Technology

59448 readers

3487 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

560

Amazon execs may be personally liable for tricking users into Prime sign-ups (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jeffw to c/technology

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 126 points 5 months ago (4 children)

They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?

"The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?"

Ignorance of the law isn't a defense against breaking it in any other sector...

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure their legions of lawyers never warned them it might be illegal

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago

I'm sure they did, but they felt that this was more profitable, even if they got caught.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It can be. There's a saying that intent is 9/10 of the law.

But, they definitely intended to fuck people over, so that's a moot point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the saying is that possession is 9/10 of the law.

But I agree. Of course they intended to fuck people over. That’s their job, pretty much.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it's intent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I did check myself before I posted that. In fact, if you type “intent is 9/10 of the law” into DDG, the entire first page of results gives you “possession is 9/10 of the law” instead.

But to be fair, I did see two examples of the intent version after scrolling through the first few pages.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I stand corrected

[–] APassenger 6 points 5 months ago

Ethical behavior is a thing for SO many reasons. One of them is it tends to keep you on the right side of the law.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's literally the basis of qualified immunity. If law enforcement gets a pass explicitly due to ignorance of the law, why wouldn't their financiers? Further, if the punishment for the crime is a fine, then the law can only ever meaningfully punish the poor. The concept of law is working exactly as intended in this country.

[–] dual_sport_dork 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not what qualified immunity means.

Qualified immunity protects the police (or other state actors) from civil suits arising from their conduct while lawfully performing their duties. It does not shield them from criminal prosecution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

The civil suits that only have standing when there is criminal conduct already involved? You don't get one without the other. The only practical difference to a member of the public is the legal standard needed to prove guilt. Seeing as the criminal justice deck is already stacked in the favor of protecting their own enforcer, the difference is moot. It remains one of the only legally viable defenses where ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.

[–] eronth 2 points 5 months ago

Note how they literally have a special exception