the whole board together and that was cumbersome. Didn't you read the chat logs?
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
What I want to know is what the U.S. are going to do when china says to the U.S., Ch sh jí mújù
I strongly doubt China will ever say that without adding at least two more vowels first.
The Chinese are like Muslims: If it benefits them, it is the will of their God(s).
So much so, that many of them are Muslims. By which I mean tens of millions of them.
Yes, apparently you can't successfully sue your own president ...
Only if the remedy you're seeking is his removal from office. Otherwise...