If you have a credit report, that means you use services of the companies that use credit agencies, and you've agreed to it. Nobody put a gun to your head.
The difference is intent.
If you can prove that credit report agencies intentionally try to libel you, then you would have the case.
Meanwhile, those credit bureaus provide a service to you, even if you don't realize it. They allow you to get credit without a huge hassle, when you need one, provided you have been responsible with credit in the past.
See, I'd agree with all of that, if it was the case where the companies could just hoard all that data with no accountability to you.
However, one can always check their credit report without a problem; this law does not change that.
What it does, is entitle you to a service that would otherwise cost you some money.
The way I see it, it is within a private company's right (utilities are private companies too, after all) to collect any information about you and pass it on, if you agreed to it. Most people obviously don't mind, as it eases up the process of getting a loan when they need to.
Some people obviously do mind, but there are ways for them to get around the credit bureaus. I'm pretty sure you can pre-pay for your telephone service and the like, so that you don't have to divulge your social security number.
And yes, your identity can be stolen, just like your car can be. However, the government does not stipulate that insurance companies give you free theft protection, and neither should it for credit bureaus.
FBI's case is different, since it is a government agency, and as such is regulated by us, the people, by default.
The reason I am so against it, is not because I care about this issue per se; I really don't. It just bothers me to see the government assume the responsibility to know what is best for us.
Difficult does not mean impossible, nor does it entitle you to anything. It is near impossible for me to live where I live and not own a car; however that does not entitle me to a free Toyota.
You certainly CAN trademark the appearence of a product. It's been like that forever.
Coca-Cola has a trademark on the shape of its bottle, for instance.
Well, the morality of having "bathroom attendants" is a different topic altogether. For the record, I agree with you, I don't think it should be a tipping situation, but seeing that it is anyway and people willingly part with their money for the privilige of being handed a towel, it really is a moot point.
For the second part, from the article the grandparent posted it's clear that the bathroom attendants in question are not "regular" workers; they're leased the space they work on, and thus may be considered self-employed. I know there has to be a minimum wage of around $3 dollars per hour plus tips and that has to make up at leats 5.15/hr, but I have a feeling that the bathroom attendants make scores more.
In any case, I really dislike the idea of people like Spitzer telling businesses what their agreements with bathroom attendants should be, how much mutual funds should charge their customers or how much NYSE CEO is supposed to be making.
And you think bathroom attendants stand there just for the fuck of it? If the place is classy enough to have a bathroom attendant to begin with, then the people who use them leave at least a dollar tip each, which adds up to pretty big amounts.
Spitzer is just drunk on power. He's no champion of the underpriviliged.
Your point being?
The American economy has been enjoying a hands-off attitude by the government for a very long time, why should Bush's stance change all of a sudden?
He would only have control over all those things in case U.S. reverted to a semi-socialistic country a la most EU contries, or a totalitarian regime, like Nazi Germany.
Well, you're right about the libertarian bent.
My views on Bush administration accomplishments non-withstanding, it seems that people at/. tend to blame Bush for things he has very little control over, such as job outsourcing.
And if that's teh case, then it is a good thing. If we always kept our low-paying jobs, half the country would still be laying bricks and raising cattle.
Let's spin this into the argument against the Bush administration.
Ooh, I know, them "neo-cons" decided to pay more to the grads, in order to turn them into Republicans.
That's pure EVIL.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't want anybody sharing your personal information? Don't sign any contracts that allow others to do it.
So it's a trade-off then; if you want to spend more than you can now afford, be ready to turn over your personal information.
If you have a credit report, that means you use services of the companies that use credit agencies, and you've agreed to it. Nobody put a gun to your head.
The difference is intent. If you can prove that credit report agencies intentionally try to libel you, then you would have the case. Meanwhile, those credit bureaus provide a service to you, even if you don't realize it. They allow you to get credit without a huge hassle, when you need one, provided you have been responsible with credit in the past.
See, I'd agree with all of that, if it was the case where the companies could just hoard all that data with no accountability to you. However, one can always check their credit report without a problem; this law does not change that. What it does, is entitle you to a service that would otherwise cost you some money.
Some people obviously do mind, but there are ways for them to get around the credit bureaus. I'm pretty sure you can pre-pay for your telephone service and the like, so that you don't have to divulge your social security number.
And yes, your identity can be stolen, just like your car can be. However, the government does not stipulate that insurance companies give you free theft protection, and neither should it for credit bureaus.
FBI's case is different, since it is a government agency, and as such is regulated by us, the people, by default.
The reason I am so against it, is not because I care about this issue per se; I really don't. It just bothers me to see the government assume the responsibility to know what is best for us.
Difficult does not mean impossible, nor does it entitle you to anything. It is near impossible for me to live where I live and not own a car; however that does not entitle me to a free Toyota.
When you sign up for a loan, or other such thing, you explicitly agree for the bank to share your information with the credit bureau.
Don't like it? Don't take out any loans. There's a case to be made for not living on credit.
Exactly. Why not make a law saying that every U.S. resident is entitled to a free car every year? That'd be a swell idea.
Did you feel 'abused' when a bank gave you that money, that you would not be able to get otherwise ?
Are you not willingly doing business with these companies?
Once again, the government decided that it should tell private companies how to go about their business.
Is that why a lot of progressives are hostile to Christians? ;-)
You certainly CAN trademark the appearence of a product. It's been like that forever. Coca-Cola has a trademark on the shape of its bottle, for instance.
Amen to that, brother.
Well, the morality of having "bathroom attendants" is a different topic altogether. For the record, I agree with you, I don't think it should be a tipping situation, but seeing that it is anyway and people willingly part with their money for the privilige of being handed a towel, it really is a moot point. For the second part, from the article the grandparent posted it's clear that the bathroom attendants in question are not "regular" workers; they're leased the space they work on, and thus may be considered self-employed. I know there has to be a minimum wage of around $3 dollars per hour plus tips and that has to make up at leats 5.15/hr, but I have a feeling that the bathroom attendants make scores more. In any case, I really dislike the idea of people like Spitzer telling businesses what their agreements with bathroom attendants should be, how much mutual funds should charge their customers or how much NYSE CEO is supposed to be making.
And you think bathroom attendants stand there just for the fuck of it? If the place is classy enough to have a bathroom attendant to begin with, then the people who use them leave at least a dollar tip each, which adds up to pretty big amounts. Spitzer is just drunk on power. He's no champion of the underpriviliged.
Your point being? The American economy has been enjoying a hands-off attitude by the government for a very long time, why should Bush's stance change all of a sudden?
He would only have control over all those things in case U.S. reverted to a semi-socialistic country a la most EU contries, or a totalitarian regime, like Nazi Germany.
Well, you're right about the libertarian bent. My views on Bush administration accomplishments non-withstanding, it seems that people at /. tend to blame Bush for things he has very little control over, such as job outsourcing.
Do you have anything to back up that assumption of yours?
Sure they can be. Not to foreigners, but to machines and new technologies. But you're right, there are better examples ;-)
And if that's teh case, then it is a good thing. If we always kept our low-paying jobs, half the country would still be laying bricks and raising cattle.
Let's spin this into the argument against the Bush administration. Ooh, I know, them "neo-cons" decided to pay more to the grads, in order to turn them into Republicans. That's pure EVIL.
Don't forget our state of the art government-run schools. They're the envy of the world :-D