In Germany they decided to make the EPA (electronic medical record) opt-out starting by 2024. Managed by "gematik GmbH", a company with limited liability. Because why should the entity responsible for all medical records have some liability. It is a joke, a bad one.
> I think it doesn't really matter in what form the government appears. It's still the government and so its rules apply.
If it's a "limited company", that means it's liability is limited to shareholder capital. It's going to have to have an awful lot of capital if it's going to be able to compensate the entire population for mishandling their data.
Also, if it's a limited company, then the shareholders can sell their shares; the company can change hands, often to owners in a different jurisdiction.
A limited company is not an arm of the government, and I can't hold a limited company accountable in the same way I can the government; especially if my personal data has left the jurisdiction.
Leasts
on the Judgment of the First Senate of February 22, 2011
- 1 BvR 699/06 -
Mixed-economy enterprises controlled by the public sector in private-law form are subject to a direct fundamental-rights obligation in the same way as wholly state-owned public enterprises organized in private-law forms.
Limited Liability is a GREAT thing. It allows us to build businesses that serve society that we wouldn't otherwise. Would you start a company or invest in one if you could lose all your personal wealth? Few would.
Most companies are limited liability. All companies that would bid on project would be limited liability. Why do you think this project is special enough that the owners should be liable?
Also, LLC in US is kind of company. It is mostly used for small sole proprietorships and partnerships. Technically, public companies are “limited by shares” where shareholders are liable up to value of their shares. But there is no difference in terms of protecting owners from liability so they are called limited liability.
Why not? As long as they don't do anything that causes harm then the company isn't in danger. If they think it's likely they would cause harm, well then obviously they shouldn't exist.
The potential liability for any company is big enough that limited liability is necessary. No one would start company if they could lose all their assets not just ones invested in company.
Are people confused that limited liability limits the liability of the company? Because limited liability means that the liability of the owners is limited to their investment. The company can go bankrupt from losing lawsuit.
For certain things the individual owners shouldn't be shielded from liability. Medical privacy is one of those.
Otherwise you end up with people who can create as many harmful businesses as they want and just walk away when it explodes, ignoring everyone caught in the shrapnel. I'm 1000x more concerned about the effects of harmful companies than whatever friction it creates for starting new companies. Everything already moves too fast, it would be far preferable to have fewer corporations if it meant they were of higher ethical behavior.
Limited Liability is a double-edged sword. It does reduce the risk of starting a company. But it reduces some mechanisms to protect society from misbehaving companies.
They don't even say how to opt-out.