SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
News from the USA's State of Washington via komonews.com!
The friendly government folks in King County, Washington, have been caught buying data on local shoppers and mining it to find the home addresses of freeloading scallywags who are likely to own a pet without also having purchased a matching permission slip.
This is one small example of how the big nose of government can end up in unpleasant, uncomfortable places when it is let off its leash. It is also an illustration of how any entity can target and locate people of specific demographics via purchase and exploitation of "private" bulk data derived from common customers' commerce.
I have a strong preference to use only cash for in-person transactions and refuse the use of so-called loyalty or discount cards, which should make such data mining much more difficult, particularly as the numbers of like-minded folks increase.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:42AM
You're making everyone else in your apartment complex pay for the damage your cat is causing to your apartment. That fee is less than $300 a year
In a reasonable apartment building you will get the carpet replaced and walls repainted if you rent for longer than two years. This means that the longer you stay, the LESS the "damage" becomes, as cats are not very likely to destroy concrete walls and steel pipes. However the $300/yr pet fee works against that logic - the longer you stay, the more you owe for repairs! As I said, after 2 years the cost of "cat repairs" becomes exactly zero.
The landlord charges him $300/yr just because he can. There is no other reason, unless those apartments are monthly rentals. But those are a completely different kettle of fish, and they cost more to compensate. Humans are usually the worst offenders anyway.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:47PM
Cats claw the woodwork. Male cats mark their territory, and it's damned hard to get the smell out. That's why I don't mind paying my landlord that extra $25; it's my responsibility.
The cat owner above is an irresponsible asshole.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by BeaverCleaver on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:30PM
The guy who owns the property can make whatever rules he wants for his property. If you don't like it, you are free to live somewhere else. Or buy your own property, and make your own rules. Or should big government step in and make a rule about excessive surcharges imposed by landlords?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday November 07 2016, @12:25AM
Curiously, you are arguing on the side of Snotnose, who refuses to pay the $25/mo for his cat. You are saying:
Or should big government step in and make a rule about excessive surcharges imposed by landlords?
You are implying that you don't want the big government to step in and regulate minor details of private contracts. I agree, BTW. But from that follows that the individuals and companies should be free to sort these issues out amongst themselves. Snotnose does exactly that. His landlord says "pay up!" and the renter says "go to hell!" Why should I, or you, or the government interfere? The two sides are competent enough to review the issue, measure the cat up, ascertain the damage, if there is one, and if necessary, when Snotnose leaves the building, he will pay for whatever he and the landlord may negotiate to compensate for the cat.
There is no moral law that can force you to pay whatever the other guy wants you to pay. I can charge you $100500 for reading this - will you pay? Of course, not. It all depends on your willingness to fairly pay for something that you consider useful, and on the readiness of the other guy to enforce his contract rules. My demand would be unreasonable in your opinion. Other may say that $25 for a cat is equally unreasonable. In the end, it's all about what the two beings agree to do, not what some paper says. Have you seen those signs near roads that say "55", "60", or some other funny numbers? Well, very few agree to obey those limits - but if caught, they will pay the price. Same principle here. The landlord can demand his $25, but if the renter extends one of his fingers and leaves, is the landlord better off? Now he has a vacant apartment that needs to be fixed up for the next renter - which has to be found. Many rules exist only to milk those who are too soft to object. If the Snotnose's cat is sufficiently educated, the damage from it is far less than from one 1 y/o child - and no landlord would dare to demand that the parents kick their baby out.