It is always nice being vigilant for all and every possible scam and fraud out there coming our ways, being ready and prepared for whatever comes from whatever direction and for whatever target of ours, going after every suspicious matters we encounter or believe we encounter, being suspitious against as much as possible preparing ourselves for all kinds that could happen out there, but shouldn't be required. If it is required then the sytem does not work, need to be fixed! Not the victims.
I have to agree with this. A little O/T, but reminds me a bit of how US patents are handled. If you're able to constantly monitor patent publications (the stage where patents are disclosed but still in review), it is cheap and easy to challenge applications. But good luck trying to get any work done while trying to to keep up with the deluge of patent publications!
If you miss your chance to challenge the patent before it issues, the cost to protest goes way up, even if your arguments would have been just as valid during the publication phase.
I get that the system is trying to reward vigilance, but it punishes people who put more time into sharing ideas than protecting them, especially considering the PTO does not search most modern repositories of open source for prior art.
> It is always nice being vigilant for all and every possible scam and fraud out there coming our ways, being ready and prepared for whatever comes from whatever direction and for whatever target of ours, going after every suspicious matters we encounter or believe we encounter, being suspitious against as much as possible preparing ourselves for all kinds that could happen out there, but shouldn't be required.
Yes, and anybody convicted of fraudulently conveying a house should be convicted, and surely you will agree, be given a run-on sentence!
seriously though, you're absolutely right, the burden of this type of thing should not fall on the individual. So called "identity theft" shouldn't be on the victim at all.
I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with the ideal of not burdening the victim but I would suggest it's much healthier for society to praise a victim for doing the extra work to punish antisocial behavior.
The reality is we desperately need victims help to expose offenders for many types of antisocial behaviors and while we all want victims suffering to end, maybe as a society we could turn victimhood into an opportunity to be a hero? Of course this wouldn't/shouldn't shoulder the burden on victims but should they choose to take on the task, society would reward them with praise instead of sympathy.
I don't know that this is entirely viable, but wouldn't it be nice for the violated to get cheers instead of sympathy cards?
No one is suggesting a requirement. Are you making a tangential point or did you interpret me as suggesting we should require victims to participate in helping the prosecution?
This is how I feel. I'm all for encouraging potential victims to take reasonable precautions, but especially when the system could be fixed if a few people tried, it eventually gets tiresome. I've been given free "credit monitoring" a few times because of data breaches at places that should have done a better job of protecting my data. But there is so much noise impacting my credit score that I just don't even bother looking at it anymore. I would hope this property system does better, at least. The annual "no activity" email would at least be nice occasional dose of peace-of-mind.
At what point in human evolution did we flip from hunter-vs-hunted on the savannah to sublime docility because we now have _the system_ to _ensure safety?_
