Reactivation Issue: Microsoft Must Burn in Hell!
#106
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
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.
#107
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
#109
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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.
#110
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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.
#111

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
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)
#112

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Phoenix
Programs: UA1k;HH Gold;MR Gold
Posts: 6,112
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.
#113
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
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.
#114
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,952
#115
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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)
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.
#116
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745

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.
#117
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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).
#118
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
#119

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
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
#120
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
I am, and he is (right, that is).
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.
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.

