My response will be 'We understand what you are asking, but fail to see how you can compel us to do this. If you feel we are stealing your product, please file charges, otherwise, please stop harassing us. We do not have the time to deal with you.'
Right, which the Judge did, remember? She didn't get the service she was expecting, right off the bat, so she cancelled her service.
They then both a) refused to give her the refund she said she was getting and b) sent her to a collections agency.
Her point is twofold.
One, that she agreed to sign up because it would be on all the time, and there was technical support. Once she was signed up, she found that it didn't work all the time, and the support was a joke. In any normal business dealing, that's a fundamental breach of the implied contract of sale. The service they sold here didn't work as specified, so she cancelled it, and refused to pay them any money.
Then their collection agent went a bit too far with her too, acting quite threatening, talking about ruining her credit rating, etc.
She's going after them for selling a bunk product, not for losing her internet access. She hasn't paid them any money, and is instead taking them to court over it.
Had they simply said 'we're sorry you didn't like our service, we hope you come back some day' all woudl ahve been well. This is about their actions, not her loss of access.
The bulk of the money she's asking for is in punitive damanges because of Rogers behavior; the behavior of their collection agents, and there refusal to do proper business.
This is not simply about internet downtime.
The breach of contract part is about the contract/aup/whatever you want to call it.
However, an AUP that disclaims punitive damanges would be, i'd think, limited to damages related to internet access or loss thereof, directly. So you can't sue them when they crash and you lose access to e-trade for an hour and lose money.. that's not their fault. You cannot, however, disclaim all punitive measures against the company itself for whatever reason...
She's suing because of their actions as a company, not because of lost internet access.
.. It's a consumer service. The consumer has a right to demand that things work.
Also, recall that she is not seeking punitive damanges because of her internet service, but because of Roger's actions as a company. She is not asking for punitive damages because her net access didn't work, she's suing for damanges because of how they acted *after* she cancelled her service.
I just think that the spam sent should have a proper subject/from address, period.
You should *absolutely* be able to respond to the owners using the same medium they used to contact you (email), and the subject should not be misleading in any way. If they are offering you cheap loans, the subject should be 'Cheap loan offer'. Not 'Hey bill, check this out!'
No, it's not, and that's covered by specific laws relating to tennants rights.
This is not racism, this is not some big conspiracy. A better analogy might be:
You know find out your tennants are not actually living in the house, but have a huge meth lab and pot farm in it. You are within your rights to immediately evict them (and call the police, of course).
If this was just a newsgroup with a name, and it was being pulled by name only, that'd be different.. but it's OBVIOUS and EASY to VERIFY what is in these groups.. copyrighted material belonging to these corporations.
And again, let's remember that this won't stop people from posting these thinsg to usenet.. they'll just use a different group.
As for the IRC server, If you look at the efnet news page (www.efnet.org I think) it was pulled due to continuous DOS attacks against it, I believe (might be wrong).
As it was run 'for fun' and not as a serious offering (you won't find it in your contract anywhere as a service they provide) you can't really whine... legally...
But, of course, as a customer, you can and shoudl take your business elsewhere if @Home no longer provides the service you want.
Personally, if they pulled their whole usenet feed, hypothetically, what would you do? Do your other providers provide the groups yout want? or would you just go to newsfeeds.com and get an account? (I wouldn't, they recently, even though you are allowed 1gb per server per day, changed the deal so you can only connect to one at a a time... I want my years subscription back now.)
I must say.. according to DMCA, this makes perfect sense. It's no stretch to imagine (and verify) that alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.penthouse (or whatever it was) contains pictures scanned out of Penthouse magazine... which is a copyright violation, by no stretch of the imagination. If the copyright holder is suggesting that not carrying this group (easy change for the ISP to make) will cut down on some infringement, then so be it.
We all know that usenet will just adapt and use a different group anyway.
No, they won't.
And you don't necessarily lose your sight just by looking. It's just really bad for your eyes.
Also, these kinds of things are part of ancient lore, they have happened to all civilisations for a long long time. I'm sure people will probably just stay indoors.
Just curious. Because it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.
Lazy IT people? Not.
