Ok, seriously...if you're going to moderate posts, READ THE CONTEXT. I'm tired of being labeled a troll because I make a legitimate reply to an article, some clown comes along with a pithy "RTFA" reply, and when I respond, I get nabbed for it.
Moderators, do your job.
Yet another poster whose "claim" is to simply spout out RTFA.
Anyone have any idea of the feasibility of actually using natural gas to fuel transportation? Yes? No?
I'm willing to bet that in the long run, it's simply not as efficient. Electric cars are great, but they haven't made a major dent in the industry, now have they?
Unfortunately, I do not believe in the slightest that wind energy is going to have a major effect on our dependency on oil. It sounds great for power plants and other things, but it's the automobile sector we really need to worry about.
How can you mod me as a troll when this entire UHC debate got started because people had bones to pick with my example, which was used sarcastically for the actual topic at hand?
Shame on you, moderator. Your karma will come when it's time to meta-moderate:)
Fair enough regarding simply a hard drive failure. But as others have posted, if you're taking your computer in for virus checking, or any software-related issues, guess what....you ARE reviewing, analyzing, and investigating the content of data, aren't you?
As I've clarified in my other reply to your post, doing these activities for finding criminal intent is only ONE of FOUR factors that qualify. As I stated before, I firmly believe that loss of data falls under "loss of property". You may not, and that's fine, but I think it's foolish to summarily tell me that my interpretation of "loss of property" is wildly out of line with this law.
Ask yourself this: if it's so readily apparent that tech companies don't fall under these definitions, why did every single article referenced believe otherwise? And why did every computer company they interviewed feel the same? So magazines have blatantly misinterpreted this law, and companies (surely with lawyers) have misinterpreted this law, but you know for a fact that your interpretation is right.
Actually, the entire LAW is defining who needs a PI license (that is the purpose of this law, correct?). And the quoted sections (which again, you provided), are explicitly stating what qualifies a company as investigatory--in other words, if a company meets these referenced conditions, they DO require a PI license. You seem to be stating that because the law does not reference computer tech companies BY NAME, they don't qualify. But that's the whole purpose of the DEFINITION.
Condition (b) is nothing more than a further definition of what "obtaining or furnishing" means. Nothing more, nothing less. In either case, a computer tech company meets this definition, so you certainly can't say that (b) disqualifies them.
So you're stating that lost data does not constitute "lost property". This is what lawyers are for--to further define these laws (ever notice how laws are always open to interpretation?). Ever heard of software? Ever heard of software companies? Ever heard of software trademarks? You may want to think harder on what the law means regarding "lost property" before so easily declaring that you somehow have a greater interpretation of it than, say, me, or the authors of each of these articles, or the computer repair companies that are quoted in these same articles.
Sure thing. In fact, I'll use the quotes from the relevant sections that you, yourself provided:
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person: (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to: (A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States; (B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person; (C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
With "obtaining or furnishing" defined as:
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
So in defining an "Investigations Company", we have 2 sets of criteria: first, a definition of what "obtaining or furnishing" means, and second, 4 separate actions that qualify as investigatory.
You keep referencing only (A) as the qualifying factor--that is, if you're involved in a criminal investigation. This is only 1 of 4 actions that qualify the company according to this law. Considering points (C) and (D), either of which apply as well, would not recovering lost data or investigating the cause of loss include data recovery--the type that ordinary techs perform?
Let's put this through the test:
Does a computer repair company meet the first requirement, as referenced by (b)? Yes, because they are obtaining and furnishing computer-based data not available to the public.
Does this company pass the second criterion? Yes, because their actions fall under either (C) or (D), or both.
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't fixing a computer because of a loss of data, an attempt to recover data, or an attempt to determine why a loss occurred, fall under either of these two sections?
If that's the case, then guess what--the law DOES apply to normal, Geek Squad specialists.
Thanks for the quote, it proved to be more fruitful than I expected.
Simply claiming that someone else's arguments are true contributes nothing to this discussion. You could have shown facts, figures, anything....but instead you thought you'd be clever by providing a "witty" insult.
Actually, none of the bill you just quoted states anything about WHY the data is being reviewed or analyzed...so again, this applies to data review for the purposes of virus checking, etc. Someone please show me some evidence where this law only applies if a PC repairman is for some reason "searching" for criminal evidence?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I forgot, there is no such thing as state taxes.
And of course, Federal and State monies are NEVER intertwined. Thank God each state is rich enough to maintain their own highways.
Of course they wouldn't come anywhere close to the cost of UHC--it was an example of tax dollars being wasted on frivolous things. Luckily, this is the ONLY example of wasteful litigation, right?
Your arguments against UHC are typical. You claim all existing systems are somehow inferior to ours, which honestly boils down to a matter of opinion (no system is perfect)--not to mention that it assumes we'd have to implement it the same way. Then you list examples of how government has already botched programs, so obviously they would botch UHC as well. I sympathize with the rationale, but in the end it's just a nay-saying excuse to reject change.
'"Anyone that analyzes computer data has conducted this regulated service and needs a license," Miller said.'
That's a quote from the article, you misinformed, mean-spirited asshat. I've read the article, and the article it references, and the article that references, and nowhere have I seen the claim you make.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're just spring cleaning...I bet their offices are growing dark and are filled with a lot of cardboard boxes.
Write Slashdot, apparently. I did so, and mysteriously my karma went from bad to neutral. Kudos for them for looking into it.
Sorry you got trolled for agreeing with me.
Thank you for your reply. Although this post will probably push my Neutral status down as being off-topic or trollish, I do appreciate the feedback.
Would someone explain to me how this post is worthy of "troll" status?
Ok, seriously...if you're going to moderate posts, READ THE CONTEXT. I'm tired of being labeled a troll because I make a legitimate reply to an article, some clown comes along with a pithy "RTFA" reply, and when I respond, I get nabbed for it. Moderators, do your job.
