I'm not saying this is a good outcome for the public, but perhaps it's legally the correct one. In order to say that Southwest should not be able to prohibit this activity, you have to either claim clickwrap terms of service are not a legitimate contract at all (something that would have far reaching consequences and at least isn't obviously correct), or come up with a consistent set of guidelines or framework of reasoning for why some obligations should be enforceable and others should not. It's satisfying to say "they shouldn't be able to do that!" but much harder to explain why.
True, if you expect the seller to lie to you then it's a problem.
I'd say it's wise to assume the seller may be at least shading the truth.
But, if you want actual working knowledge of the property then the only thing you can really rely on is the person currently living there.
Not quite true since there are property inspections. And there are some disclosures that are required by law, with penalties for false answers. Anything outside of those I would not put too much weight on.
The point is, the rules introduced above seem to only relate to the current occupant telling you what they currently have, so that should be a good indicator of what's possible.
I would have thought so too until I read comments such as this:
Whether or not you have the same availability from a different ISP to the one they currently use is a problem related to the lack of LLU, etc.
Yeah we need that badly in the US.
the seller can't possibly tell you what experience you would have with a service they don't use.
No, but that other ISP should be able to, and there should be consequences for them for lying to you about it (a different issue than what this story is about).
Generally, service drops - from the curb to the house, basically - have been installed at the builders' or customers' expense since forever.
And that's fine if that's what is advertised. In other words if you call up and they tell you we can serve that address but it will cost you $10,000 to get it installed, fine. At least you know what you're getting into. If they just say yes, we serve that address then they should be on the hook for it IMO.
I'm also for repeal of the universal service fee since there is no universal service mandate any longer.
Agreed, it's just giving them money to do nothing.
I guess open source OSes come with a license agreement, but unless you're modifying the source it amounts to "do whatever you want", so it's not comparable to the agreements for closed services and software.
Re: Only so much you can simplify 'Our house our rules'
it's likely to be something along the lines of 'you use our service at our discretion, and while we have rules we reserve the right to show you the door for any reason we think of that doesn't violate the law'
There's a lot more to terms of service than that though, such as what data is collected, and what can be done with it.
I would prefer a law stating that if an ISP tells you an address is served, then they are required to install the promised service at that address at their expense upon request. That would get them to stop lying about what addresses they will serve. But this is something.
If they do, then why are you not getting details of the ISP, speed, etc. from them while you're researching the other utilities?
Getting details from whom? The seller? The seller's agent? The ISP? They can just lie, unless there's a regulation like this one requiring them to provide the information. The home inspector? I doubt they're equipped to assess that.
There is no such thing as encryption that can only be decoded by the recipient.
There's one exception, and that is one-time pad encryption. However, that is cumbersome and very difficult to do correctly.
Encryption only 'encodes' data.
No, encoding and encryption are fundamentally different processes, because encoding and decoding requires no key. It serves a completely different purpose than encryption.
While your phone is locked, the contents are encrypted.
If your phone has that feature, and you have it enabled.
Not this time. This time he's saying that this law would, sooner or later, wind up punishing someone doing their best to correctly inform the public about a medical situation. What do you think he got wrong about it?
But where was the lie? N95s would have been ideal, but did Fauci lie when he said they weren't absolutely necessary?
He didn't just say N95s are not necessary, he said masks were not recommended. And later he admitted that he said it not because he thought it was true, but because he was afraid people would hoard masks, keeping them away from health workers. So that was a lie.
On the post: Data Privacy Is The Price Of The Latest Antitrust Proposals
Re:
It moved out of committee; it hasn't been passed by Congress.
On the post: Court Says That Travel Company Can't Tell Others How Much Southwest Flights Cost
Terms
I'm not saying this is a good outcome for the public, but perhaps it's legally the correct one. In order to say that Southwest should not be able to prohibit this activity, you have to either claim clickwrap terms of service are not a legitimate contract at all (something that would have far reaching consequences and at least isn't obviously correct), or come up with a consistent set of guidelines or framework of reasoning for why some obligations should be enforceable and others should not. It's satisfying to say "they shouldn't be able to do that!" but much harder to explain why.
On the post: Why U.S. Robocall Hell Seemingly Never Ends
Re: Re: Scammers = minority? I doubt it.
Not to be too snarky, but minority means less than half, so that is a minority. Also a plurality.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say it's wise to assume the seller may be at least shading the truth.
Not quite true since there are property inspections. And there are some disclosures that are required by law, with penalties for false answers. Anything outside of those I would not put too much weight on.
I would have thought so too until I read comments such as this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20220104/09343048227/new-washington-law-requires-home-seller s-disclose-lack-broadband-access.shtml#c181
Yeah we need that badly in the US.
No, but that other ISP should be able to, and there should be consequences for them for lying to you about it (a different issue than what this story is about).
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re:
You mean services such as Facebook or iTunes or AWS would not be allowed to have terms of service? I don't see that happening.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re: Better
And that's fine if that's what is advertised. In other words if you call up and they tell you we can serve that address but it will cost you $10,000 to get it installed, fine. At least you know what you're getting into. If they just say yes, we serve that address then they should be on the hook for it IMO.
Agreed, it's just giving them money to do nothing.
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re: Re: Envisioning
I guess open source OSes come with a license agreement, but unless you're modifying the source it amounts to "do whatever you want", so it's not comparable to the agreements for closed services and software.
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re: Envisioning
Or 13 someones.
https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Re: Only so much you can simplify 'Our house our rules'
There's a lot more to terms of service than that though, such as what data is collected, and what can be done with it.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Better
I would prefer a law stating that if an ISP tells you an address is served, then they are required to install the promised service at that address at their expense upon request. That would get them to stop lying about what addresses they will serve. But this is something.
On the post: New Washington Law Requires Home Sellers Disclose Lack Of Broadband Access
Re: Re: Re:
Getting details from whom? The seller? The seller's agent? The ISP? They can just lie, unless there's a regulation like this one requiring them to provide the information. The home inspector? I doubt they're equipped to assess that.
On the post: UK Government Apparently Hoping It Can Regulate End-To-End Encryption Out Of Existence
Re: Re: really wonder
There's one exception, and that is one-time pad encryption. However, that is cumbersome and very difficult to do correctly.
No, encoding and encryption are fundamentally different processes, because encoding and decoding requires no key. It serves a completely different purpose than encryption.
If your phone has that feature, and you have it enabled.
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
Re: Seller beware
That's easy. With campaign contributions. There are very few lobbyists on the other side of this issue.
On the post: University Of Hong Kong Wants To Remove A Sculpture Commemorating Tiananmen; To Preserve It, People Have Crowdsourced A Digital 3D Replica
Re:
I suppose these protestors were just resting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/q7w855/bicycles_and_bodies_of_chinese_protest ors_strewn/
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Memo to Dems
Not this time. This time he's saying that this law would, sooner or later, wind up punishing someone doing their best to correctly inform the public about a medical situation. What do you think he got wrong about it?
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Memo to Dems
I disagree. It's hyperbole, but the basic thrust of the argument is correct.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't just say N95s are not necessary, he said masks were not recommended. And later he admitted that he said it not because he thought it was true, but because he was afraid people would hoard masks, keeping them away from health workers. So that was a lie.
https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus
On the post: Parody Post About Sega Suing Its Fans Perfectly Lampoons Nintendo
Tack
Tack, not tact.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/do-you-change-tack-or-tact
On the post: ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The claim wasn't that he continued Trump's policies, but that he promised to do so during the campaign.
On the post: It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier)
Re: Re: 'No fair, only we're allowed to break that deal!'
But with it they also got "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Next >>