That’s because big businesses are hugely protected in multiple ways.
First of all, if you or even your government opens a case against them, they will have large and talented legal teams capable of shutting down or at the very least delaying indefinitely most cases against them.
Second of all, they are usually huge lobbyists for all major parties in most countries they operate in. That is, they are effectively able to buy access to legislation and protection against them.
But third, and the final protection is that even if a case is opened against them, even if it has criminal ramifications with jail time, they will use one of the following to ensure those at the top stay safe.
1: You cannot prosecute a company beyond fines. Fines to a rich company just become a new line in their COGS report.
2: If they are pushed to find someone to prosecute, they will find some operational level sacrificial lamb to throw under the bus. “The buck stops here” doesn’t mean at the top. It means at anyone they can sucker into taking the fall.
So, why should they care? What can any of us do about it?
You know if government is pissed enough, they can make a law that fines Google a suitable amount. And prevent them from using the land they cleared, and even prevent them from building data centers in Finland at all.
The idea that these giant companies are more powerful than a country is a joke. Of course they aren’t, but government can use that way of thinking as an excuse.
Well, they can create a law to properly fine such things in the future. If current law doesn’t allow imposing a proper fine, it’s not possible to amend in a way that allows fining after that.
At least in Finland you can only get punished according to the law that was in place when you did the act. Not any laws that were passed later. AFAIK the same is true in the US as well.
I don’t know how it goes in the US, but in Finland the concept of lex praevia is set in the Finnish constitution.
Section 8
Principle of legality in criminal law
No one shall be held guilty of a criminal offence or be sentenced to a punishment on account of an act that did not constitute a criminal offence under law at the time when it was committed. The punishment imposed for an offence shall not be more severe than that provided by law at the time of commission of the offence.
While the Finnish constitution is not set in stone, and can indeed be amended via a supermajority, there’s practically no government that would actually allow that kind of change to legislation. It’s obvious to anyone what breaking said principle would mean and strive for, and doing so would require at least four different parties to agree.
Sure. Now tell me how often that happens? I never said a government couldn’t stop it. I made it clear that these companies have the governments in their pockets. The government could stop it, but they won’t. They like the money these corporations give them, far more than they like us.
That’s because big businesses are hugely protected in multiple ways.
First of all, if you or even your government opens a case against them, they will have large and talented legal teams capable of shutting down or at the very least delaying indefinitely most cases against them. Second of all, they are usually huge lobbyists for all major parties in most countries they operate in. That is, they are effectively able to buy access to legislation and protection against them. But third, and the final protection is that even if a case is opened against them, even if it has criminal ramifications with jail time, they will use one of the following to ensure those at the top stay safe. 1: You cannot prosecute a company beyond fines. Fines to a rich company just become a new line in their COGS report. 2: If they are pushed to find someone to prosecute, they will find some operational level sacrificial lamb to throw under the bus. “The buck stops here” doesn’t mean at the top. It means at anyone they can sucker into taking the fall.
So, why should they care? What can any of us do about it?
Luigi
Creepy use of AI.
You know if government is pissed enough, they can make a law that fines Google a suitable amount. And prevent them from using the land they cleared, and even prevent them from building data centers in Finland at all.
The idea that these giant companies are more powerful than a country is a joke. Of course they aren’t, but government can use that way of thinking as an excuse.
Well, they can create a law to properly fine such things in the future. If current law doesn’t allow imposing a proper fine, it’s not possible to amend in a way that allows fining after that.
At least in Finland you can only get punished according to the law that was in place when you did the act. Not any laws that were passed later. AFAIK the same is true in the US as well.
False, it’s just not customary.
I don’t know how it goes in the US, but in Finland the concept of lex praevia is set in the Finnish constitution.
While the Finnish constitution is not set in stone, and can indeed be amended via a supermajority, there’s practically no government that would actually allow that kind of change to legislation. It’s obvious to anyone what breaking said principle would mean and strive for, and doing so would require at least four different parties to agree.
Good thing the goverment is right wing corporate people. They’ll surely get very pissed off.
Sure. Now tell me how often that happens? I never said a government couldn’t stop it. I made it clear that these companies have the governments in their pockets. The government could stop it, but they won’t. They like the money these corporations give them, far more than they like us.
This is true it doesn’t, but it’s not because the government doesn’t have the power, my point is they choose not to do it.
Exactly.
That i can remember only Iceland after the 2008 housing crisis did anything.
Good on them I say. I wish people were the focus of government more.