No, actually the judge has it just right...just right in line with current consumer law. If your room gets burgled, guess what? You're on your own buddy; it's your loss. The hotel won't have to pay and the judge won't either.
The hotels wanted it that way, so they didn't have to pay for people's stuff burgled because they used poor quality locks and skipped such "superfluities" as security.
Now the hotels have been "burgled" by Onity and (Surprise!) Onity doesn't have to pay for the hotels' loss. What goes around comes around.
Rights are often mutually exclusive, and the deletion of one Right often implies the creation of another.
Right 1: Right of an employee to be safe at work. Right 2: Right of an employer to subject an employee to death risk. These are mutually exclusive rights, but balanced: If Right 1 does not exist, then the Right 2 well might.
Consider the fireman mentioned above. His job is inherently dangerous and he cedes a portion of his Right 1 to do that job. Does that mean in turn that WE, as his employers have a Right to EXPECT that he die? Do WE have a Right to give him less than the best protection we can? If we assume Right 1 exists, then the answer is, "No," to both questions.
But if Right 1 does not exist, then it should be clear that WE, the fireman's employers, have a Right to answer, "Yes!" to both questions.
And yet the author of this piece asserts, "No one has the 'right' to make it through work safely." This is the same as asserting that Right 1 does not exist. ("Get in there and die, fireman, without any safety equipment.")
So the author's assertion should offend every employee.
For 50 years, companies have been fighting consumer law in every avenue; fighting to establish their "right" to sell whatever crap they want, to consumers.
Now, it returns to bite them. Now the companies are getting the crap, and finding out that the laws they so determinedly gutted are now useless to protect their own interests.
This isn't the first time this happened and it wont't be the last: Remember the China companies selling adulterated wheat gluten to the pet food companies? Same thing.
Throughout history, one of the biggest difficulties in eliminating inhumanity has been the apologists: Those people/organizations who say, "I'm sure they meant well when they tortured/oppressed/'genocided'."
It's sad to see the fourth estate continue to apologize when even the inhumane say they have done wrong.
So, if you won't agree to this modest permanent agreement, well then just agree to this other interim agreement that contains all the same modest terms. Then we'll just sort of let the interim agreement drift into permanence.
"But the statement made by (why?) the county's school resource officer seems to indicate this response was perfectly justified. Resource officer Mike Drake said "multiple agencies" received calls about Evan's post."
Sir, could you please list all those agencies right now?
I seriously doubt if Makhoul actually knows what "cyber terrorist" really means; but it sounds good to him. It sounds like a term that should decide the future treatment of a "G*****ned competitor" that is stealing his rightful, entitled profits.
Given the name of his cab company, Liberty Bell Cabs, I'm willing to bet he claims to be a libertarian who spouts continuously about how government is destroying good American companies, regulating them out of existence, preventing them from achieving maximum free market profit.
But as is so often the case for "libertarians", they're all for free market...right up until the free market starts stepping on their personal profits. Then the facist comes out and we find out the "libertarian" only favors a free market for themselves.
This really is not a revelation, and it's tiring to keep pointing out that we knew they were lying anyway. It's so much easier to simply assume that whatever they can do, they will do.
No restraint, no rules, no respect, no boundaries; and always, always, always more lies. They don't even bother to do good lies; half the time you can read the truth from between the lines of the lies they spout.
It's like the Monty Python Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink script: They just nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we all know what they are doing and they know we know, but plausible deniability in the form of yet another lie is their only answer.
There's something odd about that statement: If NYPD has to send its top cops to school to learn common sense...well, what hope do we have of common sense from its lower cops?
I think it is a great idea for IV to actually start making products based on those patents. Then it can be sued by some other troll; and take a walk on the wild side.
Why would you think this company would care about Visa and MasterCard rules, any more than it does about customer service?
Oh, yes, in theory credit card companies would terminate a card agreement if a company violate their rules, or violates the law. But I've noticed that actual terminations occur in practice only if the government doesn't like a company: perhaps because it might possibly be violating IP laws; or because it is publishing leaked government documents.
In practice those rules are only used for political punishment. (Equivalent to a "political prisoner" status.)
This company might abuse the daylights out of its customers, even rip them off, but that's just good old American business and not a justification for political penury.
I wonder if this was a police-initiated swatting, which I dub "auto-swatting".
In 1990, or thereabouts, police came to my house saying someone had called from my number and complained about being abused. They wanted to look around and pressed me to give them permission to enter (I was more naive then, so I did).
I've since reached the conclusion that this was a made-up excuse for a Fourth Amendment violation; if there was a call, they made it themselves. (Which I have since seen described as a standard police trick to justify an illegal search.)
So, on the possibility of auto-swatting: Could the police have initiated this SWAT themselves, pretending there is a caller, so that they could detain Mr. Mathewson and search his phone?
It'll be interesting to see if anyone is actually arrested for the swatting. If it was an auto-swatting, I would expect to see no arrest.
On the post: CIA's John Brennan Refuses To Tell Senate Who Okayed Spying On The Senate
Treat CIA like kids
On the post: TSA Not Sure If It Groped Man Before Flight, Demands To Grope Him After Flight Is Over
Intimidation
To protect passengers, searches must be conducted before flight, but intimidation can be done anytime.
So if TSA stops passengers after flight, it must be about intimidation; otherwise we would have to assume TSA be searching charred remains.
On the post: Onity Wins: Hotels That Bought Their Easily-Hacked Door Lock Can't Sue According To Court
Re:
The hotels wanted it that way, so they didn't have to pay for people's stuff burgled because they used poor quality locks and skipped such "superfluities" as security.
