Chain of custody. Always a good point.
In fact, we had an episode of Law & Order awhile back where a sleazy lawyer had one of the DA's tech guys plant evidence. DA nearly got disbarred for witholding exonerating evidence.
"The key difference is whether the STATE has violated your right to privacy. You can't bargain with the state to set a higher or lower expectation of privacy; we have a Constitution that sets a minimum floor of privacy for everyone. But, you can negotiate with a computer repair service--if one service offers "no privacy-we'll read all your files" and the other say "complete privacy, for a little bit more money" then you get to pick which one you like, and to sue the "complete privacy" company if they break their word."
Actually, criminal law kinda trumps civil contract law. If the repair guy finds out that you're committing a crime, not only does any privacy contract become preempted by criminal statute, but the tech is now on notice of a crime, and HIMSELF goes on the hook if he does NOT report it. It's called "accessory after the fact".
And no, you do NOT get to sue, because once the tech gets wind of your crime, the contract of nondisclosure is discharged by a "supervening illegality", in this case, the tech's duty to report you for CP discharges the NDA, because NOT reporting it is against the law. Hence, the supervening illegality.
No silly CIVIL contract is going to protect you if you are involved in a CRIMINAL act. Not even the most expertly drawn up NDA is going to stop someone from being obliged to report you if they find out you're breaking the law, especially if it's a criminal offense.
On top of that, most courts nowadays will consider your entering this contract in bad faith, because you were knowingly and willingly attempting to conceal a criminal act. Heck, the tech could even be charged with obstruction if he tried to go with the NDA he signed.
The only way you can bust someone civilly for exposing you to prosecution is if that someone is your defense attorney, and they wind up breaching their duty to defend you. You can give your lawyer a full confession, and lawyer client privilege OBLIGES them to keep mum. That is the ONLY exception I know of to the "eminent domain" that criminal law posesses over civil matters.
In this case, any money you paid above and beyond the standard rate for "privacy premiums" would likely be owed back as equitable relief, becasue the tech is NOT engaging in any breach of contract that causes you damage, because the contract itself becomes discharged. Since the guy can't complete the contract (he'll go to jail for obstruction/accessory), the contract would most likely be "rolled back".
And you may not even get the money back. Last time I checked, possession of CP is a felony most anywhere, and civil forfeiture laws often call for seizure of "any property involved in a felony", which would probably include any money you spent on trying to cover it up.
As far as privacy is concerned, apart from the tech guy not being a government agent, but simply by putting your computer into someone else's custody you almost certainly give up your "right to a reasonable expectation of privacy", which is what the Supreme Court has established is the basis for 4th amendment protection.
Qualified Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer. I DID get straight 4.0's in law class at college. I ALSO read the RCW's for Washington State.
The Linux-cluster machine has a 'theoretical peak performance of 860 gig-flops'.
"The disclosure, made in an undated posting on [the University of] Amirkabir's Web site, brought an immediate response Monday from AMD, which said it has never authorized shipments of products either directly or indirectly to Iran or any other embargoed country."
Wow...
It MUST be bad if you aren't even the victim...
BTW, Unappealable bans seem to be the norm these days. Hell, even Blizzard bans people at the drop of a hat. Apparently, they're making so much money.
The problem is that people like to party, and they aren't prepared to outright boycott big name companies because:
1) they're hooked on games
2) they can't really say no
3) if they go without, their friends will get them instead and peer rivalry will embarrass them so badly they'll never again forget to keep up with the joneses.
Demand for video games is inelastic, which means that the supply side of S&D really doesn't have to try too hard. They can excercise their "asshole prerogative" and screw you over, because they know you don't REALLY give a damn. If you did, their sales would be tanking from mass boycotts.
Not until consumers take a stand and say "NO!" to abusive companies (and actually MEAN it), will they improve.
I'm afraid that I can't give you good advice, as the law only works when someone makes a challenge. For example, if someone steals your car and vanishes, you don't automatically get it back unless you A) report it stolen, and B) press charges. Similiarly if someone hurts you. YOu don't get paid unless you sue them first.
