HorrorMovieFans.com

These two statements are reasonable and in line with consumer expectations:

"The company told Gizmodo that its policies “prohibit employees from doing anything other than what is necessary to solve the customer’s problem.” This policy doesn’t appear to comport with what the FBI’s records show—that Geek Squad hosted a meeting with federal agents and provided them with a tour of its computer repair shop. Best Buy declined to further clarify its statement."

"Best Buy told Gizmodo on Tuesday that Geek Squad repair employees discover “what appears to be child pornography” on customers’ computers nearly 100 times a year, but that it is only discovered “inadvertently” when “attempting to confirm we have recovered lost customer data.”"



Here is the problem:
"While Best Buy itself is authorized by customers to search the devices, the company’s partnership with the FBI, to some, suggests that Best Buy is effectively acting as an arm of the bureau—conducting searches that would otherwise require a probable cause warrant.

Moreover, the bounty the employees have been paid for locating illegal content may incentivize them to conduct searches that aren’t necessary to complete repairs. (As the EFF points out: “The image found on Rettenmaier’s hard drive was in an unallocated space, which typically requires forensic software to find.”)"

Dream wrote:I stand by businesses can make whatever policies they want and we can choose whether or not to do business with them based on those policies. I don't do business with Best Buy and haven't in like five or ten years, I think, but I'm perfectly fine with idiots going to their stores for service who then get caught with illegal shit on their hard drives, cameras, etc after signing away their right to privacy in regards to the files on the device being serviced.


It's a non-issue with me pretty much because the people being caught, and even those who aren't doing anything illegal, are actively choosing to do business with them. If you didn't have a choice, say one company has a complete monopoly on an area and their policy includes scanning for illegal downloads and no other company operates internet in the area so you literally don't have a choice but to do business with them if you want internet, then it's an issue. There are tons of repair shops around, Best Buy isn't the only option and no one is forced to use them.

They cease to have all the benefits of private business when they become government contractors.

Also, even Best Buy acknowledges that they do not sell their service to anyone with the idea that they are going to perform searches they were doing.

step 1 - *starts cleaning service*

step 2 - *gives customers an agreement stating that in the process of cleaning their privacy may be compromised, promising it is just incidental to the service*

step 3 - *proceeds to crack into the safe behind the painting in the office, download deleted files from the laptop of the customer's naked wife using specialized software, sends to authorities to verify wife is over 18*

step 4 - *Dream and Seb agree step 3 is just fine because of step 2

Foo wrote:step 1 - *starts cleaning service*

step 2 - *gives customers an agreement stating that in the process of cleaning their privacy may be compromised, promising it is just incidental to the service*

step 3 - *proceeds to crack into the safe behind the painting in the office, download deleted files from the laptop of the customer's naked wife using specialized software, sends to authorities to verify wife is over 18*

step 4 - *Dream and Seb agree step 3 is just fine because of step 2

Correct.

how many times are addresses. or social security numbers, or credit card info given out willingly? maybe we should take it more seriously when companies take our goodwill and trust and then stomp all over it. maybe, instead of being offended and calling some guy un american for sitting out the anthem, we should look at companies who infringe on our rights, as un-american. they are doing far more to disrespect what was fought for and died for than an athlete at a ballgame.

zombie wrote:how many times are addresses. or social security numbers, or credit card info given out willingly? maybe we should take it more seriously when companies take our goodwill and trust and then stomp all over it. maybe, instead of being offended and calling some guy un american for sitting out the anthem, we should look at companies who infringe on our rights, as un-american. they are doing far more to disrespect what was fought for and died for than an athlete at a ballgame.

Why not both?

When I started the restaurant last month, I got internet and phone through Comcast. They mispelled the business as "Craze Eatery". I have gotten dozens of phone calls and junk mail with that name, and that never happened before getting that service. Did I agree to that? Not knowingly, but you are presented with numerous forms, including directions to online terms of service. How many are going to look beyond the core of what you are agreeing to?

statue in a park is offensive. don't go to the park? choose another park? no. statue's gotta go! things have got to change!

store employee offers services, only after presenting a document in a dishonest way. just don't sign it. go somewhere else and it'll all be fine. why change anything at all?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:how many times are addresses. or social security numbers, or credit card info given out willingly? maybe we should take it more seriously when companies take our goodwill and trust and then stomp all over it. maybe, instead of being offended and calling some guy un american for sitting out the anthem, we should look at companies who infringe on our rights, as un-american. they are doing far more to disrespect what was fought for and died for than an athlete at a ballgame.