Now the hotels have been "burgled" by Onity and (Surprise!) Onity doesn't have to pay for the hotels' loss. What goes around comes around.
On the post: Seattle Cops Crowdsourcing Legal Battle Against DOJ-Imposed Excessive Force Remedies
Re: Re: Clarification, please
Right 1: Right of an employee to be safe at work. Right 2: Right of an employer to subject an employee to death risk. These are mutually exclusive rights, but balanced: If Right 1 does not exist, then the Right 2 well might.
Consider the fireman mentioned above. His job is inherently dangerous and he cedes a portion of his Right 1 to do that job. Does that mean in turn that WE, as his employers have a Right to EXPECT that he die? Do WE have a Right to give him less than the best protection we can? If we assume Right 1 exists, then the answer is, "No," to both questions.
But if Right 1 does not exist, then it should be clear that WE, the fireman's employers, have a Right to answer, "Yes!" to both questions.
And yet the author of this piece asserts, "No one has the 'right' to make it through work safely." This is the same as asserting that Right 1 does not exist. ("Get in there and die, fireman, without any safety equipment.")
So the author's assertion should offend every employee.
On the post: Onity Wins: Hotels That Bought Their Easily-Hacked Door Lock Can't Sue According To Court
Is this a surprise?
Now, it returns to bite them. Now the companies are getting the crap, and finding out that the laws they so determinedly gutted are now useless to protect their own interests.
This isn't the first time this happened and it wont't be the last: Remember the China companies selling adulterated wheat gluten to the pet food companies? Same thing.
On the post: Reuters Tries To Explain Away Its Refusal To Call Torture 'Torture'
Omission
On the post: Seattle Cops Crowdsourcing Legal Battle Against DOJ-Imposed Excessive Force Remedies
Clarification, please
So an employer has a right to expect an employee to die, at work.
I kind of get what you were trying to say, but this was positively not the way to say it.
On the post: Reuters Downplays CIA Torture As Merely 'Physically Stressful Interrogation Techniques'
Apologists
It's sad to see the fourth estate continue to apologize when even the inhumane say they have done wrong.
On the post: Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'
Snappy response
On the post: California Outlaws Consumer-Silencing Non-Disparagement Clauses
Good start
Also, I think it needs some protections for outright libel: There's a difference between legitimate complaints and libelous statements.
On the post: TAFTA/TTIP In Trouble? EU Suggests Settling For Less-Ambitious 'Interim Agreement'
Back door
What? Sneaking in the back door? No, not us!
On the post: Heavy Metal Lyrics Posted To Facebook Result In Arrest For Terrorist Threats
We're waiting
Sir, could you please list all those agencies right now?
On the post: New Orleans Cab Company Owner Calls Uber A 'Cyber-Terrorist Group'
Given the name of his cab company, Liberty Bell Cabs, I'm willing to bet he claims to be a libertarian who spouts continuously about how government is destroying good American companies, regulating them out of existence, preventing them from achieving maximum free market profit.
But as is so often the case for "libertarians", they're all for free market...right up until the free market starts stepping on their personal profits. Then the facist comes out and we find out the "libertarian" only favors a free market for themselves.
On the post: New Intercept Leak Shows That Intelligence Agencies Are Ready And Willing To Perform Economic Espionage If US Tech Edge 'Slips'
Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink
No restraint, no rules, no respect, no boundaries; and always, always, always more lies. They don't even bother to do good lies; half the time you can read the truth from between the lines of the lies they spout.
It's like the Monty Python Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink script: They just nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we all know what they are doing and they know we know, but plausible deniability in the form of yet another lie is their only answer.
On the post: The Miraculous Works Of The Criminal Justice System
"He shot himself 4 times in the back of the head; and every shot was instantly fatal. Obvious suicide."
And in the case of Threatt: I don't know why they call it a hearing, because the judge clearly wasn't hearing Threatt's attorney.
I can't wait to hear the argument about whether or not Threatt's incarceration on the date of the crime is admissible as defense evidence.
On the post: NYPD Sending Their Best Cops To Twitter School To Learn All About Common Sense
Is that right?
Explains a few things...
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Tries To Rewrite The Script, Pretends The Plan Was Always About Making Stuff, Not Trolling
Wild side
On the post: City Of London Police Issue Vague, Idiotic Warning To Registrars That They're Engaged In Criminal Behavior Because It Says So
So?
On the post: Another Online Retailer Thinks It Can Charge Customers For Complaining; Now Facing Lawsuit In New York
Re:
Oh, yes, in theory credit card companies would terminate a card agreement if a company violate their rules, or violates the law. But I've noticed that actual terminations occur in practice only if the government doesn't like a company: perhaps because it might possibly be violating IP laws; or because it is publishing leaked government documents.
In practice those rules are only used for political punishment. (Equivalent to a "political prisoner" status.)
This company might abuse the daylights out of its customers, even rip them off, but that's just good old American business and not a justification for political penury.
On the post: Counter-Strike Player's Twitch Stream Captures His Own SWATting... And Some Questionable Police Behavior
Auto-swatting
In 1990, or thereabouts, police came to my house saying someone had called from my number and complained about being abused. They wanted to look around and pressed me to give them permission to enter (I was more naive then, so I did).
I've since reached the conclusion that this was a made-up excuse for a Fourth Amendment violation; if there was a call, they made it themselves. (Which I have since seen described as a standard police trick to justify an illegal search.)
So, on the possibility of auto-swatting: Could the police have initiated this SWAT themselves, pretending there is a caller, so that they could detain Mr. Mathewson and search his phone?
It'll be interesting to see if anyone is actually arrested for the swatting. If it was an auto-swatting, I would expect to see no arrest.
Next >>