And companies like doing stuff like this all the time. People are inherently cheap, backstabbing, greedy bastards.
The question is...do you want to risk your job by blowing the whistle?
By all means, do whatever you believe is right. But remember, martyrs die because the establishment doesn't like them. If you want to do the right thing, you must be prepared to put up with the backlash from the evil that made it wrong to begin with.
Nice commentary on the TOS, and it squares well with AT&T's recent "censorship by termination" scandal.
They bury that "we reserve the right to screw you over" crap where you can't see it, and honestly, who reads the TOS?
Companies like LL and microsoft COUNT on you not reading the TOS. If we actually DID, we might not buy it...I mean, like Visual Studio, for instance. There's a clause in Foxpro that says "duplicates the functionality of Microsoft Access, nor in the reasonable opinion of Microsoft, compete with same". This is a non-compete clause. If you bought VS or Foxpro to invent a new database system, and then Microsoft came around. Sure, reading the TOS is a smart move, but it doesn't really help if you hate what you find.
Companies are greedy, and their crappy TOS is only used to cover their asses and make their otherwise unethical conduct perfectly legal.
"Reserve the right to terminate at will" just means that they can blow your brains out Gestapo style for being critical of the Fuhrer by yanking your account. Heck, if you're judge, jury, and prosecutor, you can pretty much sit pretty and there's not a damn thing your customers can do about it unless they forgo your services entirely.
"sole discretion" just means that "we don't have to be fair, we're only going to look out for our own hides and if it hurts you or isn't fair, TOUGH SHIT WE DON'T CARE"
What the american public needs to do is grow a backbone and go on a hunger strike for a minute and REALLY START HURTING SALES.
I must vote for a mod-down here.
Like it or not, the feds are here to PROTECT us. If we did NOT have a federal government at ALL, anarchy would settle in, and pretty soon we'd all be answering to some bullshit DICTATOR like, say, Saddam was, just because he was quickest with the shotgun and got to the "throne" before anyone else. That's why it's called a "power vaccuum". Vaccuums IRL are hard pressed to remain unfilled because, quite literally, a TON of air is just itching to cause an implosive collapse.
I may not like the feds, but I'd rather be with them than without them.
Actually, it's more like cheap-assed companies looking to cheap out on advertising are more than happy to pay spammers to do their dirty work.
Remember, it's all about the money. WHY do spammers spam in the first place? Because ignorant or agnostic companies are willing to pay them the collective big bucks it takes to make spamming profitable.
Think about it: Spam, nasty as it is, carries the lowest costs. Taking out an ad on TV will get you put under the microscope by the FTC, the FDA, the FCC, and lots of other bureaucratic BULLSHIT that inevitably drives up costs. Not to mention that TV ads themselves are a TV stations "profit area", so you're paying their investors for a piece of THEIR pie, while you're still just BAKING your own.
But hire a spammer, who can effortlessly send a bazillion messages with the touch of a button, and who, incidentally, has a low cost BOTNET (itself made of stolen machines), and boom, your costs go down, and the evil spammer gets a nice chunk of your payment for itself. With no costs, the spammer's payment, cheap as it may be, is PURE PROFIT.
Heck, spammers these days make enough to sign PINK CONTRACTS to keep ISP's off their backs. Give the "TOS compliance department" a big enough bribe through such a contract, and they'll be happy to look the other way.
Fixing a few legal errors.
First and foremost, Uncle Ned gets his car back, as he is the only one holding valid title to the car. The seller stole it, therefore his title to the car is void, and therefore you never received title from the seller.
Uncle Ned doesn't AUTOMATICALLY get the 75K because he never sold it for 75K.
Assuming the full remedies of the law are played out without absconding, here's how it would turn out:
1. Uncle Ned gets his car back from you.
2. The 75K you spent is refunded to you *by the seller*, because there was no lawful sale.
Now, here's where it gets interesting:
1. Uncle Ned can sue the seller for punitive damages
a. Tort of conversion of personal property
2. THe seller can be prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto
a. Felony
Some twists:
1. If you knew the car was stolen when you bought it:
a. Kiss the 75K goodbye, you have "unclean hands"
b. You are now an accessory to the seller's commission of GTA.
2. Even if the seller sells the car, pockets the money, and vanishes:
a. Uncle Ned never lost legal title to the car, so he gets it back, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Uncle Ned gets his car back, period. He doesn't get the 75K just because that's what his car sold for. However, that may be a reflection of Fair Market Value, so for punitive damages, Uncle Ned might get both the car AND the money.
"7. Now the SCOX v. Novell case in Utah will go before that judge, who may not be happy with the way he was very publicly suckered and made to look foolish by SCOX's bankruptcy ploy."
Suckered? Try "blatantly committed perjury" and you'll be more on.
I'm am so SICK SICK SICK of big fatcat companies like the RIAA, and now SCO, thinking they can bluff their way through a lawsuit.
Pinnochio got off easy, methinks. In the *real world*, a "little white lie" can ruin things faster than anything. If even little kids can't get away with fibbing, then why should big companies, who are made of ADULTS and who should definitely know better?
Yeah, go groklaw!
Seeing a new slashdot headline "SCO lawyer gets 20 years for lying in court" would make my day quite nicely.
Wha tworries me is that next thing you know somebody like AT&T is going to get an exclusive internet deal, so not only do you need internt to watch the DVD, but the player will only go through AT&T's network.
Congrats, you are now locked into an ISP...
Slashdot Mirror
And to top it off, the guy's a copycat.
Didn't we already get over this with Apple's iPhone?
Chain of custody. Always a good point. In fact, we had an episode of Law & Order awhile back where a sleazy lawyer had one of the DA's tech guys plant evidence. DA nearly got disbarred for witholding exonerating evidence.
Actually it's cases like this, especially FEDERAL ones, that give the RIAA the steamrolling precedent it needs to cite in future cases.
"The key difference is whether the STATE has violated your right to privacy. You can't bargain with the state to set a higher or lower expectation of privacy; we have a Constitution that sets a minimum floor of privacy for everyone. But, you can negotiate with a computer repair service--if one service offers "no privacy-we'll read all your files" and the other say "complete privacy, for a little bit more money" then you get to pick which one you like, and to sue the "complete privacy" company if they break their word."
Actually, criminal law kinda trumps civil contract law. If the repair guy finds out that you're committing a crime, not only does any privacy contract become preempted by criminal statute, but the tech is now on notice of a crime, and HIMSELF goes on the hook if he does NOT report it. It's called "accessory after the fact".
And no, you do NOT get to sue, because once the tech gets wind of your crime, the contract of nondisclosure is discharged by a "supervening illegality", in this case, the tech's duty to report you for CP discharges the NDA, because NOT reporting it is against the law. Hence, the supervening illegality.
No silly CIVIL contract is going to protect you if you are involved in a CRIMINAL act. Not even the most expertly drawn up NDA is going to stop someone from being obliged to report you if they find out you're breaking the law, especially if it's a criminal offense.
On top of that, most courts nowadays will consider your entering this contract in bad faith, because you were knowingly and willingly attempting to conceal a criminal act. Heck, the tech could even be charged with obstruction if he tried to go with the NDA he signed.
The only way you can bust someone civilly for exposing you to prosecution is if that someone is your defense attorney, and they wind up breaching their duty to defend you. You can give your lawyer a full confession, and lawyer client privilege OBLIGES them to keep mum. That is the ONLY exception I know of to the "eminent domain" that criminal law posesses over civil matters.
In this case, any money you paid above and beyond the standard rate for "privacy premiums" would likely be owed back as equitable relief, becasue the tech is NOT engaging in any breach of contract that causes you damage, because the contract itself becomes discharged. Since the guy can't complete the contract (he'll go to jail for obstruction/accessory), the contract would most likely be "rolled back".
And you may not even get the money back. Last time I checked, possession of CP is a felony most anywhere, and civil forfeiture laws often call for seizure of "any property involved in a felony", which would probably include any money you spent on trying to cover it up.
As far as privacy is concerned, apart from the tech guy not being a government agent, but simply by putting your computer into someone else's custody you almost certainly give up your "right to a reasonable expectation of privacy", which is what the Supreme Court has established is the basis for 4th amendment protection.
Qualified Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer.
I DID get straight 4.0's in law class at college.
I ALSO read the RCW's for Washington State.
That's actually a good question...
9/11 changed a lot of things!
The Linux-cluster machine has a 'theoretical peak performance of 860 gig-flops'.
"The disclosure, made in an undated posting on [the University of] Amirkabir's Web site, brought an immediate response Monday from AMD, which said it has never authorized shipments of products either directly or indirectly to Iran or any other embargoed country."
RTFA
Wow... It MUST be bad if you aren't even the victim... BTW, Unappealable bans seem to be the norm these days. Hell, even Blizzard bans people at the drop of a hat. Apparently, they're making so much money. The problem is that people like to party, and they aren't prepared to outright boycott big name companies because: 1) they're hooked on games 2) they can't really say no 3) if they go without, their friends will get them instead and peer rivalry will embarrass them so badly they'll never again forget to keep up with the joneses. Demand for video games is inelastic, which means that the supply side of S&D really doesn't have to try too hard. They can excercise their "asshole prerogative" and screw you over, because they know you don't REALLY give a damn. If you did, their sales would be tanking from mass boycotts. Not until consumers take a stand and say "NO!" to abusive companies (and actually MEAN it), will they improve.
Iranium
Just like uranium, except it's jihad friendly.
I tried running a loop of mpg123's decoding /dev/random...
:P
Sounded very weird indeed, but half the time I actually got sound.
MP3's are junk methinks. After all, at least half the time my decoder couldn't tell the difference
Begone, vulgar one
I'm afraid that I can't give you good advice, as the law only works when someone makes a challenge. For example, if someone steals your car and vanishes, you don't automatically get it back unless you A) report it stolen, and B) press charges. Similiarly if someone hurts you. YOu don't get paid unless you sue them first. And companies like doing stuff like this all the time. People are inherently cheap, backstabbing, greedy bastards. The question is...do you want to risk your job by blowing the whistle? By all means, do whatever you believe is right. But remember, martyrs die because the establishment doesn't like them. If you want to do the right thing, you must be prepared to put up with the backlash from the evil that made it wrong to begin with.
Teehee.
:)
It would actually be true if it weren't for such a thing as "prior art"
...Isn't this the FTC's job anyway?
Nice commentary on the TOS, and it squares well with AT&T's recent "censorship by termination" scandal. They bury that "we reserve the right to screw you over" crap where you can't see it, and honestly, who reads the TOS? Companies like LL and microsoft COUNT on you not reading the TOS. If we actually DID, we might not buy it...I mean, like Visual Studio, for instance. There's a clause in Foxpro that says "duplicates the functionality of Microsoft Access, nor in the reasonable opinion of Microsoft, compete with same". This is a non-compete clause. If you bought VS or Foxpro to invent a new database system, and then Microsoft came around. Sure, reading the TOS is a smart move, but it doesn't really help if you hate what you find. Companies are greedy, and their crappy TOS is only used to cover their asses and make their otherwise unethical conduct perfectly legal. "Reserve the right to terminate at will" just means that they can blow your brains out Gestapo style for being critical of the Fuhrer by yanking your account. Heck, if you're judge, jury, and prosecutor, you can pretty much sit pretty and there's not a damn thing your customers can do about it unless they forgo your services entirely. "sole discretion" just means that "we don't have to be fair, we're only going to look out for our own hides and if it hurts you or isn't fair, TOUGH SHIT WE DON'T CARE" What the american public needs to do is grow a backbone and go on a hunger strike for a minute and REALLY START HURTING SALES.
I'd be modding you down myself if I had any mod points. Please keep such pejorative terms off of slashdot, thank you.
Nice one there, I almost split my sides open. *stops to laugh for another minute...literally* Don't be so funny, I could die laughing.
