I think there are two issues here

The first is contractual and decides who is liable for the fraudulent charge. I agree the company accepting the card is because they failed to verify it was an authorized use.

The second is whether or not a crime was committed. Contractual liability for the loss doesn't impact that; if it did that would mean someone who stole a card and used it would not be able to be criminally prosecuted since the store would still be responsible for the loss, not the credit card company.

Of course, we are talking about a hypothetical card, using a somewhat extreme example, and many circumstances and local laws could impact what could and could not be done. However, I disagree that liability for the loss somehow absolves someone of committing a crime.

Mencken's Law: "No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

Pretty much sums it up.

That nothing is their, or their kid's fault. It's the same reasoning that blames teachers for bad grades, coaches for not playing their child, cops for giving them a ticket for running a stop sign, etc. Clearly someone else is to blame for their actions.

In that case, the store could decide to file a criminal complaint against the child. Merchant agreements aside, the clerk has no way of knowing if the parent authorized the use of the card, or even if the card isn't the child's' although a 10 year old would be a bit of a stretch. They accepted it in good faith, if the parent claims fraudulent use then the store could attempt to recover from the child.

I realize your 10 year old example is a bit extreme but it's still fraud. However, plenty of parents let their kids use their cards,and stores accept them without question. Most parents wouldn't claim fraudulent use been if the kid took it without their knowledge; so is it the store's fault they assume the person using the card is the an authorized user? I would like stores to check my ID with any purchase since that would make it a lot harder for someone to use my card but most stores don't want the hassle and many customers would get upset as well.

Except Google has no way of knowing if it is the child or the adult using the phone, so it's reasonable to hold the owner responsible in such cases.

Parents could setup an account and fund it with a gift card from Google. That limits the amount of damage that can be done.

If Google requires a credit card to create an account (I do not have a Google Play account so I do not know if that is the case); set the default to require a password before charging the card each time. You could allow users to change that to add a grace period but then they knowingly opened themselves up to multiple charges.

Alternatively, fund the account from one of these prepaid credit cards that you can load with money and it will only allow charges up to the amount left on the card. My bank offers one of those aimed at children; it allows them to buy things and not carry cash, while still controlling their spending. Additionally, in an emergency I can fund the card directly from an app.

This lawsuit sounds more like parents unwilling to assume responsibility for their own actions and properly supervise their children than anything nefarious on Google's part. If I were on the jury (as suing it actually would go to trail) I'd find for Google in about two seconds.

As well as extremely profitable.

Actually, it's a civil suit so the judge froze assets to prevent them from disappearing while the suit sorts itself out. It doesn't cover all the entities since some are in bankruptcy proceedings; once discovery starts it will be interesting to see what is revealed.

Actually, he probably could but wasn't interested. No that I am done being pedantic (I'd say anal retentive but that would be too obvious in this discussion), imagine what he could have done but didn't because of how society treated him? What insights and ideas did we lose?

Actually, it appears the judge ruled on a very technical point. The FAA never formally went through the rule making process but rather relied on policy statements to fine the operator. The judge basically said you can't do that. So until the FAA issues the final rules their enforcement ability is in doubt. I say in doubt because another judge could overrule the first one.

Actually, visual contact is not needed to control a model plane, it's just hard to determine how it is actually responding.

More like the guy was operating in a manner that was irresponsible and they decided to take action. Quite frankly, it's people who operate model a/c in such a manner that makes life difficult for those who enjoy the hobby safely and responsibly, and I am glad to see the FAA take action against irresponsible operators.

No, buzzing a crowd is illegal independent of wether it is for profit or not. My guess is since he was doing it for profit is was easier for the FAA to use that to fine him. No that a judge has said they can't do that they need to decide wether to drop the case, appeal, and or charge him with other violations of the CFR. While some rules may seem, or actually be, idiotic, there needs to controls on how airspace is used to ensure everyone's safety. If he did operate the a/c as described in the article he deserves to be slapped. It's the people who act irresponsibly that result in rules being made that negatively impact all of us who don't.

test pilots also do everything to mitigate the risks. Safety is not about not doing inherently risky things; it's about minimizing those risks. It involves assessing the risks, eliminating them where possible, and taking steps to mitigate those you can't eliminate. It also means ensuring people don't do stupid things like not wear safety gear, work on energized equipment, rather than deenergize it, simply to save time, or take any of the hundreds of other shortcuts on the mistaken belief it can't happen to me. Finally, it means thoroughly investigating and fixing the root causes of minor incidents so bigger ones don't happen.

I agree this is really a public policy debate since the scope and depth of information, as well as the ability to retrieve it, has increased greatly as technology advances. I would however, argue the repo case is a different type of commercial use; since their is no implied endorsement by you; unlike if a photographer uses your likeness in a commercial setting. In addition, there really is no duty of confidentiality by the tag office to the tag holder; in fact many sell that information freely.

I'm not sure that is true as you have no expectation of privacy, or a very limited one, when you are in public. Anyone can read and write down your license plate and note the location, date and time they saw it. The ability to automate such actions doesn't change the fundamental questions of what expectation of privacy due you have in a public place?

While a photographer may have to get approval to use a person's image commercially, they generally don't to take and keep a picture if you are in a public area. I say "may" and "generally" because there are a patchwork of laws that apply and how you use the photo impacts what releases you need as well.

Open sources scanner software that works with a cheap USB camera and license plate wiki - that stores every scanned tag with number and state data. How fast do you think it would take legislators to decide it was a bad idea and outlaw scanners? Probably a few seconds after one of their own gets asked some embarrassing questions. The best way to fight such privacy threats is to embrace and extend their use to those in power.