Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
She didn't sue them for that specific act. The point of bringing it up is that IMDb was not allowed to distribute the information that they obtained from PrivateEye.com.
|
The point of bringing it up is irrelevant, since it is irrelevant to the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
Setting a legal precedent that a company can use credit card information without any consequences affects anyone who uses a credit card.
|
Since it is irrelevant to the case,
and wasn't part of it, no precedent was set. There are no new legal issues there whatsoever. That issue is governed by IMDB's contract with their merchant service. If their merchant service doesn't see fit to puruse the matter, it's no one else's business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
|
Only in a limited context. Birth records are public records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
IMDb could access it via PrivateEye.com using her credit card information, but it did so by agreeing not to distribute the information.
|
They had no contractual obligation to the plaintiff in this case. She had no standing in the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
|
There's nothing arbitrary about age discrimination in Hollylwood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, the analogy wasn't with her as an actress.
|
Indeed. That's why it was irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
I said "a market that discriminates against Hispanics", considering that I don't know which job market specifically discriminates against Hispanics, and that the job itself is not the point, but the discrimination, and a person lying to bypass said discrimination.
|
You're trying to push emotional buttons by playing the race card, and doing so poorly, because your analogy is unrelated to the case at hand. I can only assume you're doing so because you know the facts are not on your side.