3 ms·
The point isn't to have sympathy for her. The point is to call out violations of privacy for anyone - no matter how much money they have.
by ryanianian 9y ago
The point isn't to have sympathy for her. The point is to call out violations of privacy for anyone - no matter how much money they have.
- msie 9y agoReally? She knew what she was getting into. No one is forcing her to play the lottery.
- ryanianian 9y agoI don't think she did know what she was getting into or else she wouldn't have signed the back with her name. I didn't know you basically had to get outed or setup an anonymous trust etc. If nothing else, this story and court-case will make this information more commonly-known. Before/when you win millions, setup a trust and let the trust do the winning.
- msie 9y agoShe still has the choice to refuse the money. She can't have both in this case. Sometimes the world isn't fair. I really wish to hear other people talk about the "threats to liberty this entails" because I'm being down-voted to oblivion.
- fourstar 9y agoYou play the game. You accept the rules. That's how it works. You ever use Google? You are complying to their TOS.
- ryanianian 9y agoYou're right, but the fact is she could have been anonymous if she'd known about "this one weird trick to maintain your privacy" (i.e. setting up a trust). Cases like this (1) call out non-obvious legal stipulations for the majority of us that don't read/understand every bullet-point of a TOS and (2) question the legality of such stipulations.