Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If Alice hires Bob, and Bob sells Alice's information to Charlie, and Charlie makes $2bn out of it, then it seems fair to hold Charlie responsible as well. Otherwise all you're doing is creating a market for sacrificial goats to take the fall while the company making the money gets away clean.


If Charlie doesn't know Bob's information is tainted, all you're doing is punishing the innocent for a crime they didn't commit.


It's called due diligence. The fact that Facebook didn't do it was a factor in the trial.




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

Search: