- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/41122324
Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case, which accused the firm of “unlawful and intentional interception and recording of individuals’ confidential communications without their consent and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of those communications to third parties.”
Settlements should not be allowed in cases where its companies versus people.
They should be a de jure admission of guilt, is what they should be
Yeah, why settle? They should stop spying on us and we all know that.
You’d rather have them drag it out in court until the person can’t afford to fight the case?
I think we would all prefer if the US would stop pretending the 6th amendment didn’t exist and if trials could be carried out without endless delays.
The sixth amendment is for criminal cases.
Settlements only happen with the consent of both parties. I don’t see that as a problem. If you really don’t want a settlement, then opt out of the class action and bring your own case or do what you can to make sure the lawyer for the class action won’t settle. That I suppose is unlikely, as the lawyer will do whatever ends up being the most likely win case scenario in their opinion and the number of people in the class action will probably mean you have no individual say in it (not sure how that particular piece works but no class action suit that approached me gave me any options for what I wanted out of it).
As far as I’m aware the lawyers didn’t consult with the class-action members, or at the very least I was never asked if we should accept the settlement or not, the lawyers just accepted. Alternatively you could opt out of the settlement if you wanted, which is what I chose to do, mostly because the settlement amount was far too low, in my opinion, and they required signing and accepting an NDA which I was not willing to do.
I don’t think it should be acceptable to buy your way out of a court case which reveals truth and justice.
That’s the entire point of a civil case, money exchanging to pay for damages. If the plaintiffs are happy then fuck it, they wanted money and now they have it
These are civil cases, buying your way out is all that happens in the best of circumstances in a civil case. It is just a matter of how much you have to pay to buy out. Punitive damages might do some extra justice, but what would that be? In the end you have to imagine that some radom person has sued you unjustly and decide how you want an innocent person to be treated, or perhaps they sued you with some small real point to their lawsuit, do you want the default to be that you are ruined? Maybe you didn’t intend harm, but want to either make amends or at least get past the lawsuit so you can get on with your life, do you want no recourse possible?
In the end, if Google was forced out of business, many(most) of us would be way worse off. That is not the ideal outcome. Ideally, the case brings enough money to the plaintiff to right any hardship caused and, in the case of punitive damages, does just enough hardship to the defendant that they are dissuaded from pursuing that course of action, but you aren’t trying to kill them.
But are you sure you don’t want to opt out and go 1v1 vs a trillion dollar company???
It is kinda problematic that it matters how deep pockets of both parties are in court, isn’t it? This system does not seem fair to me, unless fair means “the biggest guy always wins”. Ahhh the American dream, how amazing…
Not kinda, it is problematic.
And how do you think the claimants would feel about that? If we had a functioning justice system we wouldn’t have to.