Because a lot of Americans fall into the Libertarian "business transactions are between you and the business, not the government" trap
Because in general it is not the government's business to interfere with private agreements. If you and I agree to something, we should not need the government's permission.
, even when it severely disadvantages them.
In this case, it does not. The system works as designed and the courts are now going to determine whether or not Apple's point of view (that an iPhone cannot be guaranteed to work after 1 year) is reasonable or not. This is based on general principles of reasonableness, not on a codified mandate for consumer warranties.
We don't need the government to create laws that "protect" us, because those laws will have side effects.
Don't believe me? Let me give you one example. It's somewhat off topic and may start a flame war, but that is not my intention. In my home country, the unions have been successful in creating very strong labor protection laws. In short, once you hire someone on a permanent contract, it becomes very difficult to fire them. That resulted in employers being careful in giving permanent contracts, and opting for temporary contracts which kept getting extended. Then the government created new laws to prevent that from happening, by mandating a permanent contract after three extensions. And guess what? Do you think more people got permanent contracts? No. "Disposable" workers that are easily replaced where replaced after three contracts. In California, where I live, there is the principle of at-will employment. This means (explaining for non-US person), that I can get hired and fired at any time. And you know what: that flexibility causes businesses to hire without giving it a second thought. No bullshit with temporary contracts needed, because everything is flexible.
That is the net result of government interference, no matter how well these laws are meant.
The protest hasn't even happened yet and this strategy is paying dividends. Looks like a 100% win so far.
Not exactly. Their strategy makes me dislike their union even more, and I hope they don't get what they want. I don't protest in your front yard to complain about the job that I voluntarily accepted, right? AT&T employees have no business protesting in my backyard, your backyard, or Costco's parking lot. Or Apple's for that matter.
If there is a trade war nothing of value will be lost. The only thing you Americans produce are mass murder weapons. You can keep them.
Yes, which are pretty much the only thing that prevent Putin from doing the same to EU as he did with Crimea.
Food ? Don't need, we have our own (real genuine, not hormone or genetically modified shit).
Yes, let me quote the NY Times:
Without a trace of embarrassment, a spokeswoman for Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, admitted that the first ministerâ(TM)s science adviser had not been consulted because the decision âoewasnâ(TM)t based on scientific evidence.â
Who are you screwing with?
Luxury items ? Don't need, we have our own.
European TV, American TV, all made in China.
Tourism ? You have nothing to offer besides The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone Park. Museums ?
Right. Oviously never been to the U.S.
Europe shits all over the US.
Cars ? No thanks, we have our own.
Ah yes, Europe. Home to the Lada, Zastava and Yugo,
Books ? You don't read so you can't offer anything worthwhile.
Who needs books when you have TV?
95% of TV shows that you watch are Made In America.
Europe doesn't need the US. If we could we would send back your occupation troops (and nuclear weapons) and close all american bases on the continent.
Without the U.S all of Europe would be speaking German or Russian.
But all of that does not matter. Pretty soon Arab will be the default language.
I really don't understand why GP felt the need to throw shade on the producer of the report,
Because for SANS Institute is a for-profit private organization with self-study accreditation. According to their accreditation they have 294 enrollments (http://www.msche.org/institutions_view.asp?idinstitution=595), and have a campus in Courtyard by Marriott Madison East, Madison, WI hotel.
Really?
And not to forget, they charge $47,000 for an online degree program. I completed my MSc for $9,000, also through distance learning.
Your link is irrelevant. E/// is not a metro-E provider. Ericsson's primary networking business is in radio-related equipment like base-stations and microwave.
According to E///'s annual report (https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/investors/documents/2016/ericsson-annual-report-2016-en.pdf), Global Services and Support brought more revenue than their Networks sales.
Also, Ericsson operates a lot of networks that it did not build, here is one example: the LTSS network of NBN in Australia.
our Defense Budget alone is more than the next 3 countries combined;
Don't forget that at least 30% of that is not really defense. What do you folks do who graduate high school and have no idea what to do? Right, they join the armed forces.
The armed forces provide more social services than any other government funded program, all paid out of the Defense budget. And you know what? I like that. Because those youngsters don't end up on the street getting welfare and joining gangs, but they end up learning discipline, trades, and are ready to defend the country if needed.
Really, this seems like more of an user education problem than anything else.
This, exactly this.
And it also goes to show how bloated the TFA's phone is. All those useless apps installed, each and every one of them copying his contacts, emails and whatever. Seriously, you allow a crossword puzzle app (why the F anyone would have that on their phone goes beyond me) to send you notifications? Even Yelp is questionable.
This is a self-inflicted wound from this clueless luser.
No, AC, you're making a proper hash of things. If the legal system is punishing you for it, that means it apparently wasn't free speech.
I'm afraid you may have to take a further look into this matter. As far as I know, free speech as protected in the 1st amendment, means that
You do not need explicit approval from the Government to express your speech (your speech being oral, writing or otherwise). There is no Government pre-censorship, and it is up to you to make sure you stay within the law of acceptable speech.
Now obviously, the courts have also used that to define and protect censorship after the fact. In this particular case, it is not about a billionaire vs poor little news paper, as the filmer and Gawker would really like you to believe. It is about a editor willingly publish someones most intimate and private moments without their consent. That has nothing to do with free speech. Further, this was a civil suit, not a criminal suit. And that makes a ton of difference too.
Because the US is the only country that can enforce its laws worldwide, such as the FATCA nonsense that prevents Americans working overseas from doing ordinary banking business.
Not true. The bank must comply with IRS reporting regulations when dealing with U.S. persons, that's it. Nothing prevents any bank from dealing with U.S. persons. Also, if the bank does not have any business in the U.S., they cannot enforce their rules.
Yes, because the network boundaries very often correspond with national boundaries which it's the EU's role to break down.
Why would that be the EU's role? Again, network boundaries are a business decision, not a political decision. The EU should keep it's nose out of private businesses.
Peering arrangements are a thing. Why should mobile networks be any different.
Mobile networks are not any different and peering arrangements are a thing. What you are paying for with roaming fees is the privilege to access the network of a third party as if you were a subscriber there.
Let me give you an extreme and fictional example. We have LuxemCell and Deutsche Telekom. LuxemCell only provides services in Luxembourg, which is a tiny country. This means that LuxemCell does not need a lot of infrastructure and can charge a very low price for its services. DT on the other hand needs to maintain a large network in Germany, which has way higher costs. Why would DT be compelled to provide services to LuxemCell's customers without being able to charge for it? Because that's exactly what's happening here.
Next you'll be telling us you're against net neutrality.
I am indeed against the current implementation of "net neutrality", for exactly the same reason. No government should interfere with the configuration of a private network. If a government wants to dictate how I should transmit data frames on a network, they should build their own network. Stay off my lawn and off my network.
The whole term "net neutrality" is stupid and does not cover any of the technical aspects. Any network that needs "net neutrality" interference is an extremely poorly designed network in the first place. Reason for this is that in the simplest terms, "net neutrality" bans the prioritization of certain traffic over the other. That prioritization, called Quality of Service in networking terms, only comes into play when a particular link is 100% utilized. Any network which allows a subscriber traffic carrying link to be 100% utilized is poorly designed.
What "net neutrality" advocates should be fighting for is regulation that bans intentional interference with subscriber traffic. But that's something that, strictly speaking, should be a part of contract law. Reason for this is that I have a contractual relationship with my ISP, and I'm paying to have Netflix traffic delivered to my cable modem. I can reasonably expect my ISP to deliver those frames without intentional interference, or they would be in breach of contract. I should be able to sue for damages, not Netflix, or some stupid ass government agency.
Remember, you're asking for protection from the same government, that in other threads you'll blast for invasion of privacy when your ISP is compelled to hand over your browsing data.
Take a step back, look at it from 10,000ft (or 3km, in non-retard units) and think about it.
they're only banning the use of a customers location within the EU from being a part of the pricing model.
I don't think you understand what they are doing here. They are banning the charging of using a network that is not included in your service. They are banning the charging of using your service on a network that is not paid for by your subscription fees.
On top of that, many EU phone companies have already slashed their fees, in order to gain a competitive advantage. The EUSSR is now taking that away.
Roaming charges in a place where countries are so densely packed that you can walk from one side to the other without any great effort are a huge frigging problem.
They are. But so is government interference in a free market.
The government (in this case, the EU) has no business dictating what pricing should be for a particular service, unless there are special circumstances like monopolies. It is very hard to argue that there is a monopoly or duopoly in most EU member States' cellphone market.
As a consumer, you have the choice to either accept whatever rate is being set, or to just go and get a local sim card in whatever country you are. Or, to choose a carrier who eliminates roaming charges without being forced by the government to do so.
For example, after living 35 years in the EU I moved to the US. Initially I chose AT&T as my cellphone service provider, but I switched to T-Mobile because T-Mo offers free international data roaming and text, and low rates for voice calls. I used to travel a lot, so that was important to me.
With the EU basically interfering with a privately owned company's business model, T-Mo's competitive advantage would be lost if this were to be interested in my current jurisdiction.
That's bad, and the EU needs to make a choice: either they keep their dirty politician fingers out of the market place, or they continue on the path towards the EUSSR.
And yes, I know this is an unpopular opinion which is likely to be downmodded, but I don't give a rat's ass about that.
And so we come to the crux of the problem: FEMALES.
This has nothing to do with male vs female admins. If anything, it's the other way around. In my experience, females 'accept' more abuse than male admins. And by that I mean, that the women I've worked with let it slide more often and longer and only decide to look for another job when really needed.
This whole case is nothing more than amateur hour of a three-man "hosting shop" without proper procedures. Just look at the whois information for verelox.com. The phone number listed is a Dutch cell phone number.
They're amateurs. Nothing more and nothing less. And they made a rookie mistake.
Judges don't side with corporations. Judges interpret the law, made by representatives of the people.
You want to change the outcome of a court case? Change the law.
And for the record: I'm not defending these stupid arbitration clauses, and I personally believe that they should non-enforceable. But it's up to congress to change the laws, not judges. Be careful what you wish for.
Westerners don't need to give up their own freedom. They can discriminate, and give up the freedom of muslims.
Get on Netflix and watch Homecoming King by Hasan Minhaj.
Hasan Minhaj is a 1st gen American, who talks about his upbringing and the racism he faced. He has a very strong piece of what happened to his family after 9/11. Just watch it, and then rethink your comment.
I'm sure he'll be all over this. He cares about American jobs after all.
If he does, he'll instruct USCIS to pay better attention to H1-B petitions that are being adjudicated right now, and make sure that none of the petitions apply to beneficiaries with a comparable skillset to those that are being laid off. In other words: until these 125 people have a new job, USCIS should scrutinize pending H1-B petitions.
Let's be honest, that would only make sense, and if these guys are any good they'll have a new job tomorrow.
I use google to search for whats available online and accessible. If I wanted to search wsj I'm sure they have their own search engine. May as well block the entire site.
Many users have blocked experts-exchange for the same reason. They are probably the most hated result in Google, and even have Firefox add-ons to block them. WSJ should look at this very carefully.
Except those businesses are hindering other businesses. When trucks can't make deliveries on time because of double-parked Ubers, and buses are constantly dodging people getting in and out of lyft cars and get stuck behind these drivers making illegal left-hand turns, and when cyclists are nearly killed on a daily basis because idiot tourists are opening the doors of their Uber driver into traffic and "dooring" them, then it's hindering the business of other people getting to THEIR business. I know this for a fact because it happens to me daily here in SF. I see all this shit regularly.
Last time I checked, a truck driver that gets pulled over for speeding pays his own ticket, and gets the points on his license. A cabby that double parks gets his own ticket. An uber driver that double parks gets his own tickets. Uber and Lyft are platforms. They don't drive the cars, their contractors (or employees, in some views) do. It is not even alleged that Uber encourages breaking the law.
Uber and Lyft are ride-sharing platform apps. You not liking their business model does not make it illegal. If a car double parks, the police can and will ticket them. That's how you solve this. You don't subpoena a billion dollar company for their confidential information.
Unless of course, SF is slowly turning into Saint Franciscoburg.
I don't see a legal reason Uber or Lyft would have to give up that data. My standard policy is "fuck them" for both Uber and Lyft, but they should laugh at this "subpoena".
Exactly right. Progressive in SF means nothing more that to hinder business and to take away as much as they can.
One jealous city attorney has no business forcing a company to disclose company confidential information. This is why people absolutely hate SF. I'm really surprised business even want to be there.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US
Again: totally irrelevant. Again: a child does not control the parent, the parent controls the child. There are also Twitter users in China, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Chinese law? There are also Twitter users in North Korea, do you think Twitter is going to abide by North Korean law? There are also Twitter users in Afghanistan, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Sharia law?
No, good sir, the EUSSR has no business interfering with a legal entity in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a lot of Americans fall into the Libertarian "business transactions are between you and the business, not the government" trap
Because in general it is not the government's business to interfere with private agreements. If you and I agree to something, we should not need the government's permission.
, even when it severely disadvantages them.
In this case, it does not. The system works as designed and the courts are now going to determine whether or not Apple's point of view (that an iPhone cannot be guaranteed to work after 1 year) is reasonable or not. This is based on general principles of reasonableness, not on a codified mandate for consumer warranties.
We don't need the government to create laws that "protect" us, because those laws will have side effects.
Don't believe me? Let me give you one example. It's somewhat off topic and may start a flame war, but that is not my intention. In my home country, the unions have been successful in creating very strong labor protection laws. In short, once you hire someone on a permanent contract, it becomes very difficult to fire them. That resulted in employers being careful in giving permanent contracts, and opting for temporary contracts which kept getting extended. Then the government created new laws to prevent that from happening, by mandating a permanent contract after three extensions. And guess what? Do you think more people got permanent contracts? No. "Disposable" workers that are easily replaced where replaced after three contracts. In California, where I live, there is the principle of at-will employment. This means (explaining for non-US person), that I can get hired and fired at any time. And you know what: that flexibility causes businesses to hire without giving it a second thought. No bullshit with temporary contracts needed, because everything is flexible.
That is the net result of government interference, no matter how well these laws are meant.
I'm still waiting, but potentially automated speed traps are possible with this tech.
No need to wait. Europa has had them for years.
The protest hasn't even happened yet and this strategy is paying dividends. Looks like a 100% win so far.
Not exactly. Their strategy makes me dislike their union even more, and I hope they don't get what they want. I don't protest in your front yard to complain about the job that I voluntarily accepted, right? AT&T employees have no business protesting in my backyard, your backyard, or Costco's parking lot. Or Apple's for that matter.
If there is a trade war nothing of value will be lost. The only thing you Americans produce are mass murder weapons. You can keep them.
Yes, which are pretty much the only thing that prevent Putin from doing the same to EU as he did with Crimea.
Food ? Don't need, we have our own (real genuine, not hormone or genetically modified shit).
Yes, let me quote the NY Times:
Without a trace of embarrassment, a spokeswoman for Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, admitted that the first ministerâ(TM)s science adviser had not been consulted because the decision âoewasnâ(TM)t based on scientific evidence.â
Who are you screwing with?
Luxury items ? Don't need, we have our own.
European TV, American TV, all made in China.
Tourism ? You have nothing to offer besides The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone Park. Museums ?
Right. Oviously never been to the U.S.
Europe shits all over the US. Cars ? No thanks, we have our own.
Ah yes, Europe. Home to the Lada, Zastava and Yugo,
Books ? You don't read so you can't offer anything worthwhile.
Who needs books when you have TV? 95% of TV shows that you watch are Made In America.
Europe doesn't need the US. If we could we would send back your occupation troops (and nuclear weapons) and close all american bases on the continent.
Without the U.S all of Europe would be speaking German or Russian.
But all of that does not matter. Pretty soon Arab will be the default language.
I really don't understand why GP felt the need to throw shade on the producer of the report,
Because for SANS Institute is a for-profit private organization with self-study accreditation. According to their accreditation they have 294 enrollments (http://www.msche.org/institutions_view.asp?idinstitution=595), and have a campus in Courtyard by Marriott Madison East, Madison, WI hotel.
Really?
And not to forget, they charge $47,000 for an online degree program. I completed my MSc for $9,000, also through distance learning.
This political climate - the one we are living in right now - is insane.
My kingdom for mod points.
You can just sit back and wait for an SJW victim to go postal.
Your link is irrelevant. E/// is not a metro-E provider. Ericsson's primary networking business is in radio-related equipment like base-stations and microwave. According to E///'s annual report (https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/investors/documents/2016/ericsson-annual-report-2016-en.pdf), Global Services and Support brought more revenue than their Networks sales. Also, Ericsson operates a lot of networks that it did not build, here is one example: the LTSS network of NBN in Australia.
our Defense Budget alone is more than the next 3 countries combined;
Don't forget that at least 30% of that is not really defense. What do you folks do who graduate high school and have no idea what to do? Right, they join the armed forces.
The armed forces provide more social services than any other government funded program, all paid out of the Defense budget. And you know what? I like that. Because those youngsters don't end up on the street getting welfare and joining gangs, but they end up learning discipline, trades, and are ready to defend the country if needed.
Really, this seems like more of an user education problem than anything else.
This, exactly this.
And it also goes to show how bloated the TFA's phone is. All those useless apps installed, each and every one of them copying his contacts, emails and whatever. Seriously, you allow a crossword puzzle app (why the F anyone would have that on their phone goes beyond me) to send you notifications? Even Yelp is questionable.
This is a self-inflicted wound from this clueless luser.
Roe v Wade, gay marriage?
No, AC, you're making a proper hash of things. If the legal system is punishing you for it, that means it apparently wasn't free speech.
I'm afraid you may have to take a further look into this matter. As far as I know, free speech as protected in the 1st amendment, means that
You do not need explicit approval from the Government to express your speech (your speech being oral, writing or otherwise). There is no Government pre-censorship, and it is up to you to make sure you stay within the law of acceptable speech.
Now obviously, the courts have also used that to define and protect censorship after the fact. In this particular case, it is not about a billionaire vs poor little news paper, as the filmer and Gawker would really like you to believe. It is about a editor willingly publish someones most intimate and private moments without their consent. That has nothing to do with free speech. Further, this was a civil suit, not a criminal suit. And that makes a ton of difference too.
Same as xerox copying machines moved previously employed secretaries (see the massive secretarial pools in older movies) to the unemployment lines.
But employed massive amounts of people at Xerox, opened up an entire new market.
How many people does Amazon employ? How many people does Amazon indirectly employ (think Ontrac, UPS, Fedex etc)?
I'm sure that thanks to Google, a lot of Encyclopedia salesmen are out of a job too. Would you like to ban Google?
Because the US is the only country that can enforce its laws worldwide, such as the FATCA nonsense that prevents Americans working overseas from doing ordinary banking business.
Not true. The bank must comply with IRS reporting regulations when dealing with U.S. persons, that's it. Nothing prevents any bank from dealing with U.S. persons. Also, if the bank does not have any business in the U.S., they cannot enforce their rules.
