A lot longer than that. Many pharmacies and affected healthcare providers were not able to get back to a functioning state for several weeks. The result of canceled and delayed procedures created impact that still continues. Some businesses literally ran out of cash. And of course, everyone has suffered severe damage and harm from the data that was exposed.
There's no way there aren't at least a dozen of deaths attributable to that, but of course zero consequences for anyone responsible. Luigi proven right once again.
With Mangione, there is one person singularly and unambiguously responsible. That makes meting out punishment easy. With a hack, the hackers are obviously responsible. But we haven’t found them. After that, IT at UHC? Who? Are they civilly liable, or criminally?
I think you'd enjoy talking on this topic with a professional ethicist - they exist (although surely an endagered species), we had one at our last company, brilliant guy to talk to - or listen to a modern seminar on philosophy. Not being snarky.
If one is ambiguous, so is the other, of course. And you probably know this as well, having applied this logic many times in your daily life.
Let's suppose that Luigi gets the death penalty. Is the person who administers it solely responsible for this "murder"?
How about if a parent abuses a child in all possible ways since birth. Josef Fritzl is a good example, let's take him, you can look him up if you're not familiar though it's a harrowing read. Suppose his daughter murdered him afterwards. Is she "solely and unambiguously responsible" much more so than, say, the hackers, or IT at UHC?
This isn't clear cut whatsoever.
> Are they civilly liable, or criminally?
Now you're talking law, which is a whole different discussion, and I never brought up. You're probably aware that the whole premise of the support behind Luigi is that US law as it is currently applied has enormous issues, so arguing what is and isn't law is not a productive avenue in the first place. I also find it not very interesting, but I'm sure e.g. certain lawyers would.
Not really. Criminal and moral respopnsibility aren't the same, and we don't necessarily want them to be the same--that's why we hold the former to a high standard (e.g. innocent until proven guilty).
> Is she "solely and unambiguously responsible" much more so than, say, the hackers, or IT at UHC
Yes, she is solely and unambiguously responsible for the crime and so should be punished. There is ambiguous and shared responsibility for the offence, but that doesn't mean everyone who slighted her should be punished--that's why these are usefully distinct questions.
> Now you're talking law, which is a whole different discussion, and I never brought up
You brought up "zero consequences for anyone responsible." Brian Thompson is dead, so that's N = 1 consequences. But you said zero. Which means you're presumably talking about lawful consequences.
> You brought up "zero consequences for anyone responsible." Brian Thompson is dead, so that's N = 1 consequences. But you said zero. Which means you're presumably talking about lawful consequences.
I did not bring that up, I brought up more, including
> Luigi proven right once again
Which means "Without doing what he did, there would have been zero consequences".
I also just brought this up, which is context you'll definitely be aware of, meaning it's even less likely anyone would be talking about law in this context:
> You're probably aware that the whole premise of the support behind Luigi is that US law as it is currently applied has enormous issues, so arguing what is and isn't law is not a productive avenue in the first place.
I don't think that in good faith, given the context and the entirety of my comment, you could reasonably come to the conclusion I was talking about law.
