Well.. contract law is very complicated and not everything that is put into a contract is always enforceable. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many contract disputes in front of the courts.
"Scam" is a matter of interpretation. It is i.e. an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. Offering free stuff that in truth is not free, can be deceptive. As long as there is not full disclosure of the consequences people will feel deceived, therefore interpret such behavior as a scam or hustle. Any most such hustles, the mark will have made a decision to trust the other party in a way they should not have done if neutral assessment would have been used. However, most such scams use manipulation in order to put pressure on the mark that distract them to think clearly.
If such pressure is illegal in contract law or even fraudulent in criminal law depends on the circumstances and laws in the jurisdiction.
However, yes, maybe one of the lessons that can be learned is that most things that are made to appear free are not free. People need to learn to be suspicious. And after a lot of scams being shown in the press nowadays (look at the whole Madhoff Ponzi scheme), most of the time, things that appear too good to be true, are too good to be true.
However, lets also hope that this does not stop people helping each other because of good will without which any society is a poorer society. Maybe everybody needs to work on getting smarter in such things, and also willing to talk to each other about such pitfalls.
Some things that always get forgotten and therefore create myths:
Caveat Emptor is a legal principle for real property, not for every contract that is made. In all other cases (and actually even property law has changed in some ways), in both common and statutory law caveat emptor has for a long time not been the overriding principle.
Misrepresentation and deception is always a reason that can potentially void a contract and even create a situation in which further damages might be enforceable.
If every single person being scammed would go to court in might create such a wave of "spam trials" that those scammers could not hire enough lawyers to defend themselves. That would actually be hilarious. Unfortunately far too many corporations bully consumers with unenforceable terms and conditions and intimidations. It is not illegal to create the appearance that terms and conditions are binding even if the party issuing them know about the impossibility of enforceability.
IAAL.. but I don't actively practice. As always the disclaimer: Nothing in this message constitute legal advice. If someone needs legal advice for their personal situation, they should consult a registered and licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
No. There is no problem that amazon is making the credit card transaction as a service and never conveyes the information to a third party.
Even, otherwise, it should be clearly stated who has your private information.
A essential part of data protection is to know who has information. How would it be posssible otherwise to make private data information requests to be able to demand deletion or correction of private information.
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
I am astonished to see such an argument by an institute that claims to be scientific. The lack of such evidence in the hacked e-mails might be good enough too raise doubts, but will not scientifically prove anything. This is like saying that the theories by Einstein do not exist, since there was no such evidence found by Newton.
Maybe, the discussion should be more about what the limits of science is rather than trying to predict the future. There are lots of influences and events that we do not know about, in fact 75% of the energies in the universe are pretty much a secret to us. In science, it is as important to say what we do not know as much as what we know. In the same way, it is important to distinguish fact from theory. Unfortunately, in todays media world conclusions are mostly drawn far too fast and without the necessary qualifications
Well.. Windows is not commonly available before its launch, hence the crowd that can review is more tightly controlled. For FLOSS anybody can review before the release.
Well.. You can come by one of those many Linux Fests, Linux conventions etc. Chances are good that some Ubuntu members will be handing out CDs there, and you will meet a lot of other like minded people and lots of awesome presentations.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. contract law is very complicated and not everything that is put into a contract is always enforceable. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many contract disputes in front of the courts.
"Scam" is a matter of interpretation. It is i.e. an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. Offering free stuff that in truth is not free, can be deceptive. As long as there is not full disclosure of the consequences people will feel deceived, therefore interpret such behavior as a scam or hustle. Any most such hustles, the mark will have made a decision to trust the other party in a way they should not have done if neutral assessment would have been used. However, most such scams use manipulation in order to put pressure on the mark that distract them to think clearly.
If such pressure is illegal in contract law or even fraudulent in criminal law depends on the circumstances and laws in the jurisdiction.
However, yes, maybe one of the lessons that can be learned is that most things that are made to appear free are not free. People need to learn to be suspicious. And after a lot of scams being shown in the press nowadays (look at the whole Madhoff Ponzi scheme), most of the time, things that appear too good to be true, are too good to be true.
However, lets also hope that this does not stop people helping each other because of good will without which any society is a poorer society. Maybe everybody needs to work on getting smarter in such things, and also willing to talk to each other about such pitfalls.
Some things that always get forgotten and therefore create myths:
Caveat Emptor is a legal principle for real property, not for every contract that is made. In all other cases (and actually even property law has changed in some ways), in both common and statutory law caveat emptor has for a long time not been the overriding principle.
Misrepresentation and deception is always a reason that can potentially void a contract and even create a situation in which further damages might be enforceable.
If every single person being scammed would go to court in might create such a wave of "spam trials" that those scammers could not hire enough lawyers to defend themselves. That would actually be hilarious. Unfortunately far too many corporations bully consumers with unenforceable terms and conditions and intimidations. It is not illegal to create the appearance that terms and conditions are binding even if the party issuing them know about the impossibility of enforceability.
IAAL.. but I don't actively practice. As always the disclaimer: Nothing in this message constitute legal advice. If someone needs legal advice for their personal situation, they should consult a registered and licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
No. There is no problem that amazon is making the credit card transaction as a service and never conveyes the information to a third party. Even, otherwise, it should be clearly stated who has your private information. A essential part of data protection is to know who has information. How would it be posssible otherwise to make private data information requests to be able to demand deletion or correction of private information.
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
I am astonished to see such an argument by an institute that claims to be scientific. The lack of such evidence in the hacked e-mails might be good enough too raise doubts, but will not scientifically prove anything. This is like saying that the theories by Einstein do not exist, since there was no such evidence found by Newton. Maybe, the discussion should be more about what the limits of science is rather than trying to predict the future. There are lots of influences and events that we do not know about, in fact 75% of the energies in the universe are pretty much a secret to us. In science, it is as important to say what we do not know as much as what we know. In the same way, it is important to distinguish fact from theory. Unfortunately, in todays media world conclusions are mostly drawn far too fast and without the necessary qualifications
Well.. Windows is not commonly available before its launch, hence the crowd that can review is more tightly controlled. For FLOSS anybody can review before the release.
Well.. You can come by one of those many Linux Fests, Linux conventions etc. Chances are good that some Ubuntu members will be handing out CDs there, and you will meet a lot of other like minded people and lots of awesome presentations.