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

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#231

Post by jrs235 »

tlrobinson wrote: post #127
jrs235 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The name doesn't matter. The signing act is all that counts. Before literate times the illiterate would "sign" by simply marking an "X" on the signature line. If you are under duress you may certainly sign your signature as "Under Duress", if the accepting party doesn't harm you right away at least when you show up in court to dispute it your can point out you signed it as such... but you better be ready to pro…

Related: http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/

That's awesome! I have also in the past just scribbled the crap out of a receipt much like a 3 year old trying to coloring a solid shape with a pen as my signature a few times. The clerks never care interesting enough. I don't think they even know that the signing act is all that's needed. I suppose when its only for a few bucks they prefer to avoid confrontation. However, according to a merchants credit card agreement, the merchant is responsible for verifying the identity of the person using the card. If they accept unauthorized payment on a card the merchant is liable and takes the loss... never let up or believe a merchant that says you have to pay for fraudulent charges.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#232

Post by vacri »

Tloewald wrote: post #206
vacri wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please quote me the line where I specifically say that? I said he might have made a mistake in the retelling of 'the story', not that he was the actor that said it was 3000 pages long.

"The privacy policy wasn't 3000 pages. Either Stallman didn't remember the story correctly…" So if he was incorrect, about what was he incorrect? Nowhere does he say the document was 3000 pages long, he says he was told it was 3000 pages long (he may have been be embellishing, the person he was quoting may have been exaggerating, but he was not incorrectly stating the document to have been 3000 pages. Yay, I finally…

After multiple clarifications, you are still misreading me. I specified that I did not say Stallman was the actor in the story that stated -foo-, but that he is retelling a story in which he recounts the words of others, who did state -foo-.

I don't know how to make it clearer to you - even the snippet you quote is my words talking about him possibly not recalling the story quite right. I'm not saying he stated it was 3k words, but that it's possible that his recounting of another person's words might not be remembered correctly.

I have no axe to grind against Stallman, and if you look through my posting history, you'll see that there's been a few times that I've defended him against people who attack him as a figurehead rather than on the merits of what he actually said. This is partly why it's so frustrating for me to be taken out of context here and condemned for it.

I've also been misspelling bureaucracy... I thought it looked odd that way.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#233

Post by joshuafcole »

tzs wrote: post #124
joshuafcole wrote: post #8

It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic) did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of us. Could somebody clarify what precede…

I doubt that these documents are contracts. They aren't intended to create a legal obligation on the part of either party but rather are intended to be evidentiary documents to prove that the privacy policy was disclosed to the patient and the patient told the doctor's office that he understood it. Your signature on the document is there to refute any future claim you might make that you were not presented with the p…

Thanks for the information! I doubt it will come to a confrontation, but it's been an itch I couldn't scratch for almost a year now pondering the implications.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#234

Post by Dylan16807 »

jahewson wrote: post #228
nitrogen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I would expect copying to your own computer would fall under fair use, but that copying to a hundred computers would require a hundred purchases. A license mechanism isn't explicitly needed here.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#237

Post by crusso »

You have to wonder where the "reasonable person" guidelines that most jurisprudence relies upon has to do with any of the things we sign off on today, as well as the click-through agreements.

For example, Who in the hell reads their iOS terms and conditions that they agree to in order to see what changes Apple has made this week? Every time I download a new app or grab upgrades, it seems that I have to agree to their 90 or 190(?) screen terms and conditions. It would be bad enough to read it the first time, but could you imagine re-reading it every time they sent out a new one?

I love my iPhone and I'm not about to make a moral stand by not using it or worse by reading those damned things - but they don't sit well with me.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#238

Post by vsync »

NegativeK wrote: post #210
sirclueless wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see someone argue that in court.

It's come up on This Week in Law. Someone was sending back a modified EULA in the POST data. The lawyers on the show mainly thought it was cute and not something that would be recognized in court.

I've implemented electronic signatures before and what I like to do is have the browser submit the agreement back to the server and the server rejects it if it's been altered.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#239

Post by jakejake »

johnnyg wrote: post #189
jakejake wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If course we're supposed to read it but in some situations it's not realistic. Buying a house involves hundreds of pages. Unless you're a lawyer, the average person isn't going to recognize loopholes in the contracts. And I don't know many people who would back out on a house sale at that stage, so it's highly unlikely you'd refuse to sign. The only practical way to do that is to get an advance copy of everything. In…

I read each and every page before I purchased my home. I highlighted everything I didn't understand. Most pages looked like bumble bees. I worked questions during a 5 hour session with my realtor. For terms I now understood but didn't agree with, I had two options depending on the type of term it was: 1. Government and HOA stuff was not changing. I could accept it or walk. 2. Seller stuff could change. We made some m…

I wouldn't consider anyone lazy for hiring an attorney to read the fine print and summarize it, rather than reading every word. It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of actually protecting yourself. It doesn't hurt anything to read the documents, but it's not a substitute for actual legal counsel.

I also would not trust my real estate agent explaining the contract to me. Just like you should never go with your real estate agent recommended house inspector. Your real estate agent may be the nicest person on earth, but they have a vested interest in the deal going through. It's prudent to find your own attorney and housing inspector who are not associated with each other.

Nobody really tells you these things unfortunately and it is scary as hell making that first house purchase!

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#240

Post by jahewson »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #234
jahewson wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I would expect copying to your own computer would fall under fair use, but that copying to a hundred computers would require a hundred purchases. A license mechanism isn't explicitly needed here.

Even installing on 2 computers would be copying 100% of the work, and harm the market for the original work, so I have a hard time seeing this as a fair use.
Post reply on HN