Slashdot Mirror
Should Burger King Be Prosecuted For Their Google Home-Triggering Ads? (washingtonpost.com)
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein thinks Burger King should be prosecuted for
successfully running an alternate version of its advertisement to trigger Google Home devices again Wednesday:
Someone -- or more likely a bunch of someones -- at Burger King and their advertising agency need to be arrested, tried, and spend some time in shackles and prison cells. They've likely been violating state and federal cybercrime laws with their obnoxious ad campaign... For example, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act broadly prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization... Burger King has instantly become the 'poster child' for mass, criminal abuse of these devices... It was a direct and voluntary violation of law.
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology. BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Yes... because so many people were directly impacted with this advertising stunt?
Real monetary loss via a television-home automation transaction:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/health/amazon-alexa-dollhouse-trnd/index.html
http://www.cw6sandiego.com/news-anchor-sets-off-alexa-devices-around-san-diego-ordering-unwanted-dollhouses/
Federal cybercrime laws? You think our nation should spend time on this.. and not *real* cybercrime that directly impacts the wallet of U.S. citizens? This is incredibly laughable.. and likely tied to an r-tard in their mom's basement. There are real incidents of cybercrime that have monetary impact that this stupid but mostly innocent advertisement doesn't.
Grow up Lauren.
Nothing surreptitious here. He (stupidly) publishes this right on his "blog." (I use the term "blog" loosely. It's more like a website chock full of examples of a middle-aged SJW melting down)
Nothing surreptitious here. He publishes this on his website:
Contact information:
Lauren Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Email: lauren@vortex.com
Twitter: @laurenweinstein
Google+: Lauren Weinstein
Nope. United's Contact of Carriage explicitly lists the conditions where they can remove a seated customer without consent, and none of those apply. They contacted away their right to declare the passenger as a trespasser.
Moreover, the airport police were not acting within the scope of their police duties at the time. They were instead acting as agents of United, and as such, the principal (United) shares responsibilities for their actions.