Why not both?

When I started the restaurant last month, I got internet and phone through Comcast. They mispelled the business as "Craze Eatery". I have gotten dozens of phone calls and junk mail with that name, and that never happened before getting that service. Did I agree to that? Not knowingly, but you are presented with numerous forms, including directions to online terms of service. How many are going to look beyond the core of what you are agreeing to?

i see free speech as important, as well as privacy. but some won't. i've never heard anyone call a corporation un-american when they infringe on rights, certainly never on the scale that i have, for something a public figure does / says as free speech or expression.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:how many times are addresses. or social security numbers, or credit card info given out willingly? maybe we should take it more seriously when companies take our goodwill and trust and then stomp all over it. maybe, instead of being offended and calling some guy un american for sitting out the anthem, we should look at companies who infringe on our rights, as un-american. they are doing far more to disrespect what was fought for and died for than an athlete at a ballgame.

Why not both?

When I started the restaurant last month, I got internet and phone through Comcast. They mispelled the business as "Craze Eatery". I have gotten dozens of phone calls and junk mail with that name, and that never happened before getting that service. Did I agree to that? Not knowingly, but you are presented with numerous forms, including directions to online terms of service. How many are going to look beyond the core of what you are agreeing to?

i see free speech as important, as well as privacy. but some won't. i've never heard anyone call a corporation un-american when they infringe on rights, certainly never on the scale that i have, for something a public figure does / says as free speech or expression.

Do you have an example of corporations infringing on rights?

Even in this thread, the rights infringement came from the FBI, by not following due process. Best Buy might be guilty of a civil violation that could result in a lawsuit, but not really a rights violation.

Foo wrote:
Do you have an example of corporations infringing on rights?

Even in this thread, the rights infringement came from the FBI, by not following due process. Best Buy might be guilty of a civil violation that could result in a lawsuit, but not really a rights violation.

did the fbi search the computers, or did geek squad search the computers on behalf of the fbi?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Do you have an example of corporations infringing on rights?

Even in this thread, the rights infringement came from the FBI, by not following due process. Best Buy might be guilty of a civil violation that could result in a lawsuit, but not really a rights violation.

did the fbi search the computers, or did geek squad search the computers on behalf of the fbi?

Both. By offering them compensation, the FBI made them an agent.

Imagine a cop paying a person to search your home for evidence. Then when the person finds something,they report it to the cop who investigates it. After all that, he gets a warrant to do a proper search.

Apparently Best Buy disciplined or fired those involved upon learning of it, before it became public. Does not mean they do not have civil liability, but clearly the problem is law enforcement circumventing the law here.

Kinda amazing how much we have learned about the FBI in the last year.

to me, it looks like the fbi and the "agent" are both guilty of infringing on the rights of geek squad customers.

if bestbuy had fired the employees and then apologized to those that had been wronged, maybe even a refund or something to them. then that would have gone a long way to earn back good will, rather than this having to come to light through a probe.

i guess you don't like me bringing up the corporation angle. if best buy did fire or discipline those responsible, i'll retract that statement, until i have better information.

still, everyone yells that kaepernick is un-american or anti-american for exercising his own rights and freedoms. no one yells that the fbi or any other organization is un-american or anti-american for stepping on the rights and freedoms of others. no one raises even a quarter of the same fuss. *shrug*

zombie wrote:to me, it looks like the fbi and the "agent" are both guilty of infringing on the rights of geek squad customers.

if bestbuy had fired the employees and then apologized to those that had been wronged, maybe even a refund or something to them. then that would have gone a long way to earn back good will, rather than this having to come to light through a probe.