The plumber analogy is not correct;a plummer is like an outsourced IT guy; you bring him in when something is wrong, perhaps listen to his advice, pay him, and send him on his way.
I, on the other hand, am told that ensuring the security and integrity of the company network is my responsibility. And contrary to what you believe, it's not because I don't want to fix it that I don't want people to break it; it's beacuse the Company wants those people working, and when they break their computer, the time spent fixing it is time they aren't working.
As for security.. who said anything about not using the network? This is about running an untrusted and UNNEEDED app. I'm sorry, they don't need to run seti@home by any stretch of the imagination. It's not helping them get any work done any easier, and it's not entertaining.
Also, doing a bunch of extra work to support running somethign that has nothing to do with company business is a waste of the company's resources, because we IT types are busy, and actually have stuff to do. At least, I do.
And contrary to what you think, I *DO* have the responsibility to stop workers from using the computers in unapproved ways, *WHENEVER* I wish, just as the CFO has the responsbility to stop finance payments when he sees something amiss. Installing set@home is NOT doing your job. And they aren't telling me how to type my memos because they aren't my boss.
And I don't tend to have rules this strict, but they are an ideal to keep in mind.
Ideally, nobody would ever install anything. Realistically, that is often difficult to enforce.
The point is, if you are in a situation where that IS the rule, and people DO follow it, why break it?
As for distraction... distraction is need? That MUST happen on the computer? No, I don't think so.
I see a world of difference between this and mandatory speeding checks. This is not about speed limits; it is about a contractual limit beyond which you are not supposed to drive the car. I agree it's stupid, and I wouldn't rent from them, however...
Again, this isn't about posted speed limits, this is about the company saying 'you are not to drive this car faster than 55mph, or we'll fine you each time'.
As for your 'blind' ticket... what's that? Like photo-radar? Unfortunately.... the speed limit is still the speed limit pal. Yes, going with the flow can be used as a defense, but I doubt you were in a huge pack of cars when this happened. And if you were saving a life? You were *still* speeding.
I have so little sympathy for photo-radar whiners; no, I don't like photo radar, but I've seen so many people grumble about how it's 'wrong' while they speed to work at 20kph over the posted limit. Whee... it's like 'Goddamn bank security cameras! They interefere with my robbing the place!'
Yes. The gas thing is standard. Any time I rent a car, from Hertz, or Budget, they explained this to me very clearly, intial here to indicate that you understand that if you do not fill the car up before bringing it back, we chareg $3.50/gallon or whatever. It was *clearly and explicitly explained to me*
I've never had my rate changed, sorry. I get it very clearly from them what it will cost in the end. The troubles you have with this are no different than troubles at any other computer-drive powerless-clerk type agency.
This isn't about just building a government controlled network. Far from it.
This is about how the government can assist the private sector in building this network. This means grants, right of ways, etc. This means subsidies for small communities so they, too, can have broadband.
I don't like the in-your-face-canada-rocks attitude (And I'm canadian) either.
On one respect, folks, we dont' want the government 'dictating' what we can do. In other respects, isn't it the job of government to set certain standards of living, and help society accomplish them?
The difference is in both age and size? A shop that unionizes, and all the workers who basically know each other (I use the term loseley), that unionizes, there WILL be good things happening. You get what you want out of it.
OTOH, shops where there has been a union for a long, long time, the union is a political force unto itself, and you can't get rid of it./
If a bunch of tech workers want to unionize, I may disagree with them, but that's their perogative.
On the other hand, when an existing union comes along and starts 'recruiting' new sectors into the flock.. THAT is wrong.
It's not workers saying 'let's unionize and stick up for each other to get what we want'. It's a union spending it's other members dues to say 'You guys should unionize!'
No, I'm sorry. That's not good enough.
Ever rented a car? They explain each detail to you, and ask for initials in several spots to indicate that they've explained the contract to you, including what happens when you encounter photo-radar (if it's in your jurisdiction), what happens when you get tickets, etc...
Suddenly adding a line to the contract about speed monitoring by gps and not TELLING anyone is tantamount to fraud.
