Grinder has a TOS that requires you to be of age to use the app. A 13yo kid violated those terms of service, and because Grindr had that TOS, its supposed to be liable for the kid's actions? I would think the purpose of the TOS is specificly to distance yourself from liability.
You know, I had this idea that in order to show the danger of meta data, we should just have 4chan doxx the hell out of politicians supporting bulk metadata surveillance. Encourage them to determine what "crimes" politicains are commiting (based on metadata). See what happens.
PDF is not 'failing as a format'. It might be failing as an Ebook format, but then again that's not why it exists. PDFs hold a very special place in contract law, ensuring that the document you see on the screen is the document the other guy saw. Without PDF, electronic transmission of contracts wouldn't be possible, and PDF is of heavy use in that field.
As an accountant, I make heavy use of PDFs to send invoices, Recieve invoices, and keep electronic copies of all my important documents.
YOu see, thats what bothers me about the lawsuit. As far as I can tell, onr of the arguments is about keeping realmedia from being played on an ipod, and somehow that improved the value of the ipod. Its about the ipod's DRM from what ive read, not the Music's
You know what the terms of service are? The contract. THe product description? no where in there.
You can't buy an unlocked phone from AT&T, even if you buy one in the clear.
The point of the cell phone unlocking debate is the locking terms are considered unfair and are only accepted because the carrier has so much leverage over you. There is a whole region of contract law talking about how unbalanced contracts can be rendered unenforceable.
Did you know there is an entire area of contact law dedicated to unfair contract terms and the unenforcability of those contracts?
Or how about that sales rep will tell you that you can get your phone unlocked at time X or by calling person Y. Sales reps will LIE to you to get that sale, and then you are not 'willfully ignorant'. You have been 'bilibrately misinformed'. And yet somehow we just 'know' its locked.
Surprising that they are going after tmobile when at&t and verison also do this shit and are bigger. Almost like they are targeting the smaller disruptive company rather then the bigger incumbants for some reason.
Moreover shouldn't the FTC be going after the third parties signing people up for these services rather than the the secondary liability target?
But when does negligence end and that unknown zero day hit me begin? Negligence generally runs off some standard. For the FTC to not set a standard it falls to "Your Neglgent cause the FTC says so". A rule requiring a minimum of existing standards for data security would make negligence obvious.
Which goes back to the argument that if this was a music video, youd have no problem with it. Because more 'work' would have gone into it, somehow. I mean remixing a song with new vocalists, and creating an entire rube goldberg machine wasn't enough work.