A judge has gutted a lawsuit that accused companies including Microsoft, McDonald's, and advertising network Interclick of fraud for the use of code that tracked the browsing history of website visitors, even when they took pains to keep that information private. Wednesday's dismissal of claims under the federal Computer Fraud …
Judge to Plaintiff - Your Privacy is Worthless
If we don't stand up to protect our privacy, we will surely miss it when it is gone.
Levelling the Playing Field ..... for Who Dares Win Wins with Beta AIntel ...
....Sponsors of Tomorrow's Foreplay Today.
Your right to privacy has long gone, CyberCod, so get used to the new environment and learn how to use it and IT to generate unlimited personal advantage and to hell with rules and regulations which are only there to disadvantage one if one is smart for the betterment of others wielding rules and regulations who are not nearly as smart. ........ http://cryptogon.com/?p=24347
And have you any idea of the lodes of shit that international news corporations have on incompetent and crooked governments and their money lenders?
What a world we live in
This practice is wrong whether or not someone loses $5000 or not. Is that how western society has become that good and evil are decided by monetary loss or gain and longer on morals?
A fail for mankind.
Judge to commentards: press the right suit
You cannot and should not expect a judge to explore legal avenues for expressing dislike or moral sanctions. That sort of exploration is what you & your lawyer do in deciding precisely what suit to file, and here the judge is dismissing it as being legally incorrect - the evidence presented of deliberate breach of privacy simply cannot sustain a charge which requires proof of substantial monetary loss. Perhaps they should have brought a different claim: that's a problem for the plaintiff. Perhaps US law needs strengthening to defend individuals' expectations of privacy. That's a problem for Congress. But don't attack the judge, unless you can say in what way her action is legally incorrect.
So let me get this straight...
...If you are caused less than $5000 worth of damages, you can't sue for any recompense?
The law is an ass.
To be fair..
...if she was really that bothered and upset, don;t f**king vist McDonalds (why?) and the other sites.
Best way to stop a business doing something is not to use / buy their products.
It is a strange test
To see if something is right or wrong by the cash equivalent amount of "damage" caused.
Imagine if we applied that rule to shoplifting for example? It is the law that is wrong I guess, not the way it is being applied.
So the law is useless for most of us?
Why are these laws in place at all? They seem to be designed only for the wealthy. Whatever next - the judge saying, "well, it's distressing that you were raped, but at least you didn't lose any money. Case dismissed"?
Well you see, lots of people depend upon the law to make a living and earn money.
MPs, senators, congress, (in US), police, lawyers, barristers, judges, magistrates, yoof offenders institutes, bail hostels, jails, rehabilitation initiatives, trainers (as in trainees rather than sneakers), probation services, post-crime initiatives, pre-crime deterrent initiatives administrators of all kinds.
Much to the extent that no crime = no income.
So you see, lots and lots of people depend upon crime for their standard of living and that is usually to a very high standard indeed.
In this case by absolving the complaint the judge is merely making more money for the complainants legal team in making for a new complaint?
Now what was it Madamme Clinton said? Something along lines of if X cannot respect the rights of the people of Y, nor their aspirations towards justice and democracy (I think she was meaning her own definition of democracy or at least some US based version of a definition) then King X has to step aside and go.
This strange ol' world seems to be getting stranger and stranger still?
Missing 1 thing
You left "lobbyists" off the list of people making money from the law.
Since SCOTUS has determined that corporations are persons, then they should apply the local stalking laws and shut the business down for the term of the prison sentence that would be given out for a living person.
"there wasn't an injury that could be quantified in monetary amounts"
The plaintiffs should have claimed that it cost over $5000 worth of time to deal with the security issues raised (cf McKinnon)
Bose, either individually or as part of a larger group (class action??) should offer to sell her browsing history to mickeysoft/mcdonnalds etc for $5,001, when they refuse to buy her browsing history, claim the $5K economic loss and sue (class action??) on the grounds that interclick have caused the loss by previously selling that information to Mickeysoft et al.
There must be some 'merkin ambulance chasers willing to take this on a no-fee basis
Probably downloaded something from Microsoft already allowing contractual arrangement for them to use this data.
You agree to EULA, you get access, they get you.
People still don't get that governments preserve your rights and business preclude you rights by contract without representation by a lawyer.
Caveat emptor (Latin for "Let the buyer beware")
Not a lawyer and this is just an opinion.
No value, so why are they doing it.
This Judge has assumed that the information collected has no value, while it is obvious that there is a value or they would not be collecting the data. Maybe they collect it for fun like stamps?
The damage to the person being tracked is as unknown and similar to the global warming debate.
The proponents that create the problem just say "we just don't know enough about it" while the temperature (privacy rights) just keep on getting further out of your own control.
I'm not a lawyer and this is just an opinion.
Just one more reason to use an adblocker. No blinking, distracting, annoying ads: check. No creepy, slimey, sleazeball companies stalking you: check.