[kwlug disc.] trixbox as spyware - and worse?

[Oksana Goertzen]

Interesting article that relates:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/12/19/ticketmaster-privacy.html

Ticketmaster's online sales violated Alberta privacy law Company has agreed
to add choice for customers to opt out of sharing personal info Oksana



On Dec 20, 2007 9:58 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:

> Chris Frey wrote, On 12/20/2007 10:12 AM:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 04:29:52PM -0500, unsolicited wrote:
> >> Chris Frey wrote, On 12/18/2007 3:38 AM:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:06:23AM -0500, unsolicited wrote:
> >>>> My personal pet peeves of such ... insurance policies and credit card
> >>>> member agreements.
> >>> Side note: you're allowed to stroke out any part of an agreement that
> you
> >>> don't like before you sign it, including stuff at the bank.
> >> Says who?
> >
> > Basic contract law.  Both parties have to agree for a contract to be
> valid.
>
> OK, of course. BUT - by stroking it out you've just indicated you
> don't agree, and you're one of the parties. Therefore ...
>
> Offer and acceptance says, they made an offer, you made a
> counter-offer, and they accepted. Or a duly authorized 'officer' accepted.
>
>        It probably does count, but morally it shouldn't ... frequently
> such
> have a clause buried within the mumbo jumbo that says only an
> authorized agent may make changes, and the person you're talking with
> ain't an authorized agent. Which starts to feel like chicken and egg.
>
> >> Seems to me if authorized parties of all involved initial / sign off
> >> on the change, you should be good. Perhaps better if uninvolved
> >> witness signature too. [Do disabuse me if wrong.]
> >>
> >> OTOH - could the bank be swallowing this because they know such is
> >> irrelevant? (Assuming it is, here.) Which turns this into an ethical
> >> issue - somebody watching you stroke something out, saying nothing,
> >> and not informing you that they won't honour it.
> >
> > I agree that the more initialling and counter signatures you get, the
> better.
> > I settle for a photocopy of the finished, modified, signed document.
> > In this case, a photocopy is almost better than the original, since it
> is
> > a picture of a contract in a state in time, and has no additional pen
> > modifications (but that's just me).  I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to
> > check this advice with a real one.
>
> Absolutely agree. Thus, it's always useful to make any pen marks in a
> colour of high-contrast to the text colour. Some blues all but
> disappear when next to black (as being blue).
>
> Only one way to do better - have copy notarized.
>
> > Some links on contracts:
> .
> .
> .
> > I wish someone had told me these things earlier.  I think everyone
> should
> .
> .
> .
>
> Yep, 1st year university course on contract law has stood me well.
> Aside from a general familiarity, my shite sensor is a little more
> sensitive that it would have otherwise been.
>
> > push back a little when they are faced with tons of legalese that seems
> .
> .
> .
>
> Yes, but it frequently seems like I'm just a drop in the bucket
> getting overwhelmed.
>
> .
> .
> .
> > It is kind of disturbing when the people across the table from you
> haven't
> > even read the contract they are expecting you to sign (such as in a
> bank).
>
> Try reading H.R. policies. Even more distressing ... something's
> wrong, and many others have just blindly signed, ...
>
> Don't get me started.
>
> Unfortunately, the costs of standing up are usually unbearable.
> Unfortunately, sometimes that's not evident until long after you
> started down that road.
>
> > The main reason I want to modify contracts is so I don't get sued for
> > not upholding some unreasonable clause, or if I do get sued, so I have
> > a leg to stand on in my defence.
>
> Bingo.
>
> Even noting - 'I am concerned about this clause.' has value.
>
> > For contracts involving privacy, describing what the other party can do
> > with your data, etc, I think the better way is to control what they know
> > in the first place, and only give them what they need.  For example,
> there's
> > no way I'm giving a video rental place my SIN number (as an extreme
> example),
> > and by not giving it to them in the first place, they can't abuse it
> later.
>
> Only partially works.
>
> Some times you have to give up information you would prefer not to.
> What you are exposing yourself to, is that you trust the other party
> to mean what they say, and that when they give information to another
> party as they disclose they do, that your other party is making sure
> their other party adheres to what your other party has promised. And
> she told two friends ...
>
> Problem is, they don't, they can't.
>
> You give you VIN to broker. Broker gives to insurer. Insurer connects
> with government to affirm insurance. You have an accident, insurer
> gives vin to adjuster. Adjuster gives VIN to repair shop. Repair shop
> gives VIN to supplier. Supplier gives VIN to manufacturer. You're
> trusting your broker to enforce, let alone verify, their privacy
> policies upon the manufacturer - 6 links away. Good luck with that.
>
>
> Ever had to give your driver's license number ... to someone with whom
> you've just used a credit card to pay for something ...
>  _______________________________________________
> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ccjclearline.com/pipermail/kwlug-disc/attachments/20071221/faa66be3/attachment.htm