Laws imply the design of the systems that enact them

Lawmakers don’t know sweet fuck all about the systems their designing

Lawmakers know even less about how to design complex socio-technical systems

To this list, I would like to add a fourth indictment of lawmakers: they vote on bills without bothering to read them.

How many people have died because of stupid laws and the broken social systems they create? Everyone who ever died in a traffic accident, or in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, the Falkland Islands, and dozens of other politically-motivated wars. Everyone who died because they didn’t have medical insurance, because a nurse or physician made an error, or due to an addiction to something they didn’t know was dangerous until it was too late. Millions.

How many have gone to prison for “crimes” that arguably never hurt anybody, like growing marijuana for medical use? How many have just been inconvenienced or screwed over by airport security, border guards, unemployment insurance, etc.

Every member of every Congress, Parliament, Senate, etc. in the world who has voted for a bill without reading it is CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT for the damage that bill has done. For the misery and suffering inflicted by a broken society. To prison with them – all of them. We must start over.

This must not be allowed to continue.

See also:
Why The World is So Screwed Up
A Seven Step Program for Democracy 2.0
How to Hold the Legal System Hostage Until the Laws Apply to Everyone

I have recently read over the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act. Giving the police the power to take down online criminals is a virtuous enterprise; however, allowing police to view any internet communication information without a warrant is unacceptable. Bypassing the cheques and balances of the courts in this way is practically begging for corruption and abuse. This clearly contravenes the “right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” provided by Canada’s Charter.

This makes no sense. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, the police can get a warrant. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the police should not be eavesdropping on private communication.

Worse yet, the only people this will work against are those honest Canadians who have nothing to hide. Everyone who has something to hide will encrypt their internet traffic. This can be accomplished with free software and little technical knowledge, at standards unbreakable by practical means.

Your administration is inviting Big Brother through the front door, and history will not view this kindly. Do you truly wish to go down in history as the Prime Minister who ended privacy?

This problem cannot be solved through elections. Most often, elections comprise a choice among two or more immoral, unethical, rich adversaries, none of whom have any intention to upset the status quo if elected, because the status quo leans sharply in favor of those in power. Thus, vote all you want – nothing will change.

With the fundamental equalizer of democracy (elections) gone, a disenchanted public must turn to other means. I hate to say this, but peaceful protest don’t do shit. Worse, violent protests will only attract more violence. (UPDATE: Worse still, some so-called western democracies are working to criminalize dissent.) And just forget about overthrowing the government of any modern country. Unless you manage to hypnotize the military, all the rifle-toting rednecks in the Southern U.S. won’t mean dick-all.

One thing that’s left is jury trials, and herein lies the power. As a juror it is your right to find a defendant “not guilty” for any reason you like, regardless of the judge’s instructions. So here is the plan: if you are an american and are called for jury duty, find the defendant ‘not guilty’ on the basis of discrimination, then get on the news and explain. Until Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the cast of The Torture Show are held responsible under the law, no one will be.

I recommend this same method of protest in any country where those in power purport to be above the law. I don’t know if it will work, but it will damn well get some attention.

As a political statement to assuage the so-called ‘muslim world,’ I suppose it’s not bad. Interpreted in the light of facts, history, and a rational, ethical perspective, however, and it’s overwhelmingly bullshit. Here are the 10 worst examples (in no particular order).

1. Tradition and progress

Obama: “For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over acentury, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.” Then later: “There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures.”

Why it’s bullshit: There is no harmony between tradition and progress. Tradition means ‘not changing’ and progress means ‘changing.’ When you ban gay marriage, you favor tradition. When you allow gay marriage, you favor progress. There’s no harmony. There can be compromise, but a compromise between tradition and progress is usually a compromise between a nonsensical position and justice.

2. Hostility to Islam

Obama: “the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.” Later: “The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.”

Why it’s bullshit: First, Obama is implying that western hostility to Islam is somehow imagined. Walk around in Texas with a turban and a beard for a while and you’ll quickly find out how real it is. Second, many Islamic leaders ARE hostile toward human rights. That’s why Iran rejected the UDHR as a codification of western values.

3. Justice

Obama: “So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity…I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Why it’s bullshit: Muslims, Christians and philosophers define justice differently. In Islam, justice is about satisfying the rules of the Koran. That’s why Saudi Arabia jails women for the horrible crime of having been raped. Real justice is based on physical and emotional harm, and on fairness. These two conceptions of justice are incommensurate.

