[emdowling]

> The fact that they were both unpunished for finding loopholes in employment law

Why should companies or people be punished for finding and using loopholes? By definition, loopholes are perfectly legal. They may be against the spirit of the law, but they are still legal.

[AussieWog93]

>Why should companies or people be punished for finding and using loopholes?

You answered it yourself. They're against the spirit of the law.

In any other circumstance where rules or obligations are enforced, exploiting loopholes is completely unacceptable behaviour.

(To clarify, I'm not arguing that the judge made the wrong decision in this particular case. Instead, I don't think this type of behaviour should be tolerated by the system at all.)

[nostrebored]

Now it’s the responsibility of people to judge the spirit of sets of laws? It’s not enough to navigate the spaghetti of modern legislation, you have to rationalize the intent across several strands and ensure that you’re following it?

No, your lawmakers made overly complex, bad laws.

[robertlagrant]

> You answered it yourself. They're against the spirit of the law.

This is not right. If the spirit of the law is obvious, write it down.

Otherwise you're just advocating for people having to know the letter of the law (even when paying more money is against the spirit of the law, that will not matter; only when it's about paying less money), and the spirit of the law, whatever that is.

If a state's only job in this regard is to write down some rules that let it get free money from workers, it should take responsibility for writing the rules down properly.

[mytailorisrich]

In a system based on the rule of law the only way to make people stop using loopholes is to close them by changing the law. People are entitled to do what's in their best interest by staying within the law to the limit. If the issue is one of interpretation of the law then courts are there to decide.

[chii]

> They're against the spirit of the law.

and if you're against the spirit, but find a loophole? you do not technically break the law, and achieve your objectives.

The law maker is at fault, if there are loop holes.

[midasuni]

Same reason people breaking into a website using a bug should be punished. The bug shouldn’t be there, and if you find the bug and do a responsible disclosure that should be fine, but to ezploit the bug for your own gain is not ok.

[lethologica]

But it’s still not illegal, which means it’s legal, which means it’s perfectly acceptable to do.

[lordnacho]

It wouldn't be called a loophole if it was legitimate. Loophole implies there's some kind of something wrong with it. The fact that you can't quite point out what it is is what makes it a loophole.

[nostrebored]

It absolutely would be. Labeling things as loopholes is politically motivated. It also absolves lawmakers of the responsibility to create functional laws when they can label people who follow them abusive.

[Retric]

Loopholes are legal in theory but not necessarily in practice. They could have just as easily ruled that the use of a private truck requires compensation on top of pay.

[bennysomething]

If you declare loop holes some how illegal you introduce arbitrary judgement.

[AniseAbyss]

Because we live in a society. Illegals sub contracting delivery vans, delivery drivers using their kids as free labor.

The whole industry is screwed. And I'm a hypocrite because I order stuff online as well.

[lenkite]

> By definition, loopholes are perfectly legal. They may be against the spirit of the law, but they are still legal

As long as you can bribe - oops sorry I meant donate to your local politician(s) to keep these 'perfectly legal' laws intact...

[gre345t34]

Why should hackers be prosecuted for using systems as they're programmed?