Punishment of the innocent in order to catch the guilty is a poor way to design a law.
Not that this sort of thing doesn't happen, ooh, almost everywhere else (*AA-sponsored laws, I'm lookin' at you!). Just sayin'.
What's your issue? That your goodies are being felt up? Or that the person doing so is enjoying it?
In the first case, you signed up for the groping when you bought your airline ticket. In the second case, well again, you paid for the service.
I would be extremely surprised to learn of a "person with perverse urges" taking a job with the TSA - which doesn't sound like the most fun career in the world: dealing with passenger frustration and anger; etc - just for the occasional grab at an 8 year old's package in full view of passengers, other employees etc.
It also punishes households that buy a title with the intention of sharing it, whether it be siblings, roomates, or couples. Are they expected to buy two games?
Dunno where you're buying used games, but my local GameStop sold me four used games, all for under $22 each recently. Fairly new games that originally sold for $40-60, e.g. Assassassasin's Creed II about two months before Brotherhood came out: $21.95.
They get away with this behaviour because the law is concerned with intent. If you don't know what this means, back to law school with you. And by law school, I of course mean slashdot.
The real issue is more simple than that I think. By stating (with reasonable probability) that they commited the crime they probably give the feds enough to gain a warrant. With that warrant they'll confinscate PCs/hard drives and plant the factual evidence that will definitely lead to a conviction.
If the loss is covered by insurance, then by definition the bank is not eating the cost. Unless of course the bank is insuring itself against such loss, in which case, they're still charging their customers for this service one way or another.
A signature does provides perfect security (from a legal POV) regardless of whether or not it is checked precisely because of the possibility of forgery. Consider: a fraudster forges your signature and walks away with the goodies. The transaction shows up on your statement. You call the issuer and say "I dispute this charge - I was in Belgium at the time - and I have passport stamps and hotel receipts to prove it". Issuer says "fair enough guvnor, musta been fraud". Same fraudster now guesses your PIN (or hacks it in one way or another), and uses THAT to authorise charges. Noticing the fraudulent transaction, you call the issuer and say "Can't have been me - I was in Belgium etc". Unfortunately, there's no way to prove you didn't give the fraudster your PIN, and so you're on the hook for the charges - this is not an issue with a signature because simply using someone else's (with or without consent) is illegal (c.f. aforementioned ease-of-forgery).
Slashdot Mirror
Punishment of the innocent in order to catch the guilty is a poor way to design a law. Not that this sort of thing doesn't happen, ooh, almost everywhere else (*AA-sponsored laws, I'm lookin' at you!). Just sayin'.
I am sick and tired of this and something needs to be done.
That something being posting on /.?
Neocon.
..wife ? :)
I agree. I firmly believe we should put the pastry chefs in charge of programming the applications.
What's your issue? That your goodies are being felt up? Or that the person doing so is enjoying it? In the first case, you signed up for the groping when you bought your airline ticket. In the second case, well again, you paid for the service. I would be extremely surprised to learn of a "person with perverse urges" taking a job with the TSA - which doesn't sound like the most fun career in the world: dealing with passenger frustration and anger; etc - just for the occasional grab at an 8 year old's package in full view of passengers, other employees etc.
It also punishes households that buy a title with the intention of sharing it, whether it be siblings, roomates, or couples. Are they expected to buy two games?
FTFY, and yes.
Dunno where you're buying used games, but my local GameStop sold me four used games, all for under $22 each recently. Fairly new games that originally sold for $40-60, e.g. Assassassasin's Creed II about two months before Brotherhood came out: $21.95.
The Evil part, clearly.
They get away with this behaviour because the law is concerned with intent. If you don't know what this means, back to law school with you. And by law school, I of course mean slashdot.
The real issue is more simple than that I think. By stating (with reasonable probability) that they commited the crime they probably give the feds enough to gain a warrant. With that warrant they'll confinscate PCs/hard drives and plant the factual evidence that will definitely lead to a conviction.
FTFY.
So what you're saying is:
The FBI do or do not have real information.
The attacks will or will not continue.
Thanks so much for the clarification!
No, and you should sue whoever provided you with such a poor education.
No thanks. I don't want a payment option which charges me for convenience.
You mean like a credit or debit card?
If the loss is covered by insurance, then by definition the bank is not eating the cost. Unless of course the bank is insuring itself against such loss, in which case, they're still charging their customers for this service one way or another.
A signature does provides perfect security (from a legal POV) regardless of whether or not it is checked precisely because of the possibility of forgery. Consider: a fraudster forges your signature and walks away with the goodies. The transaction shows up on your statement. You call the issuer and say "I dispute this charge - I was in Belgium at the time - and I have passport stamps and hotel receipts to prove it". Issuer says "fair enough guvnor, musta been fraud". Same fraudster now guesses your PIN (or hacks it in one way or another), and uses THAT to authorise charges. Noticing the fraudulent transaction, you call the issuer and say "Can't have been me - I was in Belgium etc". Unfortunately, there's no way to prove you didn't give the fraudster your PIN, and so you're on the hook for the charges - this is not an issue with a signature because simply using someone else's (with or without consent) is illegal (c.f. aforementioned ease-of-forgery).
with the exception of .. Canada
Might want to brush up on reading/ comprehension skills there buddo.
when you're finally fucking you'd rather just keep it up
I've found that typically helps.