Tag: privacy rights

No Tip Reciept: The Legal Obligations of a Waitress


5510tA couple of weeks ago (I apologize for the delayed reaction) AOL Jobs featured a Claire Gordon's article about Victoria Liss, a waitress/bartender (the author called her both), who posted a copy of a customer's receipt on her Facebook page together with a photo of some guy who just happened to be the customer's double namesake.  She's done this in retaliation for a zero-tip and a note the customer wrote at the bottom, which basically amounted to a personal attack on her appearance.

The article has generated over 3500 comments.  If you scroll through them, you'll notice that most fall into two groups.  Those written by people, whose income at some point in their lives depended on tipping generosity, express compassion and support for Ms. Liss's being hurt by the "horrible" treatment; many share their own experiences of customers' "unfairness."  Others emanate the collective contempt towards the "obnoxious" expectations of tips by service industry professionals (especially in food and drink establishments), regardless of the quality of their work.  Many state that tips are essentially performance bonuses – a valid point I strongly uphold.

What surprises and worries me is that only a handful of commentators address the most important issue of the story – the illegality and immorality of Ms. Liss's act of publicizing the receipt to the whole world.  You see, it wasn't hers to use as she pleases.  A credit card receipt is a financial and legal instrument that binds together at least four entities: a credit card holder (customer), a credit card acceptor (merchant, in this case the restaurant as a legal entity and its owners), a credit card issuer (bank), and a payment clearance party (merchant service provider).  Do you see a waitress anywhere on this list?  With respect to the receipt, the server has a fiduciary duty to her employer to pass it to accounting.  That's it.  She was not supposed to copy it, take it out of her place of employment, or use it any other way.  Ms. Liss's actions violated the customer's personal rights to privacy and broke the fiduciary trust of her employer.   In addition, all those financial parties to the transaction are bound by the federal law to protect the credit card holders' privacy.   Ms. Liss exposed all of them to a possibility of civil legal actions and regulation censures.

Technically, every single party injured by Ms. Liss have rights to go after her: the customer, the poor innocent guy whose picture she posted, the employer, the merchant service provider, and the bank that issued the credit card.  At the very least, she should be fired.  And if I was in charge of Facebook's policy-making, I would close her account as well.  This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech – this is aiding in an illegal activity.             

Legal issues aside, what's up with the fact that she couldn't even remember the customer's face and got the wrong guy's picture?  Why nobody questions that?  

And I cannot help myself wondering about the other side of the story.  What prompted the customer to be so extreme?  Just your basic assholiness?  I doubt that.  Leaving no tip is one thing, but the text of the note may signify a reactive response to something that transpired beforehand.  Ms. Liss admits herself that her suggestion of fats multiplied by carbs was not welcomed by the guests.  What happened after that?  Did she walk away, mattering snide remarks about anorexia and bulimia?  You know, in that quite audible whisper, mastered so well by disgruntled service workers – the waitresses, the bartenders, the bank tellers, the park attendants, and so on, who hate their jobs and resent their customers.  At one point or another we all have been exposed to their passive-aggressive harassment.  Trust me, it can unbalance even the most stable of customers.     

Marc Cenedella Freaks Out: “Privacy is for old people says LinkedIn founder”


Linkedin_2-300x206Marc Cenedella is upset! He is so upset he is lashing out at something Reid Hoffman said nearly a year ago at World Economic Forum in December 2010 (the Ladders' researchers must have been working on digging something up on him for months):

Privacy for Old People Says LinkedIn Founder

And I understand – LinkedIn went public and made X amount of millions in cash for Mr. Hoffman (I hope my readers understand that, like the rest of the public-stocks billionaires, he cannot really turn the $1.6 billion of his shares into liquid assets overnight). Mr. Cenedella, who started The Ladders barely two months after LinkedIn was launched in 2003, had wet dreams about being exactly in Mr. Hoffman's position by now.

I have no fucking clue why would he be dreaming those dreams. It's not that he created anything original. There were already other job boards with premium memberships and listing fees before The Ladders. The only differential he had was the $100K+ executive appeal (which, as you know, they just dropped – see my September 24th post). Did he think that those minute bells and whistles would be sufficient to build his value as an attractive investee?

You didn't really think that Marc was upset about your personal privacy, did you? Well, he did at some point – he was a man of ideals. When he started his company he did the right thing – he declared in the Terms & Conditions that he will not share, sell, etc. members' information. And indeed, I don't know anybody who gets spammed because of their usage of The Ladders. It's the other job boards that got their emails too: Monster, CareerBuilder, HotJobs, etc.

But big bucks are big bucks – they manage to bend out of shape the purest of idealists. And now, when Marc is alone in his office or his kitchen writing his blog, he is jealous, devastated, and desperate to kick himself in the nuts for not doing what all other amoral Internet moguls do, namely selling every single shred of your privacy in exchange for a golden bonanza Hoffman experienced on May 19th this year, when LinkedIn's IPO closed at the double of the entering price. (By the way, now it's at four times of the initial offer.)

So, he is upset and the post linked above is his way of letting the buildup of negativity out. Well, Mr. Cenedella's motivations aside, Hoffman's remarks in Davos are wrong on so many levels, it would take me several more posts to break it all down( don't worry, I am not going to). This is exactly what I would expect from someone who "made it" in the way Mr. Hoffman did, though. What's the implication here? Even if you are 18, but is concerned with your constitutional rights for privacy, you are "old" and square? And if you want to be perceived as young and hip, you should disregard all privacy concerns?

Statements like that don't upset me because they are "politically incorrect," as Marc Cenedella claims – I don't care about that shit! They upset me because they are politically dangerous and stupid. How intellectually limited one should be to mix up the teenagers' exhibitionism with privacy issues? Are you that confused? You don't see the difference between people, on their own accord, making decisions to disclose information about themselves and your selling their connectivity and interests profiles to third-party predators for an enormous gain? This proves once again that nowadays success, even in business, has nothing to do with intellect.