That's why you don't tell them until after you've told them to cancel the account. If they reserve the right to record it - which they did before the human came on the line - there is no expectation of privacy, and you don't need to tell them. You only tell them at the end to reinforce that you can prove you did.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" means that you have their permission to record it, too, even in California.
"Cancel my account."
"I can't do that unless you give me a reason."
"I'm recording this conversation, so I have proof that the account has been canceled. If I receive any more invoices, the next phone call will be from my lawyer, or the police."
Click.
The better method, though, is to do it in writing, by registered mail. End of equation.
I know I'll get modded down for this. but I find it hard to sympathize with someone who goes on vacation on another continent and wants to play computer games in their hotel.
Sever allergy to sunshine must be more common than I thought.
And what happens when a passenger makes unreasonable demands - "Hey, I need to stop here and do some shopping, so you just wait here, and BTW, I only have half the money, so you won't get paid what I agreed to pay." - and then threatens to give the driver a bad rating if they complain about it, what mechanism is there to address that deliberate libel once it's posted publicly? Sure, the driver can give the passenger a bad rating, too, but that won't help him any.
And that is the failing of relying solely on a reputation system. There's no protection against liars.
Uber drivers, as a rule, don't have insurance. There have already been lawsuits over it. Your private insurance will not cover you if they find out you're driving someone for money. Your private driver's license is not good enough, either. So, in most states, when you use Uber, you're riding in an uninsured car with an unlicensed driver, and if there's an accident, you, the passenger, are 100% responsible for whatever medical expenses you have (because the driver will be spending all his money to avoid prison).
The ratings-and-feedback systems maintained by Uber and others is more efficient at flagging bad drivers, than any government-run certification authority can be.
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to those who are the reason for those bad ratings. You know, the people who get ripped off, kidnapped and held for ransom (I need another $500 or I'll just dump you here), or worse.
And the cops will be less than enthusiastic about chasing those bad drivers down, when there isn't a multi-million dollar a year company to fine the hell out of.
Or maybe this is Microsoft admitting that they, as a corporation, are simply incapable of passing up an opportunity to shove advertising down people's throats, largely because they have no desire to do so.
What you advocate is, literally, complete lawlessness and anarchy, no law at all. Because if you are the victim of a crime, what you advocate is do not report it to the police, or anyone else. And at that point, anybody can do anything they like to you, confident that there will be no negative consequences.
We're taught by television and movies that the law is composed entirely and solely of loopholes, and that everything we want in life it free if we can only find the right loophole.
Television and the movies are stupid. As are most of the people who watch either (and yes, that includes me).
They understand the internet perfectly. A lot of freeloaders want free stuff, and are willing to take it - and even sell it - for free, whether they owner is willing to give it to them or not.
How sensitive is Glass to IR light? I'm beginning to think there's a market for jewelry or clothing that is studded with high intensity IR LEDs that are invisible to the human eye. Certainly, movie theaters should be putting them all over the place.
There's nothing new about recording devices that are disguised as something ordinary, like a pen, or a watch, or whatever. They've been around for decades, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than Glass.
The disincentive to using such devices is, and has always been, that they are often illegal, even criminal, as Glassholes are finding out.
Generally speaking, there is an attempt made (as there should be) for all the guys in a lineup to look similar, which means your argument is again all lineups, despite that being proven the best way to do such things.
If they're willing to commit those very serious felonies, then the addition of facial recognition software makes no difference whatsoever. Without it (or, rather, before it), they'd just falsify other evidence instead.
If you believe that all cops are like the ones you see on TV, you should - seriously - move to some place where the nearest other human being is at least 500 miles away. This would be to your benefit, and to everyone else's, as well.
That isn't how lineups are done in real life. Real police work bears no resemblance whatsoever to the routine felonies committed by character of cop shows.
For a good account of the Tulip Panic, and other examples of how easily the public at large can be sucked in to stupid financial (and other) fads, try http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518 by Mackay.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you don't tell them until after you've told them to cancel the account. If they reserve the right to record it - which they did before the human came on the line - there is no expectation of privacy, and you don't need to tell them. You only tell them at the end to reinforce that you can prove you did.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" means that you have their permission to record it, too, even in California.
"Cancel my account."
"I can't do that unless you give me a reason."
"I'm recording this conversation, so I have proof that the account has been canceled. If I receive any more invoices, the next phone call will be from my lawyer, or the police."
Click.
The better method, though, is to do it in writing, by registered mail. End of equation.
