A previous HN discussion, possibly on Equifax now that I think about it, had a comment recommending the book "The Chickenshit Club", about why the justice department doesn't prosecute.
I just finished in it a discussion of Enron and their auditors, Arthur Andersen. The justice department prosecuted Andersen (one of the "big 5" accounting firms at the time), and there was a lot of backlash about the Justice Dept "killing Andersen".
The details of it are that Enron was way crooked, lying to investors and the public saying everything was great, when it wasn't. Andersen audits didn't reveal this, and also was responsible for increasing document shredding from 80lbs/day to >2,000lbs/day in the few days before the SEC subpoena. And this was after Andersen had been shown to be negligent in the auditing of Worldcom, QWest, and Globalcom.
Basically, they recommended fraudulent practices with WorldCom, got caught and said "We promise we will never do that again" and did it again with Enron.
Justice Dept prosecuted, and then there was all this backlash about the prosecution.
So, is prosecution of Equifax likely? Seems like we as a country have trained the government not to.
Second the recommendation for Chickenshit Club (also helps interpret the speed and proceedings of other DOJ cases in play).
Equifax is largely embedded in our business/credit infrastructure and there would be collateral consequences for all of the businesses who would have to change as a result of their punishment/demise. This in no way absolves them from responsibility but DOJ pragmatism towards corporations is they way it goes, for now.
If AWS (for example) experienced some significant breach, would the DOJ and/or the public want them punished out of existence? Execs go to jail vs. large corporate fine? Should punitive damages go towards patching the breach or refunding customers? It's a delicate balance and I'm personally undecided on how to scope the fix, even after reading Chickenshit Club.
The bigger danger here just sounds like size in general.
If AWS maliciously screwed people over in a blatant way and was only 3% of the market, there's a lot less incentive to let them keep on keeping on than if they're 50% of the market.
I think a lot of ills of the current system could be avoided if you had tax penalties or such that scaled aggressively with company size and revenue. Intentionally give up some economies of scale in exchange for flexibility, competitive pressures, and resiliency.
Fine that represents the actual societal harm. If they can't pay it, shut down - fine cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
If the services in question are so essential that the government doesn't want it to shut down, then the government should take it over like they did with Freddie and Fannie
I think you are overestimating their importance. The credit agencies have already pretty much proven to us that they can't accurately rate risk when their fees are on the line.
1775 USA: If we don't like the king, we shouldn't get rid of the monarchy - think of the impacts to the wider society!
2018 USA: If we don't like the executive, we shouldn't get rid of foocorp - think of the impacts to the wider society!
systemic/structural answers to specific problems are rarely the solution, but they sure do help you avoid the cost of dealing with the specific problem..
I think you need to source that backlash. I find it highly likely certain people/groups used their media contacts to push that narrative, but I don't know a single actual person besides some Wall Street types who disagreed with the Andersen prosecution... then to extraplote that to "country have trained the government not to." I think is a mistake.
The DOJ problems are not from the public.. they are lack of internal willpower, among other things. They should be doing their job regardless.
If the people permit the government to be run by corporations, and the corporations rebel against the Andersen decision, who is the source of the backlash?
Well, if Congress and the Administration ever were to really flip (2018, etc...)
It would be wildly unpopular amongst legal scholars, and would itself somewhat threaten the republic.
Nonetheless, as a first order of business, I'd recommend retro-actively eliminating some of the statutes of limitation covering our last few crises.
Then, investigating with full transparency and hanging them out to dry.
And if, really, we can't lift those statutes of limitation, nonetheless forcing such full transparency through aggressive investigation -- and writing laws to support same and hanging those who obstruct in any way, out to dry.
I'm not for micro-managing society through legal action. But, we've selectively enforced basic laws, creating different classes based upon effective legal exposure and risk.
Fundamentally, we've stopped -- to the extent we ever were -- being a society and governance of laws.
I'm more concerned about other economic and power matters, but right now the U.S. is all het up over "immigration". The missing piece in the whole conversation, or particularly "legal enforcement"? Demand. For decades, effectively nothing has been done to those employers who engage in illegal employment.
Which include, by the way, Herr Trump, using and apparently abusing undocumented workers e.g. in his NY construction affairs.
This country, the U.S., is getting to the point of needing a South African type intervention. A truth commission. Because while parts of society feel whole and privileged, it's come with devastating consequences for those who are, after all, supposed to be their fellow citizens.
Just like Puerto Ricans are.
And since we're nowhere near flushing the chickenshits out of government, we have to do the investigation and truth-telling ourselves. And try to bullwark the last bastions for same: The free press and a free Internet.
I just finished in it a discussion of Enron and their auditors, Arthur Andersen. The justice department prosecuted Andersen (one of the "big 5" accounting firms at the time), and there was a lot of backlash about the Justice Dept "killing Andersen".
The details of it are that Enron was way crooked, lying to investors and the public saying everything was great, when it wasn't. Andersen audits didn't reveal this, and also was responsible for increasing document shredding from 80lbs/day to >2,000lbs/day in the few days before the SEC subpoena. And this was after Andersen had been shown to be negligent in the auditing of Worldcom, QWest, and Globalcom.
Basically, they recommended fraudulent practices with WorldCom, got caught and said "We promise we will never do that again" and did it again with Enron.
Justice Dept prosecuted, and then there was all this backlash about the prosecution.
So, is prosecution of Equifax likely? Seems like we as a country have trained the government not to.