Not the smartest bunch, these plaintiffs? I mean, this law can be looked up, no?

Seriously, if they are not asking for that info, they are not doing their job to protect the card owner.. that info is used to verify purchasers.. anyone can be using that card. Address and phone verification is one of the few checks they have..

With online purchases, It's not like they can ask for your ID if you didn't sign the back of the card.

REALLY? If you own a home - do you think the government has protected your name and address? Try going through Deeds or Tax lists in any State. The postman knows where you live - ever have a magazine delivered to your home? They share with affiliates. How about the pizza guy and Dominoes pizza or papa johns - They Know! There is also intelius.com and all sorts of apps and the biggest privacy offender - an old fashioned Telephone book. BEWARE!!!! they are coming for you!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 

Not the smartest bunch, these plaintiffs? I mean, this law can be looked up, no?

It was actually a pretty close decision. If just one of the 4 judges that ruled in Apple's favor had instead decided the opposite then Apple would have lost at the California SC The ruling was split 4-3.

It's becoming clear that your privacy and rights to ownership are ever increasingly being taken away.

i bet these plaintiffs post their personal info in facebook and allow it to be public.

Those plaintiffs sound like a bunch of morons and I'm glad that they lost.

It seems like plain common sense that addresses and phone numbers are connected to a particular card, and I would be suspicious of any site or retailer that didn't require them. Not having that requirement seems like heaven for fraudsters and criminals, and there are plenty of those around. If somebody doesn't wish to give up their address or phone number while doing a card transaction, then they have no business purchasing anything online from anybody.

If one does not want to 'reveal personal info, go buy from someone else who does not request it.  Good luck.

Someone, preferably Tim Cook, please explain why Apple did not advertise in the Superbowl (largest viewing audience anytime anywhere for any TV event).  Could they not come up with something appealing ? ( i am a long time shareholder of AAPL, who is disillusioned by their 'failing stock price.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

It was actually a pretty close decision. If just one of the 4 judges that ruled in Apple's favor had instead decided the opposite then Apple would have lost at the California SC The ruling was split 4-3.

Thanks for doing that math for us. Of course, if just one of the Judges who were against Apple's position, which was following industry standard identity verification procedures, had decided the opposite, the ruling would have been 5-2. It's fun to play, if only things had been different, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 

Not the smartest bunch, these plaintiffs? I mean, this law can be looked up, no?

You are assuming that the laws are drafted by the smartest bunch and don't have more than one possible interpretation.