Yet another poster whose "claim" is to simply spout out RTFA.
Anyone have any idea of the feasibility of actually using natural gas to fuel transportation? Yes? No? I'm willing to bet that in the long run, it's simply not as efficient. Electric cars are great, but they haven't made a major dent in the industry, now have they?
Unfortunately, I do not believe in the slightest that wind energy is going to have a major effect on our dependency on oil. It sounds great for power plants and other things, but it's the automobile sector we really need to worry about.
Saying that I agree with a poster is off-topic now?
Whoever is moderating tonight: your time will come.
How can you mod me as a troll when this entire UHC debate got started because people had bones to pick with my example, which was used sarcastically for the actual topic at hand? Shame on you, moderator. Your karma will come when it's time to meta-moderate :)
Also Susan Cooper's "The Dark is Rising" sequence, although that's more in line with fantasy/Arthurian legend than Sci-Fi.
"The White Mountains" books by John Christopher.
Bump the parent up! I totally agree.
Amen, brother...it is exactly up to an attorney to figure this out. Laws are vague for a reason (job security, anyone? ).
Fair enough regarding simply a hard drive failure. But as others have posted, if you're taking your computer in for virus checking, or any software-related issues, guess what....you ARE reviewing, analyzing, and investigating the content of data, aren't you?
As I've clarified in my other reply to your post, doing these activities for finding criminal intent is only ONE of FOUR factors that qualify. As I stated before, I firmly believe that loss of data falls under "loss of property". You may not, and that's fine, but I think it's foolish to summarily tell me that my interpretation of "loss of property" is wildly out of line with this law.
Ask yourself this: if it's so readily apparent that tech companies don't fall under these definitions, why did every single article referenced believe otherwise? And why did every computer company they interviewed feel the same? So magazines have blatantly misinterpreted this law, and companies (surely with lawyers) have misinterpreted this law, but you know for a fact that your interpretation is right.
Actually, the entire LAW is defining who needs a PI license (that is the purpose of this law, correct?). And the quoted sections (which again, you provided), are explicitly stating what qualifies a company as investigatory--in other words, if a company meets these referenced conditions, they DO require a PI license. You seem to be stating that because the law does not reference computer tech companies BY NAME, they don't qualify. But that's the whole purpose of the DEFINITION.
Condition (b) is nothing more than a further definition of what "obtaining or furnishing" means. Nothing more, nothing less. In either case, a computer tech company meets this definition, so you certainly can't say that (b) disqualifies them.
So you're stating that lost data does not constitute "lost property". This is what lawyers are for--to further define these laws (ever notice how laws are always open to interpretation?). Ever heard of software? Ever heard of software companies? Ever heard of software trademarks? You may want to think harder on what the law means regarding "lost property" before so easily declaring that you somehow have a greater interpretation of it than, say, me, or the authors of each of these articles, or the computer repair companies that are quoted in these same articles.
Sure thing. In fact, I'll use the quotes from the relevant sections that you, yourself provided:
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person: (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to: (A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States; (B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person; (C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;
With "obtaining or furnishing" defined as:
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.
So in defining an "Investigations Company", we have 2 sets of criteria: first, a definition of what "obtaining or furnishing" means, and second, 4 separate actions that qualify as investigatory.
You keep referencing only (A) as the qualifying factor--that is, if you're involved in a criminal investigation. This is only 1 of 4 actions that qualify the company according to this law. Considering points (C) and (D), either of which apply as well, would not recovering lost data or investigating the cause of loss include data recovery--the type that ordinary techs perform?
Let's put this through the test:
Does a computer repair company meet the first requirement, as referenced by (b)? Yes, because they are obtaining and furnishing computer-based data not available to the public.
Does this company pass the second criterion? Yes, because their actions fall under either (C) or (D), or both.
Actually, wait a second.
(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't fixing a computer because of a loss of data, an attempt to recover data, or an attempt to determine why a loss occurred, fall under either of these two sections?
If that's the case, then guess what--the law DOES apply to normal, Geek Squad specialists.
Thanks for the quote, it proved to be more fruitful than I expected.
Finally, someone provided a relevant quote. See, that's all you had to do.
That being said, this means every article out there on this subject is wrong, because not one of them mentioned this point.
In that case, it appears that RTFA doesn't help much, unless you're geeky enough to scour through the actual by-laws.
Simply claiming that someone else's arguments are true contributes nothing to this discussion. You could have shown facts, figures, anything....but instead you thought you'd be clever by providing a "witty" insult.
Wow, remember how in the post directly above this I said that the arguments against UHC were typical?
Thanks for proving that point.
Actually, none of the bill you just quoted states anything about WHY the data is being reviewed or analyzed...so again, this applies to data review for the purposes of virus checking, etc. Someone please show me some evidence where this law only applies if a PC repairman is for some reason "searching" for criminal evidence?
Absolutely SHOCKED that the RIAA was bending the truth in order to justify its actions.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I forgot, there is no such thing as state taxes.
And of course, Federal and State monies are NEVER intertwined. Thank God each state is rich enough to maintain their own highways.
Your arguments against UHC are typical. You claim all existing systems are somehow inferior to ours, which honestly boils down to a matter of opinion (no system is perfect)--not to mention that it assumes we'd have to implement it the same way. Then you list examples of how government has already botched programs, so obviously they would botch UHC as well. I sympathize with the rationale, but in the end it's just a nay-saying excuse to reject change.
'"Anyone that analyzes computer data has conducted this regulated service and needs a license," Miller said.' That's a quote from the article, you misinformed, mean-spirited asshat. I've read the article, and the article it references, and the article that references, and nowhere have I seen the claim you make.