The agent is not the one liable. If a mcdonalds employee drops a rock into your food and you break a tooth, you get compensated by McDonald's, not the employee. He is their agent. Then they can sue him.

How are they supposed to know who to refund or apologize to? Best Buy has one policy but these people were cooperating with the FBI further than the scope of the Best Buy policy. They were fired/disciplined for violating company policy.

If someone can show damages, Best Buy might still be liable, but based on what has been published so far, they need not apologize. It was the FBI breaking the law.

zombie wrote:i guess you don't like me bringing up the corporation angle. if best buy did fire or discipline those responsible, i'll retract that statement, until i have better information.

still, everyone yells that kaepernick is un-american or anti-american for exercising his own rights and freedoms. no one yells that the fbi or any other organization is un-american or anti-american for stepping on the rights and freedoms of others. no one raises even a quarter of the same fuss. *shrug*

Because the corporate angle makes no sense.

There are un-American corporations. This is just not a good example.

Here is the problem with liberals and the whole anti-corporate nonsense:

ABC Inc. is a corporation that does things you don't like. Let's look deeper:

- Linda works there, makes good money answering the phone, should she be punished?
- Jim is a contractor there. He makes sure their air conditioners and plumbing work. Does he deserve to be punished?
- Nancy owns stock in the company. She bought a bunch because she thinks their new solar panels are gonna help people. Does she deserve to be punished?
- Steve also owns stock, through his pension fund. Steve is a firefighter who has no idea what the business is. Does he deserve to be punished?

When you decide you are going to punish companies or go after them in some way. You are hurting those people. You have to consider that.

Does this mean you never punish a company? No, but you have to be more thoughtful about why, how, and the impact. With Best Buy, punishment for helping clean the world of kiddie porn does not appear appropriate. The employees appear to have been punished for accepting side money, which is in appropriate in most any business.

With the FBI, it appears to be more systematic, clear disregard for laws they are supposedly upholding, and not isolated. Seems their policy was both potentially corrupt and widespread, rather than a few actors.

how about it's nonsense to label this "anti-corporate", when you criticize or blame a particular corporation for being involved in wrongdoing?

When I was in real estate, my client was ultimately responsible for my actions. Let's say I discriminated against a black couple and did not allow them to buy a house. That couple would sue the seller, and the seller would sue me. This is like the FBI and their agents on the GS.

Now, I am responsible for my employees. This is like Best Buy and the GS. BB could be sued, but it appears they did not approve of certain tactics nor the GS staff becoming agents of the FBI. They still could be sued and lose, even if the only thing they did wrong was hire those people.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:to me, it looks like the fbi and the "agent" are both guilty of infringing on the rights of geek squad customers.

if bestbuy had fired the employees and then apologized to those that had been wronged, maybe even a refund or something to them. then that would have gone a long way to earn back good will, rather than this having to come to light through a probe.

The agent is not the one liable. If a mcdonalds employee drops a rock into your food and you break a tooth, you get compensated by McDonald's, not the employee. He is their agent. Then they can sue him.

How are they supposed to know who to refund or apologize to? Best Buy has one policy but these people were cooperating with the FBI further than the scope of the Best Buy policy. They were fired/disciplined for violating company policy.

If someone can show damages, Best Buy might still be liable, but based on what has been published so far, they need not apologize. It was the FBI breaking the law.

he fbi and the "agents", working for bestbuy, both broke the law. you could apologize to any geek squad customers that interacted with those employees? or if that's too difficult, you could apologize to geeksquad customers as a whole. it's moot either way, they didn't do that. they chose to keep quiet on it and hope it blew over.

Foo wrote:When I was in real estate, my client was ultimately responsible for my actions. Let's say I discriminated against a black couple and did not allow them to buy a house. That couple would sue the seller, and the seller would sue me. This is like the FBI and their agents on the GS.

Now, I am responsible for my employees. This is like Best Buy and the GS. BB could be sued, but it appears they did not approve of certain tactics nor the GS staff becoming agents of the FBI. They still could be sued and lose, even if the only thing they did wrong was hire those people.

were actual fbi agents come into bestbuy locations officially. or was it all done through geek squad proxy "agents"?