Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Tuesday July 08 2014, @02:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the doesn't-constitute-an-endorsement dept.

*Updated: Mr. Guillot AKA yankprintster (4225) responded and is interested in answering some questions. Ask him your questions below in the comments*

B.J. Guillot is one of three candidates currently seeking to represent Washington's 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Guillot is also a reader of SoylentNews. In a recent interview with CoinTelegraph about his enthusiastic support of cryptocurrency, Mr. Guillot was asked "When did you first hear about Bitcoin, and when did you get into it?" He explains that he got turned on to Bitcoin while reading a certain news for nerds site, and then mentions:

Since I have the floor, let me just state for the record, the new Slashdot web design and user experience is really poor. I've since moved on to for my daily science and tech news.

Perhaps Mr. Guillot would be kind enough to answer a few questions about his positions on topics of particular concern to the SN community. I invite him to answer directly in the comments below, or if he would prefer, I will collect and forward the highest-modded comments to Mr. Guillot, and then submit a new story with his responses.

According to his campaign website, Mr. Guillot holds a B.S. in Computer Science and Mathematics, and has software development experience.

The Crypto Crimson reports that while many politicians are "quick to jump on the bitcoin bandwagon" following the U.S. Federal Election Commission's recent opinon declaring that political committes may accept contributions in the form of Bitcoin, unlike these other politicians, Mr. Guillot is an active miner who "currently achiev[es] a hashrate of five Terahash per Second - certainly the fastest bitcoin mining politician".

The top item to appear in the "Issues" section of Mr. Guillot's campaign website is "NSA Spying". Mr. Guillot's stated positon on this issue is: "The Federal Government needs to immediately stop its spying and metadata collection of its citizen's phone calls and emails. It's also time to discontinue the Patriot Act. No more extensions!".

On his campaign website, Mr. Guillot also states his positions on: "Internet Freedom", "Patent Reform", "Bitcoin", "National Debt", "FairTax", "Military", "Second Amendment", "Energy", and "Education".

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @11:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2014, @11:51AM (#65855)

    If a corporation misbehaves badly you should jail the people responsible for the decisions. Then only will you see people in corporations start making decisions differently.

    The problem with this is that the legal fiction of corporation is specifically intended to obscure individual responsibility.

    Example, imagine it's company policy to amputate the left hand of everyone entering one of their stores. In that (ridiculous) case, it's pretty clear that a security guard who actually performs such amputation is criminal, because Nuremberg established that "just following orders" is not a defense. But what about the committee that drafted the policy? Members of the committee who voted against that specific line? The CEO and board of directors, who are nominally responsible for all company actions? Middle management who failed to question the policy?

    If there's no written policy supporting the illegal behavior, then it's very hard to prove that bad actions are not the result of one malicious or fraudulent individual, thus absolving the company of any culpability at all.

    Financial penalties are about all you can meaningfully impose on a company, but the penalties imposed so fare are generally trivial in magnitude. Example, BP has paid about $4B for the Macondo oil spill and may face further payments of $4-24B. Their profit last year was $45B on revenue of $350B. In contrast, fines for drug trafficking, criminal negligence, and other "personal" crimes frequently exceed individual annual revenue, leaving them in debt for years. Impose criminal fines on companies that are more than a small fraction of their profits, more that a trivial percentage of their revenue, and restrict their freedom to pay bonuses, and you will see companies pay more attention to internal ethics and policing.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by TheLink on Tuesday July 08 2014, @02:28PM

    by TheLink (332) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @02:28PM (#65937) Journal
    So the security guard goes to prison then. Most committees are unlikely to directly give orders to security guards, so I'm sure as part of a deal the guard will point a finger to his boss who will also go to prison if there's enough evidence that he did give the illegal order (and for longer if he did threaten to sack the guard).

    The committee may get away with it, the boss might get away but once word gets around that the "corporate veil" is being pierced and bosses, employees and guards risk going to prison rather than only the company getting fined; people would be more likely to refuse to do stuff that might cause them to end up in prison AND/OR get lots of stuff in writing. If I'm part of a committee I might even start making sure that my dissension to dubious/illegal stuff is recorded just in case. Even if committees still issued illegal orders and got away with them, more employees would disobey so companies would be doing less bad stuff (or it costs them more to do so) - I'm not going to go to prison for your illegal order, if you sack me, I might give an anonymous tip somewhere. In contrast if there's little/zero chance of me going to prison, I might be tempted to go along with it and reap the benefits along with everyone else. If the company gets a big fine later on, it's unlikely to affect me as much as going to prison would.

    So I still disagree with your reasoning and conclusion that financial penalties are all you can impose. Once people start going to prison you'll see a change. Till then why the heck should anyone care that much? Companies make losses and go bust every now and then. The people responsible usually get to keep their bonuses from the "good years" where they were doing risky, bad or even illegal stuff.

    If you want to make it fair and maybe more effective you make a big announcement that you're going to start doing this, maybe even require companies to inform employees of these new laws. So when you start putting people in prison, you can say everyone's been warned.