Besides, for what reason do they collect monetary damages for this?
Life isn't fair. Of *course* he doesn't lock the CEO out of his computer. I never made MY manager or anyone higher up my immediate food chain do this either. I instead paid personal attention to make sure they were secure.
But you can't do that to everyone, and you have to keep things secure.
It's my job to audit new software to be run on the network, and if it access the network in some way, and you don't need it, it's not going to be approved, plain and simple.
What they are saying, as I've said in past jobs...
1) Your computer is not your computer, it is the company's computer.
2) Your computer is to assist you in doing your job.
3) Security is important
4) So you don't run anything we don't approve of.
The security audit of a new app can be fairly simple.
Question #1: Do employees need to run this? NO. Jump to DENY
Anything running that access the network, unattended, is a *potential* security threat. running the most secure of secure ftp servers is still a threat if *you don't need one in the first place*.
Dollar bill? I walk to a change machine and exchange the bill for quarters. Better yet, I ask some guy on the street for change.
Gold ingots can have serial numbers; transactions can be recorded. Yes, you can also melt it down, and find a buyer; harder to do when it's not in a recognized form.
Either way, you can take extra effort to have someting not traced.
Yes, the price of gold was no longer fixed after 1971. It was also illegal to own gold buillion in the US prior to 1974 so..... the point is somewhat moot.
I'm talknig about stability over generations, over 100's of years, of COURSE there will be regional burps. Your 1000% increase was due to the normal way of thigns being supressed prior to this....
the reason many people say this is because they think they can get a top-level tech job straight out of school, be it a university degree, or their MCSE.
Sure, a few might. Most won't.
You get an entry-level job, and work your way up. I don't mean necessarily at the same company, but if you do grunt low-level admin work somewhere for a year, your odds are a lot better for getting that mid-level admin job the next year.. and so on and so forth. Within a few short years, you can command (if you are any good) top level admin positions wherever you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
I hope to receive such a notice some day.
My response will be 'We understand what you are asking, but fail to see how you can compel us to do this. If you feel we are stealing your product, please file charges, otherwise, please stop harassing us. We do not have the time to deal with you.'
No.
Punitive is supposed to punish the offender, more than pay the plaintiff.
The judge asked for much smaller amounts for 'damages'
Right, which the Judge did, remember? She didn't get the service she was expecting, right off the bat, so she cancelled her service.
They then both a) refused to give her the refund she said she was getting and b) sent her to a collections agency.
Her point is twofold.
One, that she agreed to sign up because it would be on all the time, and there was technical support. Once she was signed up, she found that it didn't work all the time, and the support was a joke. In any normal business dealing, that's a fundamental breach of the implied contract of sale. The service they sold here didn't work as specified, so she cancelled it, and refused to pay them any money.
Then their collection agent went a bit too far with her too, acting quite threatening, talking about ruining her credit rating, etc.
She's going after them for selling a bunk product, not for losing her internet access. She hasn't paid them any money, and is instead taking them to court over it.
Had they simply said 'we're sorry you didn't like our service, we hope you come back some day' all woudl ahve been well. This is about their actions, not her loss of access.
The bulk of the money she's asking for is in punitive damanges because of Rogers behavior; the behavior of their collection agents, and there refusal to do proper business.
This is not simply about internet downtime.
The breach of contract part is about the contract/aup/whatever you want to call it.
However, an AUP that disclaims punitive damanges would be, i'd think, limited to damages related to internet access or loss thereof, directly. So you can't sue them when they crash and you lose access to e-trade for an hour and lose money.. that's not their fault. You cannot, however, disclaim all punitive measures against the company itself for whatever reason...
She's suing because of their actions as a company, not because of lost internet access.
.. It's a consumer service. The consumer has a right to demand that things work.
Also, recall that she is not seeking punitive damanges because of her internet service, but because of Roger's actions as a company. She is not asking for punitive damages because her net access didn't work, she's suing for damanges because of how they acted *after* she cancelled her service.
The Judge probably decided to do that after Rogers sent a *collection agency* to collect supposedly owed fees for a service that didn't work.
I just think that the spam sent should have a proper subject/from address, period.
