Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I suppose "the company be dissolved, its records thoroughly purged, and its ability to legally operate revoked" is a bit too much... though it shouldn't be.



Why is it a bit much? I think the "corporate death penalty" is appropriate when you fail to protect the financial history of 147 million people.


That was done for one of the US accounting companies, Arthur Andersen, related to Enron financials.

Noody, including the govt., was happy with the final result.

So although it should be on the table, in reality, it probably won't come from the govt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen


How could the result have been any different or better? I don't see where anyone's claiming the government was unhappy with the final result. Rotten firms like this need to die.


The thing is that when the reasonable solution is "Stop the company doing its core competency" you need to realise that almost everything else the company does is going to be "exploit whatever it has left". So forcibly shutting down the company is far more reasonable than just stopping it from collecting credit information.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: