5 ms·
The relevant regulator not the courts. Also in this case there was no harm done and certainly the plaintiffs can't prove any. Google acknowledged the bug that
by sqdbps 8y ago
The relevant regulator not the courts. Also in this case there was no harm done and certainly the plaintiffs can't prove any.
Google acknowledged the bug that was fixed back in early 2012!! this lawsuit is a money grab, most of them are.
- zaksoup 8y agoyou didn't really answer my question, and it also seems like the claim that there was no harm done is a bit specious, enough users to form a class certainly seem to feel harmed.
- sqdbps 8y agoFeeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things. There is also something to be said about the general societal ill of feeling entitled to compensation for the slightest of perceived harms.
- wanderer2323 8y ago(1) If the 'you are the product' maxim is true, then this behaviour of GOOG is equivalent to breaking, entering and stealing the product. (2) This is not an imaginary slight, a corporation wrote a piece of code with a clear intent to bypass a security setting on a user's device. Would the roles be reversed, charges would be brought against human without the need to prove harm or harmful intent -- DCMA is broad enough for that. Why should GOOG be less burdened by its unethical behaviour?
- zaksoup 8y agoStill haven't answered my question about how individuals can pursue legal recourse against a large company without allowing class actions to exist.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- abiox 8y ago> Feeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things. this seems almost non-sequitur. either way, it is the court's purpose to ascertain harm and any consequent penalties (if any).
- zaksoup 8y agoExactly this: If one group feels harmed and another group asserts that there was no harm then the courts exist to solve this exact problem.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"The relevant regulator not the courts" Here in the US, that's a non-starter.