It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. More and more frequently we're seeing profits take precedence over privacy and customers, and I don't think that would have been possible as a bottom-up change coming from coders.
No, this change came from the top, and coming from the top it spread to the tops of other companies like wildfire.
Also, I have no hesitations about throwing lawyers under the bus as well. They're the front line in the battle that these companies are waging against, what are often times paying customers, never mind that they're paying customers too and that they're ruining the future for our and their own children.
What, you think it's just a matter of perspective and a lawyer sees things differently than I do? Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul.
It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits.
No, it's the suit's job to run the company in the interest of the shareholders. That is not the same thing as 'maximize profits at all costs' (such as, at the cost of future litigation that will exceed the instant profit). This idea that if an opportunity for profit exists, the management is legally obliged to seize it is widespread, but without foundation. Otherwise shareholders would sue large firms for not entering hot new markets where the firms' resources would provide a short-term advantage.
Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul.
Yeah, whatever. without the doctrine of corporate personhood, which lawyers are well aware is a different thing from natural personhood, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation for malfeasance in the first place, but would have to try suing the officers of the corporation individually while they gave your legal claim the runaround.
It doesn't, for two reasons. One, it has no particular connection to corporate personhood. Two, a case like that is called a proceeding in rem, which is literally 'against a thing.' It used to be called an 'impersonal' action, but my law dictionary says that term's deprecated.
Proceedings in rem are usually for the purpose of determining whether there's sufficient evidence to decide that a piece of property is a component in or the proceeds of crime, even if nobody has been caught. An example would be a drug bust where the criminals flee but leave behind a brick of cocaine and a suitcase full of cash. The government can't just seize the money and spend it; it has to come up with some objectively reasonable argument for why the valuables would be forfeit.
They do publish details of upcoming hearings in advance, so if you see that the government is trying to keep your stuff and you have a really good explanation for why you should get it back (eg it was stolen but you didn't call it in because you were in a coma following the robbery), then you can turn up at the hearing and get custody back.
I don't think it's so much that people believe corporations have a legal obligation to seize all opportunities for profit, I think it's that many corporations have been behaving in ways that the majority of the population believes is, or should be illegal. The people in charge of these companies are fully aware of the public perception of what they do, but they continue because they know they can get away with it with a few financial donations to some political campaigns here and there.
I don't think the vast majority of corporations do what you suggest. On the whole, IMO most corporations (private and public) contribute to the economy and society without being scoundrels.
It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. More and more frequently we're seeing profits take precedence over privacy and customers, and I don't think that would have been possible as a bottom-up change coming from coders. No, this change came from the top, and coming from the top it spread to the tops of other companies like wildfire.
Also, I have no hesitations about throwing lawyers under the bus as well. They're the front line in the battle that these companies are waging against, what are often times paying customers, never mind that they're paying customers too and that they're ruining the future for our and their own children. What, you think it's just a matter of perspective and a lawyer sees things differently than I do? Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul.