5 ms·

It might come as a shock to you but people (and corporations) try to win in court, arguing over jurisdiction is an automatic first step - nothing extraordinary

It might come as a shock to you but people (and corporations) try to win in court, arguing over jurisdiction is an automatic first step - nothing extraordinary is happening here. And if you need someone to point for you the difference between this no harm money/publicly seeking bullshit lawsuit, and chemical spill disasters then you lack all perspective.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chc 13y ago
I agree with your point, but I'm not sure the hostility is really necessary.
gress 13y ago
It it your perspective that intentionally violating user privacy causes no harm?
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  Google is not violating anyone's privacy unless you've already decided they're guilty. Moreover, no one's forced to use google services. If anyone is violating people's privacy without their consents, it would be the government.
  - gress 13y ago
    Whether Google is guilty or not has nothing to do with the seriousness of the accusation which the parent was trying to dismiss, and nowhere do I presume them guilty. However Google settled the same accusation by acknowledging the action and paying a fine to the FCC, so the only question is whether what they have done is illegal, not whether they did it. Directing attention to the government is a false dichotomy which makes it seem like you're trying to protect Google from scrutiny. Both can be guilty. We don't pardon thieves because they aren't as bad as murderers. Also nobody being forced to use google's services is irrelevant. The question is whether Google deceived those who did make that choice. If you think the best remedy is for users to make their own choice about using Google services, don't you want these behaviors to be exposed and publicly scrutinized so that users can make an informed decision?
    - brainsic 13y ago
      FTC != FCC. Also Google didn't admit guilt in said settlement. It's not a question of deception, it's about a bug that was patched once disclosed with no indication to it being anything other than a mistake. It's a petty case brought by petty people, and your factless defence of their "cause" is puzzling.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chc 13y ago

I agree with your point, but I'm not sure the hostility is really necessary.

gress 13y ago

It it your perspective that intentionally violating user privacy causes no harm?

patrickaljord 13y ago
Google is not violating anyone's privacy unless you've already decided they're guilty. Moreover, no one's forced to use google services. If anyone is violating people's privacy without their consents, it would be the government.
- gress 13y ago
  Whether Google is guilty or not has nothing to do with the seriousness of the accusation which the parent was trying to dismiss, and nowhere do I presume them guilty. However Google settled the same accusation by acknowledging the action and paying a fine to the FCC, so the only question is whether what they have done is illegal, not whether they did it. Directing attention to the government is a false dichotomy which makes it seem like you're trying to protect Google from scrutiny. Both can be guilty. We don't pardon thieves because they aren't as bad as murderers. Also nobody being forced to use google's services is irrelevant. The question is whether Google deceived those who did make that choice. If you think the best remedy is for users to make their own choice about using Google services, don't you want these behaviors to be exposed and publicly scrutinized so that users can make an informed decision?
  - brainsic 13y ago
    FTC != FCC. Also Google didn't admit guilt in said settlement. It's not a question of deception, it's about a bug that was patched once disclosed with no indication to it being anything other than a mistake. It's a petty case brought by petty people, and your factless defence of their "cause" is puzzling.