>But yeah, you can't really expect corporate ethics or laws to protect you.
Sure, in a general sense you can't expect human morality or police to protect you all the time either. Do you just assume everyone you meet is a violent pathological criminal? That would be a very paranoid point of view to maintain.
The point of the law and in particular this ruling is to be enough of a deterrent to dissuade most actors from doing something bad, thus giving you some level of protection.
Cynics look at these types of cases and conclude like you have, that laws and ethics won't protect you. But if we never saw these types of cases come up it would be more likely that no one is enforcing the law, not that everyone is obeying it.
Sure, in a general sense you can't expect human morality or police to protect you all the time either. Do you just assume everyone you meet is a violent pathological criminal? That would be a very paranoid point of view to maintain.
The point of the law and in particular this ruling is to be enough of a deterrent to dissuade most actors from doing something bad, thus giving you some level of protection.
Cynics look at these types of cases and conclude like you have, that laws and ethics won't protect you. But if we never saw these types of cases come up it would be more likely that no one is enforcing the law, not that everyone is obeying it.