Obama: “There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”

Why it’s bullshit: The golden rule is a nonsensical basis for ethics. It can be refuted with trivial examples: ‘If I were gay I would want people to try to cure me;’ or ‘I would love it if she pinned me down and had sex with me, so I’ll pin her down and have sex with her. She’s only screaming “no” to get me in the mood’

4. Tolerance

Obama: “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Why it’s bullshit: Deeds like stoning people who wish to convert to a different religion.

Obama: “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all
mankind.”

Why it’s bullshit: In the “Holy Koran” an “innocent” is a muslim innocent. See Surah 9:121: “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.”

Obama: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance”

Why it’s bullshit: You do know that homosexuality is a crime in Iran and Saudi Arabia, right?

“We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.”

Why it’s bullshit: Hostility toward religions is an inescapable logical consequence of a human-rights-based view of ethics. Religions institutionalize human rights violations, especially around freedom from discrimination. It’s not a “pretense of liberalism.” It’s a direct result of the bigotry, misogyny, and evil motherfuckery enshrined in the Abrahamic religions.

5. Freedom of religion

“freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion” later: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.”

Why it’s bullshit: Freedom of religion is a contradiction in terms.

6. Atheists Beware

Obama: “And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.
This is the hope of all humanity.”

Why it’s bullshit: This american-centric proselytizing if I ever heard it. These are not everyone’s aspirations, and certainly not mine. Not everyone has a family to love. Not everyone wants an education. Not everyone wants to work. And not everyone has a god.

Obama: “when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.” Later: “The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision”

Why it’s bullshit: Take your faith and your god and your prayers and plant them in your ass where they belong. The sooner we stop brainwashing our children with this anti-rational nonsense, the sooner people will stop killing each other.

Obama: “The Holy Koran tells us: “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we
have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”
The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”
The Holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of
God.”

Why it’s bullshit: The funny thing about holy books is, they’re so big you can cherry-pick whatever you want from them. For Example:

The Holy Koran tells us: “Forbidden to you are…married women, except those you own as slaves.” (Surah 4:20-, 24-)
The Talmud tells us: “If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)
The Holy Bible tells us: “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock,” (Psalms 137:9).

7. Nukes

Obama: “When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.”

Obama: “But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.”

Obama: “I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. ”

Why it’s bullshit: All of these quotes reveal the central hypocrisy of American nuclear weapons policy – ‘it’s ok for us to have nukes, but not you, and we want nuclear disarmament, as long as everyone else disarms first.’ This is based on the fundamentally racist, ethnocentric assumption that the US is more trustworthy than any other nation. The primary reason to seek a nuclear arsenal in the modern age is to deter American invasion.

8. War

“The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity.”

Why it’s bullshit: you did not go by choice? WTF? Of course there was a choice! You could have just, you know, stayed home and focus on intelligence gathering instead of warmongering. You could have done black ops instead of overt war. You could have used diplomacy and negotiation to broker a deal with the existing Afghani government. No choice my ass!

Obama: “And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.”

Why it’s bullshit: Then the US ruthlessly murdered over 100 000 Iraqis, claimed credit, and now states it’s determination to keep on killing in Afghanistan. To be fair, Obama says he wants to leave Afghanistan, but to be more fair, it’s all just talk. If he wanted to leave, he’d order troops home, not order more troops to go.

Obama: “We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there” later: “I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases”

Why it’s bullshit: You seen the Iraqi embassy? Looks like a military base to me…

Obama: “the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein”

Why it’s bullshit: You mean, the one’s who survived? There are more than 650 000 dead Iraqis who might beg to differ.

9. Torture and the Rule of Law

Obama: “I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.) So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.”

Why it’s bullshit: This is nonsense. Obama has essentially provided all of the american war criminals who approved, ordered and conducted the torture with full amnesty, and proposed a new policy of indefinite detention in American prisons. It’s not gitmo that matters. Gitmo is just a bunch of buildings. What matters is that the U.S. is officially holding prisoners without trial and obstructing the prosecution of war criminals. The rule of law is the maxim that decisions should be made based on the law rather than relying on arbitrary governance. Indefinite detention programs and protecting war criminals for political reasons is the very antithesis of the rule of law!

10. Israel and Palestine

Obama: “So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

Obama: “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong
and it does not succeed.”

Obama: “The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people.”

Why it’s bullshit: This is all meaningless talk. The U.S. gives $3 Billion a year to Israel and brands the leaders of Palestine ‘a terrorist organization.’ If Obama really wanted peace in the region, he could just withhold Israel’s funding until a deal had been reached, or give half of it to the Palestinians to encourage economic development in the region.

Random stupid comments

Obama: “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail”

This is meaningless. There’s never been a world order. All large empires in history have failed, or still exist in some form, and can be expected to fail eventually. All large empires have elevated some groups and persecuted others.

Obama: “We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a
simple concept: E pluribus unum — “Out of many, one.””

But socialism is somehow evil in America

Obama: “the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.”

Obama is implying that Jefferson had great respect for Islam. This is the guy who said “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” More good Jefferson anti-religion quotes here.

Obama: “I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.”

So he can see the future now?

Obama: “And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments”

If the rest of the world said the same, the US would be distinctly unwelcome. This is more ethnocentrism – ‘when we go to war, it’s for a good reason. Other wars are stupid.’

Obama: “And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America;”

Setting up scholarships on the basis of religion is a violation of basic human rights, specifically freedom from discrimination based on religion. And don’t give me any affirmative action bullshit. The most persecuted belief system in the US is Atheism, not Islam.

Obama: “create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo. ”

It’s called email, dipshit.

Obama: “The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.”

This is called selection bias. The US only lets in Muslims if they are particularly intelligent, well educated, and capable of supra-normal contributions to society. The fact that they do better than average is an indicator of racist immigration practices, not enhanced opportunity.

Conclusion

Free thinking people everywhere, beware. Obama is not the American Messiah. He’s another corporatist, religious whack-job tyrant. He’s no more pushing a liberal agenda than I am pushing a religious one. Atheists, liberals, environmentalists – if you’re relying on this asshole, you’re fucked.

So let me get this straight, Judge Tomas ‘the tit‘ Norström, is asked to take on a case where the defendants are essentially arguing that copyright law is an obsolete pile of shit that’s been rendered meaningless by the digitization of information, and he doesn’t think that being a member of “the Swedish COPYRIGHT Association” is a slight conflict of interest? WTF?

To be fair, I can understand why the tit ruled against The Pirate Bay. He’s a legal type, after all, and legal types aren’t exactly known for their deep insight into modern technology. But legal types are known for understanding conflicts of interest, bias, perceived bias, and how being in a club with the lawyers representing the plaintiffs makes you un-fucking-fit to take the case!

I hope this guy can’t walk down the street for the next five years without being egged by pissed off swedish teenagers.

11/May/2009 Update: This just keeps getting worse!

Related Entries

How the RIAA Hoodwinks the Courts, Legislature and Public
How the MPAA will make your kids into Terrorists

Businesses exist to make a profit; CEOs of corporations are supposed to keep the interests of their shareholders in mind over just about anything else. Of course they will do what benefits those people who own the majority of a corporation. The problem is that we have set up and accepted, for far too long, a system, a relationship between government and business, that is fundamentally flawed – we have created the corporation as a whipping boy of the executives who run it, allowing them to act for profit regardless of law or morality.

The nobility of Europe often had a privilege for their children that was not at all extended to the common man: the whipping boy. The children of royalty could not be touched, upon penalty of death, and so their parents – terribly concerned with proper child rearing – created the whipping boy as a way to punish their children’s misbehavior without actually punishing their child. Instead, their kid would grow up with a good buddy – some commoner – who would take the beating for the noble child any time they acted improperly.

Now, this seems like a bizarre idea to those of us in America, who live without divine rights and nobility and class divisions (don’t we?). Unfortunately, it’s a concept that is still in practice, except it’s not the children of monarchs who benefit from it; instead, it is the board of executives of national corporations. The corporation actually exists, legally, as an individual, a person – they have the same property rights as you and me, they can sue or be sued, and, more importantly, they can be charged with crimes.

Unfortunately, charging an imaginary scapegoat with a crime doesn’t do too terribly much for the executives who are actually making the poor decisions and breaking the law. It is not the individuals making these decisions who face the consequences of their actions, but the corporate whipping boy – the imaginary ‘person’ the corporation represents. Well, you can’t send an imaginary person to jail. The most you can do is chastise them, and maybe issue a fine.

