First, if the immunity itself was unconstitutional, then the provision of the justice act reoutlawing it is redundant and moot.
However...
If the immunity grant is constitutional, then it's anyone's guess as to how SCOTUS would rule on the enforceability against telcos who were effectively pardoned after the fact.
Either way, any non-retroactive immunity the telcos relied upon AFTER the law was passed cannot be taken away.
That first case is just yet another example of how much we truly are at the mercy of random assholes hell bent on making trouble for us.
Even if we are perfectly careful and take every precaution, preserving privacy on the internet is a lost cause if someone somewhere wants to expose you.
Case in point:
A friend of mine recently blew one of my aliases and emailed everyone he knew about it, instantly exposing me to ridicule and shame.
Another case in point:
The blogger who got sued and then left alone once she was outed. A malicious lawsuit with the sole purpose of causing grief by compelling someone to betray a confidence. And this time the whole force of the law was behind it.
Still though, this loophole effectively allows the beefmonkey to rob you blind because you can't lift a deadly finger against him.
As far as insurance goes, the insurance company can and does deny claims for no reason. Not to mention I'm still out the deductible, PLUS the insurance premiums. Being robbed is still going to cost me.
Ok, so some beefmonkey comes into your house and forcibly robs you of your goods and you, being thin as a matchstick, have to sit there and take it just because you can't use deadly force?
"My son brought home an order form from his middle school. Apparently the 7th (his grade) and 8th graders are being asked (required?) to purchase their own straps for the heart monitors they're to wear during gym class"
Nope, school isn't paying for it. Which is why I think it's unfair.
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that easy.
First, if the immunity itself was unconstitutional, then the provision of the justice act reoutlawing it is redundant and moot.
However...
If the immunity grant is constitutional, then it's anyone's guess as to how SCOTUS would rule on the enforceability against telcos who were effectively pardoned after the fact.
Either way, any non-retroactive immunity the telcos relied upon AFTER the law was passed cannot be taken away.
Take off every constitution
You know what you doing
Move constitution
For great justice
One thing's for sure, you can't take away whatever immunity they may have been granted.
That IS an ex post facto law.
As long as the death panels are staffed by competent doctors I wouldn't mind.
I just think it's a practical move that people rail against emotionally.
Don't consider an entire drive is dead if you get a piddly one-sector error.
Just mark it read only and keep chugging.
The bride, apart from breaking her virginity, took pleasure in the groom's misery.
The captain, much like Microsoft, was the sole arbiter of church transportation and exploited his position to secure monopoly profit of sex.
The goon, just like a mercenary, committed assault for profit.
The least immoral would be the groom. Lack of sympathy notwithstanding, he is the only one of the bunch that has clean hands.
Regarding the actual scenario, it depends on the facts.
First of all, if she violated internal regulations regarding access to personal email, ding.
If she knowingly opened an executable attachment, ding.
However, if the attachment opened itself automatically without intervention on her part, then no ding.
Incompetent IT staff misconfiguring/failing to properly secure the computer/network, ding, unless they were forcibly overruled by management.
Management, if they prevented IT from securing the system.
The sender, if he manually intervened to cause the malware to be sent.
Quite honestly, if the malware was an autopropagating worm, there's not much blame to be had outside of who launched it.
At Will Employment
My point is that assholes can and do expose confidential information NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK YOU DO to try and stop them.
10 whats?
Is that slips, strips, bars, or bricks?
I seriously doubt we'd be around long enough to keep the oceans polluted for 10 million years.
The wise man knows he is a fool,
but the fool thinks he is wise.
-- Proverbs something
That first case is just yet another example of how much we truly are at the mercy of random assholes hell bent on making trouble for us.
Even if we are perfectly careful and take every precaution, preserving privacy on the internet is a lost cause if someone somewhere wants to expose you.
Case in point:
A friend of mine recently blew one of my aliases and emailed everyone he knew about it, instantly exposing me to ridicule and shame.
Another case in point:
The blogger who got sued and then left alone once she was outed. A malicious lawsuit with the sole purpose of causing grief by compelling someone to betray a confidence. And this time the whole force of the law was behind it.
True, but since cardboard is easily biodegradeable it might balance out.
Unless the solder melts and leaks in a way that causes a short circuit.
I would sooner trust a chiropractor or a naturopath than I would a pill pushing pharmaceutical corporation.
My personal opinion is just that, opinion.
I believe all statements should be treated as opinion until such time as they are proven true or false.
Both sides bear the burden of proof and nobody gets a free pass.
Professional courtesy from their congresscritter kin perhaps?
I speak only half in jest, sadly...
Still though, this loophole effectively allows the beefmonkey to rob you blind because you can't lift a deadly finger against him.
As far as insurance goes, the insurance company can and does deny claims for no reason. Not to mention I'm still out the deductible, PLUS the insurance premiums. Being robbed is still going to cost me.
I'm pretty sure that Godwin's rule only applies in the event of *inappropriate* comparisons.
The Nazis were truly horrid, the comparison is quite fit, so Godwin's rule does not apply.
Much to the chagrin of some of my peers who overlook the "appropriate comparison" defense to an invocation of Godwin's rule.
Ok, so some beefmonkey comes into your house and forcibly robs you of your goods and you, being thin as a matchstick, have to sit there and take it just because you can't use deadly force?
Castle doctrine.
You're not obliged to run away if you're already in your home.
At Will Employment.
"My son brought home an order form from his middle school. Apparently the 7th (his grade) and 8th graders are being asked (required?) to purchase their own straps for the heart monitors they're to wear during gym class"
Nope, school isn't paying for it. Which is why I think it's unfair.
Just appreciating government services and damning everything else they do is just a selfish, individual version of Privatize Profits Socialize Costs.
It's the fruit of the human tendency to grab the goodies and avoid the bad stuff.
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
Personally I think that this is anticompetitive.