Yes, because the network boundaries very often correspond with national boundaries which it's the EU's role to break down.
Why would that be the EU's role? Again, network boundaries are a business decision, not a political decision. The EU should keep it's nose out of private businesses.
Peering arrangements are a thing. Why should mobile networks be any different.
Mobile networks are not any different and peering arrangements are a thing. What you are paying for with roaming fees is the privilege to access the network of a third party as if you were a subscriber there.
Let me give you an extreme and fictional example. We have LuxemCell and Deutsche Telekom. LuxemCell only provides services in Luxembourg, which is a tiny country. This means that LuxemCell does not need a lot of infrastructure and can charge a very low price for its services. DT on the other hand needs to maintain a large network in Germany, which has way higher costs. Why would DT be compelled to provide services to LuxemCell's customers without being able to charge for it? Because that's exactly what's happening here.
Next you'll be telling us you're against net neutrality.
I am indeed against the current implementation of "net neutrality", for exactly the same reason. No government should interfere with the configuration of a private network. If a government wants to dictate how I should transmit data frames on a network, they should build their own network. Stay off my lawn and off my network.
The whole term "net neutrality" is stupid and does not cover any of the technical aspects. Any network that needs "net neutrality" interference is an extremely poorly designed network in the first place. Reason for this is that in the simplest terms, "net neutrality" bans the prioritization of certain traffic over the other. That prioritization, called Quality of Service in networking terms, only comes into play when a particular link is 100% utilized. Any network which allows a subscriber traffic carrying link to be 100% utilized is poorly designed.
What "net neutrality" advocates should be fighting for is regulation that bans intentional interference with subscriber traffic. But that's something that, strictly speaking, should be a part of contract law. Reason for this is that I have a contractual relationship with my ISP, and I'm paying to have Netflix traffic delivered to my cable modem. I can reasonably expect my ISP to deliver those frames without intentional interference, or they would be in breach of contract. I should be able to sue for damages, not Netflix, or some stupid ass government agency.
Remember, you're asking for protection from the same government, that in other threads you'll blast for invasion of privacy when your ISP is compelled to hand over your browsing data.
Take a step back, look at it from 10,000ft (or 3km, in non-retard units) and think about it.
all telco companies are that - exist only because the government allows them to. Free market fundamentalists like you often forget that
This law would apply to any network, including a mom&pop shop (if that would exist). So your argument is moot.
In a free market, the government steps in only when needed. And right now it's not needed because no single party has the power to abuse consumers.
they're only banning the use of a customers location within the EU from being a part of the pricing model.
I don't think you understand what they are doing here. They are banning the charging of using a network that is not included in your service. They are banning the charging of using your service on a network that is not paid for by your subscription fees.
On top of that, many EU phone companies have already slashed their fees, in order to gain a competitive advantage. The EUSSR is now taking that away.
Roaming charges in a place where countries are so densely packed that you can walk from one side to the other without any great effort are a huge frigging problem.
They are. But so is government interference in a free market.
The government (in this case, the EU) has no business dictating what pricing should be for a particular service, unless there are special circumstances like monopolies. It is very hard to argue that there is a monopoly or duopoly in most EU member States' cellphone market.
As a consumer, you have the choice to either accept whatever rate is being set, or to just go and get a local sim card in whatever country you are. Or, to choose a carrier who eliminates roaming charges without being forced by the government to do so.
For example, after living 35 years in the EU I moved to the US. Initially I chose AT&T as my cellphone service provider, but I switched to T-Mobile because T-Mo offers free international data roaming and text, and low rates for voice calls. I used to travel a lot, so that was important to me.
With the EU basically interfering with a privately owned company's business model, T-Mo's competitive advantage would be lost if this were to be interested in my current jurisdiction.
That's bad, and the EU needs to make a choice: either they keep their dirty politician fingers out of the market place, or they continue on the path towards the EUSSR.
