Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 245 posts

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#221

Post by Drbble »

wccrawford wrote: post #184
epochwolf wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each time, when I began to read the papers before signing them, they've told me if I don't sign them without reading them, they would put me back in my cell and hold me at least another few hours. Wouldn't that the document since it was signed under duress?

Yes, but who are you going to complain to? The very same cops that just broke the law? Or maybe he should go through the legal system? He'll spend more money fighting it than anything he lost is worth. And it'll make his life a lot harder. I'd love to see him fight it, but I certainly don't look down on him for not.

Considering he got into the situation by doing the exact behavior you are doubting, maybe he would actually be interested.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#222

Post by Drbble »

droithomme wrote: post #22

I've run into the same routine with medical professionals. Also, many of these privacy notices have a clause that they can disclose your private information for certain reasons, then a list which includes "advertising and marketing" purposes with other entities. When I ask about this I am always told they would never do that, it is a standard notice and no one other than me has ever said anything. When I refuse to si…

My favorite by far is that every policy says "we will only do X, Y, or as permitted by law", which is a wildcard that says they will do whatever they want unless it is forbidden for some other reason anyway.

These documents are not upper bound promises, they are lower bound warnings.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#223

Post by dredmorbius »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #196
7402 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time I rented a car, I spent 10 minutes reading the rental agreement. I don't do that any more; I just glance at it and sign it. I am not a lawyer. Suppose a rental car matter ended up court. I would rather not have to say to the judge, "I spent 10 minutes thoughtfully reading and evaluating the contract, and after careful consideration decided to accept the agreement." I would rather be able to say, "Gee,…

I never accept the "standard contract" when it comes to employment or consulting gigs - then I always read carefully, propose alterations, and often talk to my lawyer. Have you ever worked at a large company? Did this work? I feel like at large companies, this would be like trying to modify the language of a car rental agreement, and the HR rep would just be confused.

Yep.

Large company. East-coast based. Where non-competes are legal and common.

Working on the left coast, I demurred.

I got the left-coast version of the contract, no non-compete.

In other circumstances, I might request a substantial portion (up to or exceeding 100% of my salary, given that actual costs typically run 140-200% of salary) for the duration of any noncompete. Consideration.

In this particular case, when the property I was working for was divested (and riffed) some time later, I has fully unencumbered. Others had noncompetes, though these were not valid in that state. I'm not aware of any action being taken on the basis of that contract, but noncompetes can and have been enforced (notably recently between Microsoft and Google trading employees back and forth).

That said, this is precisely the sort of thing a labor union or professional guild would be in a very good position to make more acceptable standard boilerplate for.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#224

Post by dredmorbius »

k_l_s wrote: post #140
gisikw wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having your lawyer read something is no excuse for not also reading it yourself.

This has to be one of the most exploited (mis?)conceptions of the 21st century. Doctors, employers, websites, software plugins, account agreements, almost everything with which one interacts in the normal course of a modern life has a massive privacy statement that, using the unnatural jargon of the law as a gate, makes unreasonable statements which destroy the rights of the consumer and create rights for the provide…

I've walked from doctors offices when faced with similar waivers: pre-auth, non-disparagement, and binding arbitration being notable red flags.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#226

Post by itstriz »

wccrawford wrote: post #184
epochwolf wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each time, when I began to read the papers before signing them, they've told me if I don't sign them without reading them, they would put me back in my cell and hold me at least another few hours. Wouldn't that the document since it was signed under duress?

Yes, but who are you going to complain to? The very same cops that just broke the law? Or maybe he should go through the legal system? He'll spend more money fighting it than anything he lost is worth. And it'll make his life a lot harder. I'd love to see him fight it, but I certainly don't look down on him for not.

Yea. So, I should be clear that each time I signed the documents despite not having read them first. I did not pursue any legal action mostly because I did not have much tangible cost associated with the threats. Perhaps had I refused to sign without reading and they actually did hold me longer I would have some sort of case, but even then, what value will a court assign to 4 hours of my life? Police seem to have a lot of leeway to make your life difficult without much recourse.

If there's one thing I've learned about the legal system from my arrest and court experiences, it's that just because the police do something wrong does not mean that you can stop them from doing it. People don't get their miranda read, they don't get to make a phone call to let anyone know where they are, they don't get their medication, they don't get a meal in line with their religious or dietary restrictions, they don't get a clean bathroom, and they certainly don't get treated with any modicum of decency. Well, it's not really anything you can prove and even if you could a judge won't care much because it's hard to assess damages for intangibles like that and the public won't care much because you broke the law and deserve what you get. It's a pretty fucked system.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#227

Post by Daniel_Newby »

quanticle wrote: post #213
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawyer's job is to prevent legal mistakes, not business mistakes. Only you can look after your business interests.

Well, right, but that's no justification for repeating the lawyer's work. That's an argument for making your business requirements clear to the lawyer. It's the same argument for both law and programming. Badly communicated requirements yield bad results.

You may find it difficult to convey your needs in enough detail for a small contract review.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#228

Post by jahewson »

nitrogen wrote: post #98
jahewson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way because it's a License and not a Contract, by default you have no rights to use the software.

I'm not aware of the current state of the law regarding software, but the interpretation of copyright that requires a license before the work can even be used for its intended purpose strikes me as unproductive and counterintuitive. What is the point of all the law surrounding authorized distribution if distribution doesn't implicitly grant the legitimate recipient the right to use the work (e.g. book, movie, or appl…

Yes "use" is a rather sticky word. Copyright of course covers making copies, but you have to copy software to install it, and as the copy is permanent (unlike say a digital photocopier's buffer) I suspect this is a realistic interpretation. If installing did not count as copying, then I could install one piece of software on an unlimited number of machines.

On the other hand, perhaps the legal mechanism of EULAs is simply that the software won't let you use it until you click "I Agree" - but I would have thought there would be some legal basis where if you don't agree, you have no usage rights, hence it being a "license". It's murky.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#229

Post by jahewson »

tomp wrote: post #135
jahewson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way because it's a License and not a Contract, by default you have no rights to use the software.

You bought it, so you can do whatever you want with it. If you buy a CD, it's copyrighted, but you can still do whatever you want with it (unless what is limited by law).

Ah but that CD has a license in the sleeve... (see my above comment on copying).

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#230

Post by meatpopsicle »

I've had job offers that had similar language. I edited the contracts to make them true, initialed the changes, and got the other party to sign next to my endorsement. Once submitted, and not disputed within 72 hours, it's valid.

RMS has Eben Moglen advising him. I trust he can handle his contracts.

Post reply on HN