Xbox One Can Work Like a TV That Watches Consumers In Their Living Rooms

#131SoulTrapper(Topic Creator)Posted 10/9/2013 12:38:03 AM
Ch3wy posted...

Disagree with what part?

And why have you stated as a fact that they are not legally binding, but are now pointing out that it's unsettled? It sounds like you were previously just arguing from ignorance.


Okay, once again read the actual article:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2010/08/is-a-websites-privacy-policy-a-binding-contract.html

It starts out clearly saying that it's unsettled:

Some courts have held that general statements like privacy policies are unilateral corporate statements that are not sufficiently definite to form a contract. Others have found privacy policies can form a contract, particularly when parties claiming a breach have alleged that they read and subsequently relied on the policy prior to transacting business with the site operator.

And here comes the important part:

Regardless, any successful claim for breach of contract requires a showing of compensable loss arising out of the alleged breach, beyond a generalized claim of loss of privacy.

So even if you successfully fight this in court against an army of MS lawyers, you'd have to show that you suffered a compensable loss.

Since there is none here, there is no case and you're claim won't be successful.


The way to interpret that is it's a case by case basis whether you can sue for it or not. They are legally binding but in order to sue someone for damages, damages must be proven which can be difficult with something like that. It doesn't mean that they're not legally binding or that it's impossible.


They're not legally binding, read the article.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#132MasteroftheArtsPosted 10/9/2013 2:15:01 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
They never said they're selling the data, they're making it available for market research.
Which you agree to by agreeing to the ToU.


Which is irrelevant because they can only use the data within the company. You're trying to use words in a clever way.

SoulTrapper posted...
This isn't just collecting data through clicking ads, this is collecting data with a camera that racks your eye-movements and heartbeat.

I understand the point, you're just arguing a different one.


Which in the end, is just data. Stop trying to manipulate the discussion.

SoulTrapper posted...
You're trying to say it's alright to kick someone in the nuts, if they've already been punched in the face.
I disagree.


Poisoning the well.

SoulTrapper posted...
Whether they sell this data or analyze it themselves and just charge more for ads (which would circumvent that entirely) is a different story all together.

The point here is that you're giving Microsoft direct access to your living room with an HD camera.

I'm fairly certain no one would allow this into their house if you told them this.
It's only because it's being disguised as a toy that people think it's harmless.


Uh, no. Go to your airport. People will put up with far more invasive violations of privacy.


SoulTrapper posted...
The privacy policy is meaningless, it has no legal value at all if you can't show that you suffered a loss due to a breach.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2010/08/is-a-websites-privacy-policy-a-binding-contract.html


I like this point because it tacitly admits that there is no tangible loss to file tort for.

You're buying into mindless alarmism, presumably to fuel your hatred for a console that hasn't even released yet.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#133SoulTrapper(Topic Creator)Posted 10/9/2013 2:34:04 AM(edited)
MasteroftheArts posted...

Which is irrelevant because they can only use the data within the company. You're trying to use words in a clever way.


Not only that, they can share it with it's affiliates and subsidiaries as well.

Straight from the ToU:

Personal information collected by Microsoft may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country or region in which Microsoft or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or service providers maintain facilities

Besides that, how does that make it any better?
"They'll spy on you, but they'll keep the info for themselves" isn't exactly very encouraging.



Which in the end, is just data. Stop trying to manipulate the discussion.


What you call "just data" is people's personal info.

You're trying to simplify it by making it about just data, while there is quite a difference between your username on xbl and your heartrate and facial movements while playing your favorite game.




Uh, no. Go to your airport. People will put up with far more invasive violations of privacy.


So you're saying it's okay for MS to invade people's privacy in their own living room, because people get filmed in airports as well?

That's a pretty flawed argument.

One bad thing does not excuse an even worse thing.




I like this point because it tacitly admits that there is no tangible loss to file tort for.

You're buying into mindless alarmism, presumably to fuel your hatred for a console that hasn't even released yet.


Exactly: even if MS doesn't uphold the privacy policy, you can't sue them.

I don't hate the console, I hate what MS is doing with it.
From the DRM to the kinect to the lying about various stuff and the really poor marketing.

I was excited for the new xbox at one point, MS managed to blow that all away with everything surrounding the console.

If it wasn't for all the obvious marketing BS (power of the cloud!) the focus on a wider audience, the complete ineptitude of the higher ups to communicate properly and the kinect most of all, this console would have been/could be great.
They messed it all up with their idiocy.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#134Millertime660Posted 10/9/2013 2:55:48 AM
you getting an xbox one soultrapper?
#135SoulTrapper(Topic Creator)Posted 10/9/2013 3:37:46 AM(edited)
Millertime660 posted...
you getting an xbox one soultrapper?


Not at this point, I will consider it once/if they remove the kinect.

"Then why are you here?"

To make sure people know what they're buying.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#136md22mdrxPosted 10/9/2013 3:33:00 AM
Orwell.

1984.


Enough said.
#137Ch3wyPosted 10/9/2013 3:45:14 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
Ch3wy posted...

Disagree with what part?

And why have you stated as a fact that they are not legally binding, but are now pointing out that it's unsettled? It sounds like you were previously just arguing from ignorance.


Okay, once again read the actual article:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2010/08/is-a-websites-privacy-policy-a-binding-contract.html

It starts out clearly saying that it's unsettled:

Some courts have held that general statements like privacy policies are unilateral corporate statements that are not sufficiently definite to form a contract. Others have found privacy policies can form a contract, particularly when parties claiming a breach have alleged that they read and subsequently relied on the policy prior to transacting business with the site operator.

And here comes the important part:

Regardless, any successful claim for breach of contract requires a showing of compensable loss arising out of the alleged breach, beyond a generalized claim of loss of privacy.

