Chump Change

Jun 27, 2023 12:30 AM

pandajack

Views

2665

Likes

100

Dislikes

14

$4 million is not a penalty. There was something there they didn't want to see the light of day. If the penalty doesn't sting, you are condoning the behaviour.

39

news

current_events

$4 million is a rounding error.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

It's okay, I saved a copy on the same hard drive that houses my debt records. (spread that around so they hear it.)

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The only way to prevent data fiascos is to give back rights to the individual and nullify contracts including language that signs them away.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

WOW, that's .00003 of their 2022 net income! For me, that would be $2.70 of my GROSS income! They must really be hurtin':

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

4 million dollars is a rounding error for JP Morgan

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That will really show em...

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Make it $4b

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

$4m is cheap as fuck to put 47 million emails beyond discovery

3 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

Someone got a big secret bonus

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Fined $4 M, earned $20 B from whatever it was they were hiding. Capitalism!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"Accidentally" deleted evidence.

3 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 1

"Allegedly"

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

And "unnamed archiving vendor" = give us a day or two to invent one to blame.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Why are there furnaces in the accounting department?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

To accidentally destroy evidence?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The shovels and stacks of papers were telling.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This is what many people call "obstruction of justice".

3 years ago | Likes 57 Dislikes 0

Only if you're poor.

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

It's actually called spoliation. Whether you meant to or not, if you had a duty to retain data, the judge can make adverse inferences about what that information contained.

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

For example, if you have a dash camera, and let's say they have evidence you posted dash cam video online every day, and then you get in an accident, and somehow the memory card goes missing, the judge, can instruct a jury, or decide himself, if he believes that the memory card was in the camera at the time of the accident, then whether or not there is evidence that the defendant purposely destroyed it, you can assume what was on that memory card was so damning that it proves your guilt at the

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

highest quantum of proof as if you had seen the video and it definitely showed you causing the accident.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0