Thus, we have a corporate system where there are actually business executives sitting around a table with a cup of coffee, discussing whether it is more profitable to break the law and pay a fine, or to follow the rules and regulations passed by our government. Is there any wonder we have places like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, where oil refineries and chemical companies have polluted the water and air to the point that the cancer rate is astronomically high? If I stand to lose $4 million by implementing the proper safety procedures to keep those pollutants out of the water, and only $40,000 if I break the law, dump my chemicals in the river, and get busted by the EPA, of course I’m going to break the law!

Of course, it’s no wonder businesses have adopted an idea from the nobility we decided to throw the hell out of this country during the American Revolution, when you really consider where some of these wealthy corporations originated. For one thing, some of them are the same people who ruled Europe as monarchs. Next week, we’ll take a closer look at some of corporate America’s richest, and we’ll see how much we really have done to divorce ourselves from the same people who have been running the show since they called themselves barons.

Early 19th Century – Intellectual property protections are created in Europe to that labors of the mind are enjoyed, for a short time, by their authors.

20th Century – Due to the logistics and cost of marketing and distributing media, music and movie creators sign over their work to publishers. Publishers get rich. Artists get a pittance.

1967 – World Intellectual Property Organization is created “to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world” (from the preamble to the convention establishing WIPO)

1990s – Rise of personal computing and the Internet. Logistic complexity and cost of marketing and distributing media evaporates. Traditional publishers become obsolete.

1990s through today – Rise of collaboration, sharing, open source, remixing, etc. IP laws, particularly software patents and copyright law, cease to achieve their original purpose (to encourage innovation). IP Laws become obsolete.

1999 – Napster created.

2000 – Publishers realize they are becoming obsolete; go batshit crazy. Begin to trick artists into thinking the same way.

Summer 2001 – Publishers sue Napster into oblivion; begin diverting all remaining resources to scaring the shit out of the public by suing teenagers, senior citizens and anyone else they can intimidate for bajillions of dollars in damages those people never could have caused.

Fall 2001 – Bush/Cheiny/Rumsfeld invent “War on Terror” for the dual purposes of bankrupting the USA while enriching themselves and instituting a dictactatorship. Dictator Numbnuts then calls everyone he doesn’t like a terrorist, abducts them and imprisons them in the floating S&M dungeon we call Gauntanomo Bay. Dictator Numbnuts further labels any action he doesn’t like “terrorism” or “supporting terrorism.”

2005 – Artists like Radiohead begin realizing that publishers are obsolete, embrace the new order and begin independent online distribution.

2006 through today – Lawsuits begin to backfire. Courts begin realizing that publishers are trying to use civil courts to prosecute criminal offenses but cannot justify the damages they are seeking due technicality – they have no evidence.

2007 through today – Desperate, publishers attempt to delegate enforcement by leaning on Internet Service Providers and Universities. Harvard Law takes it personally.

2008 – Charles Nesson, Professor of Law at Harvard and Captain of the SS Fuckoff starts blasting dirty-big holes in the side of the RIAA’s Fort Bullshit.

2009 – Seeing the RIAA’s bullshit shield weakening, the MPAA realizes it’s in shit up to its collective eyeballs and decides to take radical action. The MPAA “commissions a study” (read, “pays someone to invent evidence for a pre-made conclusion”) to link piracy with terrorism.

How why do you think publishers would want to conflate piracy with terrorism? Wouldn’t that just muddy the whole issue? Yes. Yes it would. That’s how OJ got away with killing his wife, and that’s how the publishes intend to get away with screwing over artists and consumers for half a century. They are going to try to have you, yes you, declared a terrorist. They are going to use fear and stupidity to pressure prosecutors to put piracy cases on top of their lists. Then they are going to spend every dollar they can beg, borrow and steal to have you, and people like you, thrown in jail for a very long time. They are going to try to frighten the living shit out of as many people as possible so people stop downloading.

Terrorism: the systematic use of fear as a means of coercion.

Downloading movies and music is not terrorism. Using the legal system to protect your profit margin by scaring the public into changing its behavior is.

1. No Guarantees

Suppose you buy some new software, and it won’t install (Oblivion), does not work properly (SPSS), does not perform as advertised (MacSpeech Dictate), crashes constantly (Windows), suddenly corrupts its own files (Outlook) or breaks your other software (Symantec Security). Try bringing it back to the store for a refund. “Sorry Sir, we can’t issue a refund if the software’s been opened.” Giving you a replacement disc doesn’t work if it’s the software that’s broken.

2. Time Limits to Support

Where does Microsoft get off not supporting an operating system after a certain arbitrary date? They sure as hell don’t tell you this when you buy it in the first place. I’m not saying they should have to support old products forever – just that they should have to tell you how long the product will be supported when you buy it. And what if the upgrade is not technically superior to the previous version?

