[kwlug-disc] Schedules direct: What do you think about them?

[unsolicited]

Raul Suarez wrote, On 03/08/2009 8:13 PM:
> Thanks for your responses.
.
.
.
> I am still put off by the fact that they ask for my home address.

I get that at some point they need sufficient information to send you, 
or have you retrieve, the right schedule. On the other hand, you pays 
your money, I would have thought you could get whatever schedule you 
want, for wherever you want, from any provider(s) you want.

I don't know, but I suspect a credit card comes into play here. If 
they _really_ needed it, presumably they could get your home address 
that way.

But, I agree, needing a home address isn't entirely intuitive here.

>
.
.
.
> ... I don't know how they are securing it.

Canada has PIPEDA. Is the U.S. as privacy aware - anyone know the 
culture from that aspect?

>
> Another thing that put me off is that you cannot even ask questions
> about their privacy policy:

I wonder to what extent the policy isn't due to privacy but to 
schedule supplier agreement?

- Homeland Security aspect?
- broadcasters supply channel listings, providers provide channel 
lineups, are they all looking for stats? [e.g. If all of my 
subscribers are getting their scheduling info from the net, I don't 
need to send it via VBI, or pay other firms to deliver the info in 
some other way?]
- DRM police?

>
.
.
.
> I know that the lawyers should do the interpretation

In my experience, that is a misnomer. (In my opinion, English is 
English, contractual language is usually written such that no 
reasonable person could interpret it any other way than that in which 
it is written. Silly me.)

In my experience, lawyers don't interpret, they have sides in a 
debate. Right, wrong, morally, or any other way, isn't an element - 
they simply have positions that they are arguing. For a fee. With 
their client's best spin on it.

Given the number of lawyers in parliament, is it any wonder that 
politicians and parliament are held with such little regard.