Hacker Read

jxf · 2014-04-16 12:51:32+00:00

Hence the "prove to us that they opted in" part. (That's why law enforcement should handle this, btw.)

RobertKohr | karma 156 | avg karma 1.26 · | 2011-10-11 17:27:46+00:00

Or they simply knew they were going to lose from the fact that they have already gone through this with similar cases.

The law is the law, and they must comply.

reply

iteria | karma 477 | avg karma 2.71 · | 2024-02-27 23:24:57

They probably forsaw this coming and wanted protection in case of a lawsuit.

Tepix | karma 11535 | avg karma 2.3 · | 2019-11-05 21:56:15+00:00

Who knows. Maybe their lawyers tell them to do it.

aaomidi | karma 5622 | avg karma 1.62 · | 2022-08-09 13:27:47

They could’ve went to court and argued they don’t want to do it.

timmytokyo | karma 2273 | avg karma 5.21 · | 2022-07-08 16:35:50

They'd have to prove it in court. Good luck with that.

stjohnswarts | karma 5817 | avg karma 0.86 · | 2020-12-27 00:57:47+00:00

However DO get in writing that the option was offered to them for possible future court battles so that the onus was on them for failed security damages.

dublinben | karma 8633 | avg karma 2.93 · | 2016-08-17 01:31:44+00:00

Perhaps they cared more about setting a precedent that this should have never been denied in the first place, and won't be in the future. Without the lawsuit, this could just continue to happen to other residents who are unable to complain as loudly.

goatforce5 | karma 2598 | avg karma 3.21 · | 2011-05-09 18:30:52+00:00

To force the issue they'd have to prove they had the right to put it there in the first place, right?

Alternatively they expect these to go missing and it's not worth the hassle to get them back.

reply

hiptobecubic | karma 1139 | avg karma 2.06 · | 2022-01-25 23:01:04

I really don't understand why they think that would be a suitable defense anyway? "It is too expensive for us to figure out if we're breaking the law, sorry."

josh_fyi | karma 1481 | avg karma 4.28 · | 2017-04-06 09:14:45+00:00

They would say "we had no choice, it was a court order. The sheriff's department is responsible for the mistake."

user90131313 | karma 105 | avg karma 0.62 · | 2024-05-07 12:48:25

I really really wonder if someone brought this to court, what would be the logical explanation? They protect but also they don't?

zeroxfe | karma 2943 | avg karma 5.1 · | 2016-03-16 18:31:09+00:00

They have to comply with the new laws -- it's not betrayal when they don't have a choice in the matter.

Not complying means they would face severe enough penalties to sink the business (notwithstanding the risk of jail-time.)

reply

CircleSpokes | karma 251 | avg karma 3.75 · | 2022-08-09 13:51:13

They would get raided by the government and forced to comply. They literally can't refuse in this case. They could have fought it in court (and lost) but at the end they would have to produce the documents under threat of contempt and then criminal charges.

mattmanser | karma 17335 | avg karma 3.35 · | 2011-08-11 14:04:14+00:00

That doesn't make one jot of sense.

By complying with the request they immediately violated the safe harbor provision.

reply

thras | karma 1140 | avg karma 3.06 · | 2009-10-05 15:08:30+00:00

I imagine that legal (and police) pressure was brought to bear, given the quoted content of some of the emails sent to customers.

falcolas | karma 33589 | avg karma 3.15 · | 2017-07-18 19:03:45

What's the alternative? They didn't run it past Legal and opened themselves up to liability?

I'm making the (perhaps charitable) assumption they did run it past Legal, and Legal decided they could deal with the fallout if it came to pass.

reply

viggity | karma 3728 | avg karma 3.08 · | 2022-10-28 09:08:00

because they'd actually have to file criminal charges to do that.

dylangs1030 | karma 2946 | avg karma 2.65 · | 2013-03-01 03:35:47+00:00

They didn't file it, they picked it up after the fact.

KGIII | karma 4317 | avg karma 2.25 · | 2017-09-10 18:13:38+00:00

I wonder if this act can be used in court to demonstrate intent to remain negligent? The idea being that they lobbied for this because they had decided to not invest in better security.