3 ms·
> how would people have reacted if this had been limited to large corporations you do not like? Those large corporations we do not like have lawyers on retaine
by dawnbreez 5y ago
> how would people have reacted if this had been limited to large corporations you do not like?
Those large corporations we do not like have lawyers on retainer specifically to deal with this situation (probably by suing the pants off of whoever sent the email).
It is acceptable to react differently when the victim is defenseless. That is why we would have a different reaction to a large corporation being struck by this, versus an individual who may not be able to afford legal counsel (and who certainly can't afford to pay legal counsel when the threat turns out to be baseless).
- bborud 5y agoSo you are making the argument that one should apply different rules to different people depending on how much money they have. Well, no way that could go wrong. Interesting how you also make the tortured argument that privacy laws create victims.
- dawnbreez 5y agoI am making the argument that a company that already has lawyers on retainer for this occasion is not suffering the same harm that someone who does not have a lawyer on retainer does. Similarly, someone who can't afford a lawyer at all is disproportionately likely to be harmed compared to a company that has competent legal staff. Also, "privacy laws create victims" is--to use your own phrase--a very tortured version of what's going on here. The people affected by this study were threatened with legal action. That is what they are victims of. Regardless of what law was used as an excuse, threatening someone with frivolous legal action is as bad as threatening someone with SWATting.