Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Technology
Reload this Page >

Reactivation Issue: Microsoft Must Burn in Hell!

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Reactivation Issue: Microsoft Must Burn in Hell!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:08 pm
  #106  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
40 Countries Visited3M100 Nights20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
Originally Posted by PTravel
Making up a name is lying and, arguably, fraud. You may certainly live your life by your standards, if they permit doing this. Mine don't.
Fraud?

Then please tell me which law you are breaking by making up a name when you call a tech support line.

This is MS tech support, it isn't the IRS or the FBI you are calling.
ScottC is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:13 pm
  #107  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by ScottC
Fraud?

Then please tell me which law you are breaking by making up a name when you call a tech support line.

This is MS tech support, it isn't the IRS or the FBI you are calling.
I agree with Scott on this one. What law is being broken?
magiciansampras is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:15 pm
  #108  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
By the way - for all you Linux lovers- are you aware that MS now owns the liscence rights to SUSE Linux. They have just inked a big deal with Walmart
jan_az is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:18 pm
  #109  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by ScottC
Fraud?

Then please tell me which law you are breaking by making up a name when you call a tech support line.

This is MS tech support, it isn't the IRS or the FBI you are calling.
If Microsoft had a colorable right to this information, providing false information would be fraud: "Making a false representation, known to be false, upon which the party to whom the representation is made relies to its detriment." And I'm not, in the least, interested in getting into an argument about damages or whether Microsoft would prosecute this -- it doesn't matter to me in the least.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:21 pm
  #110  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
I agree with Scott on this one. What law is being broken?
See the definition of fraud I provided in response to Scott's post. Lay people don't get to vote on what they think the law might mean. Regardless, my point, which appears to be lost, is that "well, you can lie a little," doesn't justify the idiotic demand for personal information to re-activate the OS.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:22 pm
  #111  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
Originally Posted by PTravel
If Microsoft had a colorable right to this information, providing false information would be fraud: "Making a false representation, known to be false, upon which the party to whom the representation is made relies to its detriment." And I'm not, in the least, interested in getting into an argument about damages or whether Microsoft would prosecute this -- it doesn't matter to me in the least.

In that case perhaps you should not have said it would be fraud in the first place. Speaking in legalese does not make you right. You might also want to read MS privacy policies - they would NOT be selling your name and phone number. ( And no I dont work for them)
jan_az is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:24 pm
  #112  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
Originally Posted by PTravel
See the definition of fraud I provided in response to Scott's post. Lay people don't get to vote on what they think the law might mean. Regardless, my point, which appears to be lost, is that "well, you can lie a little," doesn't justify the idiotic demand for personal information to re-activate the OS.
Of course people get to vote on what the law is. The US is a govt of precedent - but as I am not a lawyer I have no standing to argue this from your perspective it seems
jan_az is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:30 pm
  #113  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by PTravel
See the definition of fraud I provided in response to Scott's post. Lay people don't get to vote on what they think the law might mean.
Actually, isn't that the entire point of juries? I thought judicial theory was that it is within the rights of juries to interpret the law.
magiciansampras is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:36 pm
  #114  
KVS
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,952
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
Actually, isn't that the entire point of juries? I thought judicial theory was that it is within the rights of juries to interpret the law.
No, in Common Law jusridictions, juries typically deal with questions of fact, not law ...
KVS is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:39 pm
  #115  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by jan_az
In that case perhaps you should not have said it would be fraud in the first place.
Why? I just explained that it would be fraud.

Speaking in legalese does not make you right.
True. The fact that I'm right makes me right.

You might also want to read MS privacy policies - they would NOT be selling your name and phone number. ( And no I dont work for them)
Irrelevant.

1. What's your remedy if Microsoft violates their privacy policies? Breach of contract? Fraud (requires intent)?

2. Supposing Microsoft sells off its unit that manages this information. Is the subsequent company bound by a "policy"? Suppose Microsoft goes bankrupt (unlikely, but anything is possible)? Courts have held customer information to be an asset of the estate that can be sold without restriction.

3. What happens if a Microsoft employee illegally violates the "policy" and steals the information?

As I said, I am hypersensitive about giving out personal information to ANYONE who doesn't have valid reason for having it. At minimum, it means I receive very, very few telemarketing calls. At best, it means I've never had my identity stolen and, more to the point, I have a number of checks in place to ensure that, if it ever is, I can readily prove the fact of the theft. You may see providing this information as a small thing. I don't.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:40 pm
  #116  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by KVS
No, in Common Law jusridictions, juries typically deal with questions of fact, not law ...
I don't think you are right. But hey, I'm not a lawyer.

I thought Scalia even once said that while trial by jury "has never been efficient it has always been free." (Apprendi v. New Jersey). I tend to think that jury nullification has a place in our society.
magiciansampras is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:41 pm
  #117  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
Actually, isn't that the entire point of juries? I thought judicial theory was that it is within the rights of juries to interpret the law.
No. The point of juries is to make a finding of fact. They never make a finding of law -- the judge provides express instructions to them that define exactly what is the law. The technical term for a jury is, "trier of fact." Only the judge determines how the law is construed (though, of course, the judge can also be the trier of fact if it's a bench trial).
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:42 pm
  #118  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by PTravel
The technical term for a jury is, "trier of fact."
Although that was true when jury nullification was quite common (19th century)...
magiciansampras is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:42 pm
  #119  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
Actually - I am now laughing so hard I could cry.

Ptravel did not want to provide his name to MS.

But to quote someone else

"google is your friend"

For someone who is so concerned about privacy - it helps to not give so much identifying information about yourself on a place like FT
jan_az is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2007 | 8:44 pm
  #120  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
I don't think you are right. But hey, I'm not a lawyer.
I am, and he is (right, that is).

I thought Scalia even once said that while trial by jury "has never been efficient it has always been free." (Apprendi v. New Jersey). I tend to think that jury nullification has a place in our society.
Scalia is a psychopath, albeit a brilliant one. Jury nullification is an absolute evil and, unfortunately, it's proponents don't recognize why. BTW, I'd be happy to discuss the myth of jury nullification, but it really doesn't belong in this thread.
PTravel is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.