Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

They're already facing anticompetitive scrutiny. Retaliation would have tipped the political scales.


sort by: page size:

Hope they got fined by competent regulators

Indeed, and it's a fine line between "the cost of doing business" and ruining a large company over the decisions by a few people. Would probably have been better to go after the people at the top than fining the company..

Are they going after the companies that were paying the kickbacks? They’re just as, if not more, culpable

commercial pressure should have been the liability exposure they find themselves in now.

They would deserve credit if they acted against their best interests by making it known what was going on at the time, but they knew they were benefiting from lower than otherwise salaries due to the collusion.

Can’t really blame them for that given the reaction. You can blame them for taking those contracts in the first place.

They could have blamed the SEC, and the users would have hated the SEC instead of them.

This is what amazes me. Given this exact thing has happened in the past and resulted in public humiliation of the companies involved, how did they not notice this? Why didn’t they check for it?

So they knew they had to apologize for what they were about to do and did it anyway? Not sure what to think other than to avoid such companies altogether.

Victim blaming is generally reprehensible. Further, I imagine that as a nascent business the notion that competitors would be so unethical didn't seem to be a top priority.

Is it obvious now that they should have caught it? Yeah, thanks to the brilliance of hindsight of course it is. Does that justify it? Hardly.


Are you suggesting they knowingly mitigated risk without any attempt to redirect the PR backlash, or the government investigation that would result?

That doesn't seem like something that would happen.


This type of reaction just reinforces bad behavior by the people leading these companies. They'll continue running a shady business and screwing people because they figure nobody will bother confronting them about it.

And if SDGE did not do an investigation, what consequences would they face from the shrieking hordes of twitter taking offense on other people's behalf?

By now it should be well known that most companies are spineless when facing bad publicity, even of the manufactured variety...


"A company did something bad. Let's hurt them by continuing to give them revenue."

Well put. I'm guessing there were no consequences, other than to lower your already low opinion of the company?

I'm not an expert in this area, but was interested in that story when it happened. Reading commentary from others in the industry suggested that they were, at best, naive in their handling of that contract. Yes charging them was a political act to save face, but they put themselves in that position through ignorance. Quite a different situation from a reporter and responsible disclosure in my opinion.

Their gross negligence and subsequent stonewalling should have earned them a penalty, not a 20% bonus.

I would have thought "bringing the company into disrepute" would have been enough.

Oh noes, pissing off abusive regimes to make a few bucks more, I'd say they deserve all they get and should have been part of their business risk assessment.
next

Legal | privacy