and apologies in advance if this sounds snarky, because, well, it's
snarky...
But IMHO, anyone who builds their system policy on an assumption of "we
will assume we won't be held liable until proven otherwise" needs to
sit down and talk to their lawyers, and if their lawyers buy off on
that strategy, get better lawyers.
Especially given today's legal climate, assuming liability exists until
proven otherwise isn't paranoid, it's prudent. So it shouldn't be up to
me to convince you to expect liability, I expect you to convince me my
beliefs are unfounded. show me cases where it's been proven not to be
true.
The burden of proof here is on the people who believe they're safe, not
on me to convince you that you aren't. Any other attitude is asking for
trouble, and IMHO, foolhardy.
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 01:34 PM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> yeah, actually, but I'm not going to take the time to go look it up.
> sorry, just no time. Can you cite case law where they were found to
> not be liable?
References:
|
|