3. It just doesn’t work and they charge you to fix it.

Most modern software is absolute garbage. It simply does not do what it’s supposed to do. Software is full of bugs, features that are bugs in disguise, unnecessary complexity, poorly thought-out interactive mechanisms and crucial but missing functionality. Software companies fix the bare minimum, and then expect you to pay for the next version, which fixes SOME of the problems that never should have been there in the first place.

4. Nothing is Secure

Operating systems are to safes as leaky rafts are to nuclear submarines. All modern operating systems, for example, are so littered with holes that angsty teenagers can write viruses that end up costing software users millions of dollars. Most computer security is based on passwords, even though we know damn well that passwords don’t work.

Conclusion

Suppose we have a software company, say Ubersoft that makes some software, say “Doorways,” which I pay good money for. It turns out that Doorways doesn’t work very well, so I waste days of my life screwing around with it, trying to get it to work. Suppose they stop supporting it after a year, because they want me to upgrade. Suppose the “upgrade” barely even fixes half of the debilitating problems that made the original such a headache. Then suppose the system spontaneously corrupts all my family pictures and the videos of my kids, backups and all, and then, due to a well-known but unfixed security hole, someone is able to hack in, steal my identity, and subsequently make off with my life savings. If I sue the software company, I’ll get nothing.

Now suppose that instead of software, it was a new oven that had spontaneously caught fire, due to a known but unfixed electrical issue, and burned my house flat, wiping me out financially and destroying the same family heirlooms. The guys who made the oven would be on the hook for serious damages.

So why the hell aren’t the software companies responsible for the damage inflicted by their products?

Fuck ‘em. Power to the Pirate Bay.

Enter the bullshit.

Legohair went on a TV blitz claiming that his impeachment proceedings was a kangaroo court where he wasn’t allowed to defend himself. Rightfully, he claims that he shouldn’t be thrown out of office on accusations alone, and he has yet to be convicted of anything. He actually convinced leagues of empty headed journalists, like Geraldo Rivera, to rally behind him.

In a sense, conflating impeachment hearings with a trial was a brilliant political move, but in another sense, what kind of idiot reporters would go along with this? The purpose of an impeachment is to remove an incompetent politician from office. The fundamental principle of democracy is that the public choses it’s leaders. This corruption charge was just the shit icing on the rotten-corpse-cake. Legohair’s popularity is somewhere between that slime that accumulates at the corners of your mouth when you’re really thirsty and prostate cancer.

The people don’t want him in office anymore. That’s all the reason anyone should need to boot him out. It’s not about guilt, it’s about (un-)popularity.

Federal Court, on the other hand, will be about guilt.

P.S. In sensible countries you just hold a no-confidence vote to boot out unpopular leaders. “Impeachment” is a farcical, largely undemocratic feature of pseudo-democracies like the US where people in power think they’re dictators until the next election.

Related Articles:
Canada goes Bonkers, gets Punked by Queen of England
Common Logical Fallacies Used to Bullshit America

Here are some things I think this bill should include:

1. If your flight with airline X is postponed or cancelled, you should have the option to a) take the next available flight from X, b) take any available flight from any other airline that can get you to your destination before X, c) take any other form of transit that will get you to your destination faster than X, or d) take a refund and go home.

2. Airlines should not be allowed to overbook flights. Period.

3. If my flight is postponed for any reason and I’m stuck in an airport, the airline should cover my meals. If I’m stuck in the airport overnight, the airline should cover the hotel.

4. I should never be required to sit in an airplane, on the tarmac, for more than two hours.

5. If the airlines lose my baggage, they should be responsible for replacing whatever was in those bags, up to $10 000. Right now the limits vary, but are generally around $250. I can’t ever buy a nice jacket for that.

6. Airlines should never be permitted to claim that a policy is for the passenger’s safety or security unless they can demonstrate a direct relationship between the policy and safety/security.

7. Airlines should be responsible for immediately notifying passengers of any delays or itinerary changes

8. Airlines should be required to rebook passengers in an order based on a) whether the passenger is stuck in an airport, destination or is at home, b) when the passenger originally booked and c) the passenger’s class (first, coach, etc.), and not who complains first.

What would you like in the bill? Leave a comment and I’ll forward the list to MP Maloway.

Related Posts
New Years Resolution: Never Fly Air Canada Again