3 ms·

I don't think MU disclaiming responsibility for file loss automatically means the FBI should be able to come in and pinch them all without consequence. Every sh

I don't think MU disclaiming responsibility for file loss automatically means the FBI should be able to come in and pinch them all without consequence. Every shopping centre has a sign in their carpark saying that they don't take liability for any damage to cars parked there, but if someone drives into your car in one they're still liable for damages, despite there not being any guarantee of security originally.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> Every shopping centre has a sign in their carpark saying that they don't take liability for any damage to cars parked there, but if someone drives into your car in one they're still liable for damages, despite there not being any guarantee of security originally. That doesn't sound right. Why would a shopping center be liable for someone else's actions, specifically someone hitting your car?
- DanBC 15y ago
  In England: You can't disclaim liability. Thus, putting a sign in the car park saying "we're not liable for anything that happens to your car while parked here" means nothing; if something they did makes them liable they're still liable even if they have the sign up.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    That part makes sense; what doesn't is why would a shopping center be liable at all if someone hit your car while in their parking lot. I guess you could claim that the way the parking lot was built didn't provide... enough visibility? Or something? I dunno.
- archangel_one 15y ago
  Sorry, I was a bit imprecise with my pronouns. What I meant was that the person who hit you is liable. What I'm getting at is that MU disclaiming certain liabilities doesn't (or at least IMO shouldn't) give other parties license to do whatever they want without consequence.
jonhendry 15y ago
"I don't think MU disclaiming responsibility for file loss automatically means the FBI should be able to come in and pinch them all without consequence." I don't think this works. The files are gone because MU's business model resulted in law enforcement action. So arguably MU's responsible, though they disclaim liability for damages. It's like if MU stopped paying their hosting services, and those services shut down MU's servers for non-payment. MU's customers wouldn't have any case against the hosting providers. The FBI case is similar.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> Every shopping centre has a sign in their carpark saying that they don't take liability for any damage to cars parked there, but if someone drives into your car in one they're still liable for damages, despite there not being any guarantee of security originally. That doesn't sound right. Why would a shopping center be liable for someone else's actions, specifically someone hitting your car?

DanBC 15y ago
In England: You can't disclaim liability. Thus, putting a sign in the car park saying "we're not liable for anything that happens to your car while parked here" means nothing; if something they did makes them liable they're still liable even if they have the sign up.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  That part makes sense; what doesn't is why would a shopping center be liable at all if someone hit your car while in their parking lot. I guess you could claim that the way the parking lot was built didn't provide... enough visibility? Or something? I dunno.
archangel_one 15y ago
Sorry, I was a bit imprecise with my pronouns. What I meant was that the person who hit you is liable. What I'm getting at is that MU disclaiming certain liabilities doesn't (or at least IMO shouldn't) give other parties license to do whatever they want without consequence.

jonhendry 15y ago

"I don't think MU disclaiming responsibility for file loss automatically means the FBI should be able to come in and pinch them all without consequence." I don't think this works. The files are gone because MU's business model resulted in law enforcement action. So arguably MU's responsible, though they disclaim liability for damages. It's like if MU stopped paying their hosting services, and those services shut down MU's servers for non-payment. MU's customers wouldn't have any case against the hosting providers. The FBI case is similar.