3 ms·
I wonder if the judge would be in favor of companies proactively going into people's houses at random to check on their belongings, if they don't have inappropr
by megous 3mo ago
I wonder if the judge would be in favor of companies proactively going into people's houses at random to check on their belongings, if they don't have inappropriate photos somewhere, or whatever.
It's harder to do, but conceptually the same. So sad it's not being done. Very disturbing.
They could do it when people are not at home. There'd no problem, nobody would even notice.
- kthinckley 3mo ago[flagged]
- Terr_ 3mo agoThey are being sarcastic.
- eagle2com 3mo agoIt is drowning in sarcasm, so I would say yes, it is a joke.
- theoreticalmal 3mo agoThe comment above is illustrating why the judge’s decision would be silly in another circumstance. And if it’s silly in that circumstance, it’s silly in the judge’s circumstance as well.
- slashdave 3mo agoKind of a bad analogy (not service related, no associated liability). A better one: what about rental property, like a business? Can the landlord randomly check for criminal behavior?
- pantalaimon 3mo ago> Can the landlord randomly check for criminal behavior? Absolutely not.
- inigyou 3mo agoIn Australia, they can.