Just did.
Nope but I am suggesting (if we can split hairs) that it is professional guidance not advice. In that short piece, you use words like
- assuming
- I think
- Probably
- I'm not certain
- may have been
- the implication is
- it's possible
- you might
- maybe
Professional advice to me would imply charging a fee. If I paid a fee and received such general advice I wouldn't be too happy.
There is also a disclaimer at the end.
With respect onq, I don't think you need to worry about liability.
With respect NorfBank, I don't think you're in a position to say that.
The issue is professional liability, arising from the duty of care, vicarious liability and fiduciary liability, not just to a private client, but also the wider duty to members of the public.
This doesn't affect some professions to the same extent, but it does mine, because we design buildings and environments used by the general public.
You've pointed out the measures I take to limit my liability online, but if you read T McGibney above, you'll see that a simple typo can give a totally misleading impression.
If instead of a simple typo I post out of date information within a certain timeframe, there is an obligation on me to try to correct the position.
As for the measures I take, the courts nowadays do not rest on legalese, but the common English interpretation of the advice, which they will see as advice.
Hairsplitting doesn't cut it - I come from a profession which has been hammered in the courts over the years.
As for your comment that suggests advice is defined by whether a fee is paid or not - I see where you are coming from but I don't think you are correct.
This isn't the difference between amateur and professional sportsmen we're talking about here, where "professional" means you take payment for playing or competing.
Let me give the example I heard recently of an architect on the way to a meeting who spotted something amiss on a building site.
Stops the car, goes to the site and informs a workman - something later happens - architect sued successfully for not having informed "someone in charge".
That is the kind of liability that can land on my doorstep, if I make an honest mistake in trying to do right by people, a level of responsibility few professions have to shoulder.
My ability to shoulder it has been compromised by the decision to limit editing time on AAM, a site widely read by laypersons.
Also with respect, long term posters stating that AAM is not a place for professional advice is unhelpful.
People read AAM because the quality of advice it offers, although its the site owners prerogative to defend this rather than mine.
To return to the measure taken today -
- if a poster has been hacked, then its that poster's home security problem.
- if this site has been hacked then that's the site owner's website security problem.
- a measure to deal with these shouldn't be multiplied into a posting restriction that's everybody's day-to-day problem.