I know I'll get modded down for this. but I find it hard to sympathize with someone who goes on vacation on another continent and wants to play computer games in their hotel.
Sever allergy to sunshine must be more common than I thought.
I see no criminal charges mentioned. There's an allegation of perjury in a civil case, but no criminal charges.
Can you name a single case in which someone has been prosecuted, ever, for a bogus takedown notice?
That the other guy is living in his car will, no doubt, be a great comfort to me as I'm living in my car.
And what happens when a passenger makes unreasonable demands - "Hey, I need to stop here and do some shopping, so you just wait here, and BTW, I only have half the money, so you won't get paid what I agreed to pay." - and then threatens to give the driver a bad rating if they complain about it, what mechanism is there to address that deliberate libel once it's posted publicly? Sure, the driver can give the passenger a bad rating, too, but that won't help him any.
And that is the failing of relying solely on a reputation system. There's no protection against liars.
Uber drivers, as a rule, don't have insurance. There have already been lawsuits over it. Your private insurance will not cover you if they find out you're driving someone for money. Your private driver's license is not good enough, either. So, in most states, when you use Uber, you're riding in an uninsured car with an unlicensed driver, and if there's an accident, you, the passenger, are 100% responsible for whatever medical expenses you have (because the driver will be spending all his money to avoid prison).
Unless you just sign up for a different account every time.
After the customer leaves the car, there is no record of their behavior in the taxi.
Given that most cities require video and audio recording devices in all taxis, I find your source less than convincing.
The ratings-and-feedback systems maintained by Uber and others is more efficient at flagging bad drivers, than any government-run certification authority can be.
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to those who are the reason for those bad ratings. You know, the people who get ripped off, kidnapped and held for ransom (I need another $500 or I'll just dump you here), or worse.
And the cops will be less than enthusiastic about chasing those bad drivers down, when there isn't a multi-million dollar a year company to fine the hell out of.
And it's only a matter of time before organized crime smells the opportunity to take over the entire taxi industry, without regulation.
Or maybe this is Microsoft admitting that they, as a corporation, are simply incapable of passing up an opportunity to shove advertising down people's throats, largely because they have no desire to do so.
What you advocate is, literally, complete lawlessness and anarchy, no law at all. Because if you are the victim of a crime, what you advocate is do not report it to the police, or anyone else. And at that point, anybody can do anything they like to you, confident that there will be no negative consequences.
Do you realize this?
To quote Ron White, "I had the right to remain silent. What I lacked was the ability to remain silent."
We're taught by television and movies that the law is composed entirely and solely of loopholes, and that everything we want in life it free if we can only find the right loophole.
Television and the movies are stupid. As are most of the people who watch either (and yes, that includes me).
They understand the internet perfectly. A lot of freeloaders want free stuff, and are willing to take it - and even sell it - for free, whether they owner is willing to give it to them or not.
From what little attention I pay to ads, the current model seems to be one of two approaches:
"Our products are for mentally retarded halfwits, so if you're stupid you should buy it."
or
"Give us money or you'll die, your children will die, and someone will kick your dog."
The former seems to be more prevalent among non-staple consumer goods. The latter is nearly universal for TV news programs and web sites.
Both are insulting to the intelligence, but not nearly as insulting as the fact that they work.
How sensitive is Glass to IR light? I'm beginning to think there's a market for jewelry or clothing that is studded with high intensity IR LEDs that are invisible to the human eye. Certainly, movie theaters should be putting them all over the place.
There's nothing new about recording devices that are disguised as something ordinary, like a pen, or a watch, or whatever. They've been around for decades, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than Glass.
The disincentive to using such devices is, and has always been, that they are often illegal, even criminal, as Glassholes are finding out.
Generally speaking, there is an attempt made (as there should be) for all the guys in a lineup to look similar, which means your argument is again all lineups, despite that being proven the best way to do such things.
If they're willing to commit those very serious felonies, then the addition of facial recognition software makes no difference whatsoever. Without it (or, rather, before it), they'd just falsify other evidence instead.
If you believe that all cops are like the ones you see on TV, you should - seriously - move to some place where the nearest other human being is at least 500 miles away. This would be to your benefit, and to everyone else's, as well.
That isn't how lineups are done in real life. Real police work bears no resemblance whatsoever to the routine felonies committed by character of cop shows.
Rental cars don't come with drivers. Rental cars with drivers are called . . . taxis.
For a good account of the Tulip Panic, and other examples of how easily the public at large can be sucked in to stupid financial (and other) fads, try http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518 by Mackay.