dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed
« Really?
This is a sub-selection from Read and Inciteful Comment on Story

jc100

join:2002-04-10
reply to Wilsdom

Re: Read and Inciteful Comment on Story

It's not illegal to possess the emails. It's the act in which he acquired the emails that constitutes breaking the law. Instead of reporting the problem, the man continued to exploit the issue.

Here's an example. Let's use Pinto. The makers knew the car had a fault that may cause an explosion. Instead of rectifying the problem, the company continued to ignore the issue and plead ignorance. Like the man above, both used the ignorance plea to their advantage.

It's not as if he couldn't have picked up the phone to call ATT and notify them. Heck, he could have even gone to the Media and made $$$ off it and still been in the clear. Instead, he continued to use the script to extract 114,000 emails and tell his buddies.

Unwise.


Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Difference is that in your example Pinto is the one acting negligently. Punishing a independent mechanic for not reporting the problem would be ridiculous, even if they told a "confidential informant" that they are looking forward to people dying.


jc100

join:2002-04-10

Actually, you're wrong. If a Mechanic is aware that a certain part is faulty and continues to use the item, he or she may be liable. Let's give the example of tires. Say the Mechanic has repeated complaints about a tire blowing out and ignores the customer.

Said Mechanic fails to notify company of complaints, and a customer dies. If the family finds out the Mechanic didn't take due diligence and let the manufacturer know the part he received were faulty, then he MAY be liable, too.

Ignorance is not an excuse to ignore one's duties.