You should *absolutely* be able to respond to the owners using the same medium they used to contact you (email), and the subject should not be misleading in any way. If they are offering you cheap loans, the subject should be 'Cheap loan offer'. Not 'Hey bill, check this out!'
No, it's not, and that's covered by specific laws relating to tennants rights.
This is not racism, this is not some big conspiracy. A better analogy might be:
You know find out your tennants are not actually living in the house, but have a huge meth lab and pot farm in it. You are within your rights to immediately evict them (and call the police, of course).
If this was just a newsgroup with a name, and it was being pulled by name only, that'd be different.. but it's OBVIOUS and EASY to VERIFY what is in these groups.. copyrighted material belonging to these corporations.
And again, let's remember that this won't stop people from posting these thinsg to usenet.. they'll just use a different group.
Right, and that's your perogative as a consumer.
As for the IRC server, If you look at the efnet news page (www.efnet.org I think) it was pulled due to continuous DOS attacks against it, I believe (might be wrong).
As it was run 'for fun' and not as a serious offering (you won't find it in your contract anywhere as a service they provide) you can't really whine... legally...
But, of course, as a customer, you can and shoudl take your business elsewhere if @Home no longer provides the service you want.
Personally, if they pulled their whole usenet feed, hypothetically, what would you do? Do your other providers provide the groups yout want? or would you just go to newsfeeds.com and get an account? (I wouldn't, they recently, even though you are allowed 1gb per server per day, changed the deal so you can only connect to one at a a time... I want my years subscription back now.)
I must say.. according to DMCA, this makes perfect sense. It's no stretch to imagine (and verify) that alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.penthouse (or whatever it was) contains pictures scanned out of Penthouse magazine... which is a copyright violation, by no stretch of the imagination. If the copyright holder is suggesting that not carrying this group (easy change for the ISP to make) will cut down on some infringement, then so be it.
We all know that usenet will just adapt and use a different group anyway.
No, they won't.
And you don't necessarily lose your sight just by looking. It's just really bad for your eyes.
Also, these kinds of things are part of ancient lore, they have happened to all civilisations for a long long time. I'm sure people will probably just stay indoors.
Just curious. Because it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.
Lazy IT people? Not.
The plumber analogy is not correct;a plummer is like an outsourced IT guy; you bring him in when something is wrong, perhaps listen to his advice, pay him, and send him on his way.
I, on the other hand, am told that ensuring the security and integrity of the company network is my responsibility. And contrary to what you believe, it's not because I don't want to fix it that I don't want people to break it; it's beacuse the Company wants those people working, and when they break their computer, the time spent fixing it is time they aren't working.
As for security.. who said anything about not using the network? This is about running an untrusted and UNNEEDED app. I'm sorry, they don't need to run seti@home by any stretch of the imagination. It's not helping them get any work done any easier, and it's not entertaining.
Also, doing a bunch of extra work to support running somethign that has nothing to do with company business is a waste of the company's resources, because we IT types are busy, and actually have stuff to do. At least, I do.
And contrary to what you think, I *DO* have the responsibility to stop workers from using the computers in unapproved ways, *WHENEVER* I wish, just as the CFO has the responsbility to stop finance payments when he sees something amiss. Installing set@home is NOT doing your job. And they aren't telling me how to type my memos because they aren't my boss.
And I don't tend to have rules this strict, but they are an ideal to keep in mind.
Ideally, nobody would ever install anything. Realistically, that is often difficult to enforce.
The point is, if you are in a situation where that IS the rule, and people DO follow it, why break it?
As for distraction... distraction is need? That MUST happen on the computer? No, I don't think so.
I see a world of difference between this and mandatory speeding checks. This is not about speed limits; it is about a contractual limit beyond which you are not supposed to drive the car. I agree it's stupid, and I wouldn't rent from them, however...
Again, this isn't about posted speed limits, this is about the company saying 'you are not to drive this car faster than 55mph, or we'll fine you each time'.
As for your 'blind' ticket... what's that? Like photo-radar? Unfortunately.... the speed limit is still the speed limit pal. Yes, going with the flow can be used as a defense, but I doubt you were in a huge pack of cars when this happened. And if you were saving a life? You were *still* speeding.