And yes, I know this is an unpopular opinion which is likely to be downmodded, but I don't give a rat's ass about that.
And so we come to the crux of the problem: FEMALES.
This has nothing to do with male vs female admins. If anything, it's the other way around. In my experience, females 'accept' more abuse than male admins. And by that I mean, that the women I've worked with let it slide more often and longer and only decide to look for another job when really needed.
This whole case is nothing more than amateur hour of a three-man "hosting shop" without proper procedures. Just look at the whois information for verelox.com. The phone number listed is a Dutch cell phone number.
They're amateurs. Nothing more and nothing less. And they made a rookie mistake.
Judges have simply sided with corporations.
Judges don't side with corporations. Judges interpret the law, made by representatives of the people.
You want to change the outcome of a court case? Change the law.
And for the record: I'm not defending these stupid arbitration clauses, and I personally believe that they should non-enforceable. But it's up to congress to change the laws, not judges. Be careful what you wish for.
Westerners don't need to give up their own freedom. They can discriminate, and give up the freedom of muslims.
Get on Netflix and watch Homecoming King by Hasan Minhaj.
Hasan Minhaj is a 1st gen American, who talks about his upbringing and the racism he faced. He has a very strong piece of what happened to his family after 9/11. Just watch it, and then rethink your comment.
I'm sure he'll be all over this. He cares about American jobs after all.
If he does, he'll instruct USCIS to pay better attention to H1-B petitions that are being adjudicated right now, and make sure that none of the petitions apply to beneficiaries with a comparable skillset to those that are being laid off. In other words: until these 125 people have a new job, USCIS should scrutinize pending H1-B petitions.
Let's be honest, that would only make sense, and if these guys are any good they'll have a new job tomorrow.
I use google to search for whats available online and accessible. If I wanted to search wsj I'm sure they have their own search engine. May as well block the entire site.
Many users have blocked experts-exchange for the same reason. They are probably the most hated result in Google, and even have Firefox add-ons to block them. WSJ should look at this very carefully.
Except those businesses are hindering other businesses. When trucks can't make deliveries on time because of double-parked Ubers, and buses are constantly dodging people getting in and out of lyft cars and get stuck behind these drivers making illegal left-hand turns, and when cyclists are nearly killed on a daily basis because idiot tourists are opening the doors of their Uber driver into traffic and "dooring" them, then it's hindering the business of other people getting to THEIR business. I know this for a fact because it happens to me daily here in SF. I see all this shit regularly.
Last time I checked, a truck driver that gets pulled over for speeding pays his own ticket, and gets the points on his license. A cabby that double parks gets his own ticket. An uber driver that double parks gets his own tickets. Uber and Lyft are platforms. They don't drive the cars, their contractors (or employees, in some views) do. It is not even alleged that Uber encourages breaking the law.
Uber and Lyft are ride-sharing platform apps. You not liking their business model does not make it illegal. If a car double parks, the police can and will ticket them. That's how you solve this. You don't subpoena a billion dollar company for their confidential information.
Unless of course, SF is slowly turning into Saint Franciscoburg.
I don't see a legal reason Uber or Lyft would have to give up that data. My standard policy is "fuck them" for both Uber and Lyft, but they should laugh at this "subpoena".
Exactly right. Progressive in SF means nothing more that to hinder business and to take away as much as they can.
One jealous city attorney has no business forcing a company to disclose company confidential information. This is why people absolutely hate SF. I'm really surprised business even want to be there.
Look, it's not a difficult concept: if you operate in a country you have to abide to its laws, and serving content means you do operate in that country, even if the content originates from the US
Again: totally irrelevant. Again: a child does not control the parent, the parent controls the child. There are also Twitter users in China, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Chinese law? There are also Twitter users in North Korea, do you think Twitter is going to abide by North Korean law? There are also Twitter users in Afghanistan, do you think Twitter is going to abide by Sharia law?
No, good sir, the EUSSR has no business interfering with a legal entity in the U.S.