3 ms·
"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done." In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it c
by hangonhn 13y ago
"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done."
In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt's still not fraud to call someone and waste their time for a while. See also: telemarketers
- kd0amg 13y agoWasting their time via deception might be though.
- hangonhn 13y agoFraud is only one type of harm. The bigger question is whether there is harm, regardless of type. In the restaurant case, there is harm even though it's not fraud. In Gett's case it's not really fraud either but one can argue there was harm done as well. Information can confer competitive advantage. The question that remains is who's fault it is. It's kind of dumb on Gett's part to leave themselves wide open. I'm not experienced enough in jurisprudence to really determine that.