I must vote for a mod-down here. Like it or not, the feds are here to PROTECT us. If we did NOT have a federal government at ALL, anarchy would settle in, and pretty soon we'd all be answering to some bullshit DICTATOR like, say, Saddam was, just because he was quickest with the shotgun and got to the "throne" before anyone else. That's why it's called a "power vaccuum". Vaccuums IRL are hard pressed to remain unfilled because, quite literally, a TON of air is just itching to cause an implosive collapse. I may not like the feds, but I'd rather be with them than without them.
Jack Skellington's gonna be PISSED that you're making out with his girlfriend
"But the spammers are still sending it."
Actually, it's more like cheap-assed companies looking to cheap out on advertising are more than happy to pay spammers to do their dirty work.
Remember, it's all about the money. WHY do spammers spam in the first place? Because ignorant or agnostic companies are willing to pay them the collective big bucks it takes to make spamming profitable.
Think about it: Spam, nasty as it is, carries the lowest costs. Taking out an ad on TV will get you put under the microscope by the FTC, the FDA, the FCC, and lots of other bureaucratic BULLSHIT that inevitably drives up costs. Not to mention that TV ads themselves are a TV stations "profit area", so you're paying their investors for a piece of THEIR pie, while you're still just BAKING your own.
But hire a spammer, who can effortlessly send a bazillion messages with the touch of a button, and who, incidentally, has a low cost BOTNET (itself made of stolen machines), and boom, your costs go down, and the evil spammer gets a nice chunk of your payment for itself. With no costs, the spammer's payment, cheap as it may be, is PURE PROFIT.
Heck, spammers these days make enough to sign PINK CONTRACTS to keep ISP's off their backs. Give the "TOS compliance department" a big enough bribe through such a contract, and they'll be happy to look the other way.
Why don't you watch your [bleep]-ing language?
Fixing a few legal errors. First and foremost, Uncle Ned gets his car back, as he is the only one holding valid title to the car. The seller stole it, therefore his title to the car is void, and therefore you never received title from the seller. Uncle Ned doesn't AUTOMATICALLY get the 75K because he never sold it for 75K. Assuming the full remedies of the law are played out without absconding, here's how it would turn out: 1. Uncle Ned gets his car back from you. 2. The 75K you spent is refunded to you *by the seller*, because there was no lawful sale. Now, here's where it gets interesting: 1. Uncle Ned can sue the seller for punitive damages a. Tort of conversion of personal property 2. THe seller can be prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto a. Felony Some twists: 1. If you knew the car was stolen when you bought it: a. Kiss the 75K goodbye, you have "unclean hands" b. You are now an accessory to the seller's commission of GTA. 2. Even if the seller sells the car, pockets the money, and vanishes: a. Uncle Ned never lost legal title to the car, so he gets it back, no ifs, ands, or buts. Uncle Ned gets his car back, period. He doesn't get the 75K just because that's what his car sold for. However, that may be a reflection of Fair Market Value, so for punitive damages, Uncle Ned might get both the car AND the money.
"7. Now the SCOX v. Novell case in Utah will go before that judge, who may not be happy with the way he was very publicly suckered and made to look foolish by SCOX's bankruptcy ploy." Suckered? Try "blatantly committed perjury" and you'll be more on. I'm am so SICK SICK SICK of big fatcat companies like the RIAA, and now SCO, thinking they can bluff their way through a lawsuit. Pinnochio got off easy, methinks. In the *real world*, a "little white lie" can ruin things faster than anything. If even little kids can't get away with fibbing, then why should big companies, who are made of ADULTS and who should definitely know better? Yeah, go groklaw! Seeing a new slashdot headline "SCO lawyer gets 20 years for lying in court" would make my day quite nicely.
Hey at least it's not like an iPhone this time...
Wha tworries me is that next thing you know somebody like AT&T is going to get an exclusive internet deal, so not only do you need internt to watch the DVD, but the player will only go through AT&T's network. Congrats, you are now locked into an ISP...
...And here I thought that only big business like Microsoft and the RIAA used FUD tactics...