4 ms·

Yeah, gotta "love" the 'we can break the law cause you didn't pay' HN philosophy. I would derive great enjoyment of them in court in a 2 party state telling a

Yeah, gotta "love" the 'we can break the law cause you didn't pay' HN philosophy. I would derive great enjoyment of them in court in a 2 party state telling a judge "well since they weren't really a customer....."

that_guy_iain 4y ago
In a 2 party state the user would be the one breaking the law. They installed the software... If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records. Bug or not bug, the liablity is yours. The only way you would get Otter.ai in a courtroom would be a civil case and then the not being a paying customer therefore no expectations of a warranty applies. Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording software and it worked on things I didn't think it would. This company is terrible." while most of us work in tech and know that bugs exist and have generally written some bugs. Worse case, it's a bug. The solution is to stop using it and move on. Or pay for support and have them fix it.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  > If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records not if it's recording without your consent > Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording software and it worked on things I didn't think it would. a poor attempt to reframe the thread, which is actually about a company monitoring confidential meetings without consent if affirmative consent is such a non-issue here, why couldn't the company get it?
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    TBH, the pro-business blatantly illegal hot takes here on HN are expected. Because some company figured out a 'hack' to make more money, somehow turns from illegal to "legal". And so many users here will defend that. In this case, it's violating interstate wiretapping laws and state-based 2 party consent laws. But.. they just squint hard and go "Hey we can violate the law and make MORE money". Uber is exactly that. So is AirBNB. So is Lime/Bird. Just go look at much of the tech companies, and it's "Offline company + way to break law to get money + ONLINE!!!!1!!1!"
    - sergefaguet 4y ago
      Change by definition requires breaking established rules and is how societies grow. Normal part of the process.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        change doesn't require breaking established laws, however, and that's what we're talking about
        sergefaguet 4y ago
        Doesn’t require it but it is ok if that happens.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        I'm not convinced, but I don't doubt that there is at least 1 person out of billions who believes that to be so

that_guy_iain 4y ago

In a 2 party state the user would be the one breaking the law. They installed the software... If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records. Bug or not bug, the liablity is yours. The only way you would get Otter.ai in a courtroom would be a civil case and then the not being a paying customer therefore no expectations of a warranty applies. Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording software and it worked on things I didn't think it would. This company is terrible." while most of us work in tech and know that bugs exist and have generally written some bugs. Worse case, it's a bug. The solution is to stop using it and move on. Or pay for support and have them fix it.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
> If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records not if it's recording without your consent > Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording software and it worked on things I didn't think it would. a poor attempt to reframe the thread, which is actually about a company monitoring confidential meetings without consent if affirmative consent is such a non-issue here, why couldn't the company get it?
- noasaservice 4y ago
  TBH, the pro-business blatantly illegal hot takes here on HN are expected. Because some company figured out a 'hack' to make more money, somehow turns from illegal to "legal". And so many users here will defend that. In this case, it's violating interstate wiretapping laws and state-based 2 party consent laws. But.. they just squint hard and go "Hey we can violate the law and make MORE money". Uber is exactly that. So is AirBNB. So is Lime/Bird. Just go look at much of the tech companies, and it's "Offline company + way to break law to get money + ONLINE!!!!1!!1!"
  - sergefaguet 4y ago
    Change by definition requires breaking established rules and is how societies grow. Normal part of the process.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      change doesn't require breaking established laws, however, and that's what we're talking about
      - sergefaguet 4y ago
        Doesn’t require it but it is ok if that happens.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        I'm not convinced, but I don't doubt that there is at least 1 person out of billions who believes that to be so