I have so little sympathy for photo-radar whiners; no, I don't like photo radar, but I've seen so many people grumble about how it's 'wrong' while they speed to work at 20kph over the posted limit. Whee... it's like 'Goddamn bank security cameras! They interefere with my robbing the place!'
Yes. The gas thing is standard. Any time I rent a car, from Hertz, or Budget, they explained this to me very clearly, intial here to indicate that you understand that if you do not fill the car up before bringing it back, we chareg $3.50/gallon or whatever. It was *clearly and explicitly explained to me*
I've never had my rate changed, sorry. I get it very clearly from them what it will cost in the end. The troubles you have with this are no different than troubles at any other computer-drive powerless-clerk type agency.
This isn't about just building a government controlled network. Far from it.
This is about how the government can assist the private sector in building this network. This means grants, right of ways, etc. This means subsidies for small communities so they, too, can have broadband.
I don't like the in-your-face-canada-rocks attitude (And I'm canadian) either.
On one respect, folks, we dont' want the government 'dictating' what we can do. In other respects, isn't it the job of government to set certain standards of living, and help society accomplish them?
The difference is in both age and size? A shop that unionizes, and all the workers who basically know each other (I use the term loseley), that unionizes, there WILL be good things happening. You get what you want out of it.
OTOH, shops where there has been a union for a long, long time, the union is a political force unto itself, and you can't get rid of it./
If a bunch of tech workers want to unionize, I may disagree with them, but that's their perogative.
On the other hand, when an existing union comes along and starts 'recruiting' new sectors into the flock.. THAT is wrong.
It's not workers saying 'let's unionize and stick up for each other to get what we want'. It's a union spending it's other members dues to say 'You guys should unionize!'
No, I'm sorry. That's not good enough.
Ever rented a car? They explain each detail to you, and ask for initials in several spots to indicate that they've explained the contract to you, including what happens when you encounter photo-radar (if it's in your jurisdiction), what happens when you get tickets, etc...
Suddenly adding a line to the contract about speed monitoring by gps and not TELLING anyone is tantamount to fraud.
Besides, for what reason do they collect monetary damages for this?
Life isn't fair. Of *course* he doesn't lock the CEO out of his computer. I never made MY manager or anyone higher up my immediate food chain do this either. I instead paid personal attention to make sure they were secure.
But you can't do that to everyone, and you have to keep things secure.
It's my job to audit new software to be run on the network, and if it access the network in some way, and you don't need it, it's not going to be approved, plain and simple.
What they are saying, as I've said in past jobs...
1) Your computer is not your computer, it is the company's computer.
2) Your computer is to assist you in doing your job.
3) Security is important
4) So you don't run anything we don't approve of.
The security audit of a new app can be fairly simple.
Question #1: Do employees need to run this? NO. Jump to DENY
Anything running that access the network, unattended, is a *potential* security threat. running the most secure of secure ftp servers is still a threat if *you don't need one in the first place*.
Dollar bill? I walk to a change machine and exchange the bill for quarters. Better yet, I ask some guy on the street for change.
Gold ingots can have serial numbers; transactions can be recorded. Yes, you can also melt it down, and find a buyer; harder to do when it's not in a recognized form.
Either way, you can take extra effort to have someting not traced.
a 30 year burp, nothing more.
Yes, the price of gold was no longer fixed after 1971. It was also illegal to own gold buillion in the US prior to 1974 so..... the point is somewhat moot.
I'm talknig about stability over generations, over 100's of years, of COURSE there will be regional burps. Your 1000% increase was due to the normal way of thigns being supressed prior to this....
the reason many people say this is because they think they can get a top-level tech job straight out of school, be it a university degree, or their MCSE.
Sure, a few might. Most won't.
You get an entry-level job, and work your way up. I don't mean necessarily at the same company, but if you do grunt low-level admin work somewhere for a year, your odds are a lot better for getting that mid-level admin job the next year.. and so on and so forth. Within a few short years, you can command (if you are any good) top level admin positions wherever you want.