So even if you successfully fight this in court against an army of MS lawyers, you'd have to show that you suffered a compensable loss.

Since there is none here, there is no case and you're claim won't be successful.


The way to interpret that is it's a case by case basis whether you can sue for it or not. They are legally binding but in order to sue someone for damages, damages must be proven which can be difficult with something like that. It doesn't mean that they're not legally binding or that it's impossible.


They're not legally binding, read the article.


Please address my actual response if you want to discuss this. You just keep restating yourself rather than refuting my points.
---
Every time you point out that something is an opinion Jesus shoots a kitten in the face.
#138SoulTrapper(Topic Creator)Posted 10/9/2013 3:57:29 AM
Ch3wy posted...

Please address my actual response if you want to discuss this. You just keep restating yourself rather than refuting my points.


There is no point in that: the article says all there is to it.

But I'll humor you

Ch3wy posted...

The article only proves that in a few cases the judge decided that the company did not owe the person suing anything for breach in contract since there was no loss involved. The fact that it even acknowledges that there was a contract involved proves that privacy policies are indeed a type of contract and therefor are legally binding.


No, once again, read the actual article:

Some courts have held that general statements like privacy policies are unilateral corporate statements that are not sufficiently definite to form a contract. Others have found privacy policies can form a contract, particularly when parties claiming a breach have alleged that they read and subsequently relied on the policy prior to transacting business with the site operator.

So from this we can determine that it's undecided.

Regardless, any successful claim for breach of contract requires a showing of compensable loss arising out of the alleged breach, beyond a generalized claim of loss of privacy.

And from this we can determine that even if MSs privacy policy was seen as a legally binding contract (which it won't because the ToU contradicts it), you'd have no case, since there is no compensable loss outside of loss of privacy.


What you keep quoting is referring to contracts in general. Are you saying that contracts aren't legally binding?


No, what I keep quoting is from the article, clearly stating that it's not clear whether a privacy policy is a contract to begin with.


And I've explained why interpreting the law based on select cases is wrong. As I have stated, this would mean that several crimes aren't actually crimes. You haven't refuted that, so you just restated your claim.


Sure, but what is that meant to prove?

You first have to prove that a privacy policy is a legally binding contract, which those lawyers themselves don't even agree upon.

Why would I refute or even acknowledge your strawman arguments?
---
PSN: El_Coon
#139Ch3wyPosted 10/9/2013 4:15:55 AM
SoulTrapper posted...


No, once again, read the actual article:

Some courts have held that general statements like privacy policies are unilateral corporate statements that are not sufficiently definite to form a contract. Others have found privacy policies can form a contract, particularly when parties claiming a breach have alleged that they read and subsequently relied on the policy prior to transacting business with the site operator.

So from this we can determine that it's undecided.


Key word: some. Which means that they have been successfully argued as contracts, even when they have lost the lawsuits.



Regardless, any successful claim for breach of contract requires a showing of compensable loss arising out of the alleged breach, beyond a generalized claim of loss of privacy.

And from this we can determine that even if MSs privacy policy was seen as a legally binding contract (which it won't because the ToU contradicts it), you'd have no case, since there is no compensable loss outside of loss of privacy.

Already refuted this. Difficulty of suing is irrelevant to whether it is legally binding or not.



No, what I keep quoting is from the article, clearly stating that it's not clear whether a privacy policy is a contract to begin with.



Ironic that you go on to accuse me of making a strawman later, as this is one. That's obviously not the quote I was referring to.


And I've explained why interpreting the law based on select cases is wrong. As I have stated, this would mean that several crimes aren't actually crimes. You haven't refuted that, so you just restated your claim.




Sure, but what is that meant to prove?

You first have to prove that a privacy policy is a legally binding contract, which those lawyers themselves don't even agree upon.

Why would I refute or even acknowledge your strawman arguments?


It's meant to prove that the way you are trying to argue this is wrong. Your request for proof is impossible to fulfill, since you are using dismissed cases as evidence of proof in the other direction. There have been dismissed cases of just about every kind of charge.

And please elaborate on how that is a strawman.


Now let me ask you a question here, it's not rhetorical:
You keep switching between undecided, and not legally binding. Which is it?
---
Every time you point out that something is an opinion Jesus shoots a kitten in the face.
#140SoulTrapper(Topic Creator)Posted 10/9/2013 5:04:22 AM
Ch3wy posted...

Key word: some. Which means that they have been successfully argued as contracts, even when they have lost the lawsuits.


Yes, some have, some haven't.

What's your point? It means they are both a legally binding contract and they are not, depending on a number of factors.

So once again, good luck trying to prove this against an army of MSs lawyers.


Already refuted this. Difficulty of suing is irrelevant to whether it is legally binding or not.



That has nothing to do with whether or not it's legally binding, it shows that even if you manage to convince a court that it is legally binding, you won't get anything because you've suffered no compensable losses.

It shows that it's futile trying to sue MS over this.




It's meant to prove that the way you are trying to argue this is wrong. Your request for proof is impossible to fulfill, since you are using dismissed cases as evidence of proof in the other direction. There have been dismissed cases of just about every kind of charge.


So you agree that this is, at best, undetermined?


And please elaborate on how that is a strawman.


I gave examples of cases where it was not considered legally binding.

You start talking about cases where the lawyers managed to get the case dismissed, despite the fact that the reasons for those cases being dismissed is most likely completely different and despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that the cases I gave were dismissed because of clever lawyers and not because of the judges interpretation of the law.

Now let me ask you a question here, it's not rhetorical:
You keep switching between undecided, and not legally binding. Which is it?


I'm not switching at all.

It is undecided in general.
It most likely isn't legally binding in this case, because there is no compensable loss.

This isn't black or white.
---
PSN: El_Coon