Issues Around Liability Notices and Killer Tech

Anyone else noticed how no one seems willing to be held liable for the dangers posed by 5G and other “smart” technology? Well, there may be a way to establish liability.

I issued information requests recently to the UK and Scottish governments to ask about 5G. Both documents included key questions on public health and safety.

The UK Government responded by trying to avoid responsibility for any aspect of 5G other than providing seed-funding for businesses upgrading, accommodating new infrastructure, and similar.

The Scottish Government replied saying that implementation of 5G issues are “reserved matters” subject to Westminster control – and absolved itself of any responsibility for associated health concerns (as did the UK Government).

This short video displays the attitude of regulators in the United States to the rollout of 5G without testing for health and safety:

 

 

(Thanks to Lisa Michalek for uploading this clip to Youtube)

Zero safety testing

But 5G and many other telecom technologies have received zero safety testing! The only health standards employed rely on inadequate supranational guidance backed by an apparently uninterested World Health Organisation – which itself has itself defined (conservatively) many consumer-based wireless devices (e.g., mobile phones) as emitters of Class 2B carcinogens.

As a result, the new tech is considered to be so health-averse that commercial insurers won’t underwrite businesses and corporations involved. They clearly read medical studies and independent research documents that the telecommunications industry itself wilfully ignores.

And yet 5G rolls on anyway, almost as if designed for a machine world where humanity will be discarded for holding no value.

Digital Survivor is a great resource for tech journalism!

So what can we actually do to make someone, somewhere, liable?

A couple of days ago I posted a fairly lengthy article examining what options exist for beating 5G. I recommend dedicating five minutes to reading it as it gives a good general overview of available and emerging remedies against 5G.

One paragraph of that article reads:

For some time longer, there have been developments with activists creating legally acceptable documents that ordinary people can serve themselves on tech-company officials or politicians, in many cases not having to go to court. This tactic has allegedly had remarkable results but up-take remains slow.

With 5G and similar technology, a contract exists between consumers and the offending party. It’s just that you know nothing about it, and indeed the “agreement” relies heavily on your uninformed and therefore silent consent.

The basic law underpinning what is termed “Notice of Liability” is contract law. Its structure isn’t complicated: offer/consideration/acceptance; you see an offer, think about it, then either decline or accept.

However, contract law – which is just one aspect of international commercial law – itself derived from Maritime and Admiralty laws – becomes trickier once new terms need to be added to an existing contract.

Examples of contract law include consumer agreements that we experience in our everyday lives with auto credit finance, bank loans, phone contracts, etc. Some, like car finance and phone contracts, can sometimes be negotiated amicably – but all are enforceable in the civil courts.

Notices of Liability

Entering a Notice of Liability, essentially a challenging modification to a contract, asks for one’s own conditions to be adopted before reaching any final agreement.

For example, one might put in a condition claiming £200,000 daily payments towards likely or anticipated future health costs while a smart meter or a 5G cell is still operating near one’s property.

Liability notices make named individuals legally responsible. In the case of 5G, that might be a municipal official whose decision it was to install radiation-emitting infrastructure or a telecom chief in charge of product safety or running infrastructure.

And these notices can and should go beyond holding just a single name accountable. Adding the correct contract modifications can mean that any subsequent holders of the targeted position are considered liable too.

Yes, it can get more complicated

The matter doesn’t just end once a liability notice is served. A potential defendant – for this may shortly become triable in a law court – may choose to resist or outright ignore contract modifications.

Legal documents (such as affidavits) and further Notices (e.g., Fault and Default Notices) may be needed – each having its own deadline period within which to make an acceptance or rejection.

It is at this stage (if reached – because see further below!) that court draws closer. If the matter hits deadlock, it’ll be up to one of the parties to decide whether or not it needs to go in front of a judge versed in the applicable laws.

Consider too that pursuing legal action in the courts means exposure to liability for potential awards against for costs and counter-costs – the latter meaning any valuable assets could become at risk of seizure if unable to pay. Furthermore, add the money required to enforce a settlement that the defendant doesn’t then act upon.

It’s a game rigged in favour of those who have sufficient funds to play to a finish.

The InPower Movement

The liability notice tactic has been in use for a while now. Despite faltering attempts by others in the past, a campaign calling itself the InPower Movement is today taking a lead.

Their website contains a lot of advice and document templates. It’s also linked to a campaigning news site called Take Back Your Power which is more geared towards providing articles and updates.

Especially interesting are claims made by InPower and Take Back Your Power that senior executives, public officials and politicians resigned rapidly after being named in liability notices – clearly doing the math and seeing that they could be liable for more than a lifetime of even their exorbitant salaries.

So in many of the cases, there was no court hearing involved!

But the campaign gears more towards the US and Canada for now. This is problematic for the rest of us as, although international commercial law is ultimately at play, each jurisdiction worldwide may have its own methods of interpreting and regulating the legislation.

Recognising this, the liability notice champions are always seeking new groups who may be willing spread the word and to adapt resources accordingly.

Here is their documentary explaining what they’re all about, including liability notices. Watching may inspire you!

 

N.B. I worked at a senior level in civil law for over a decade and part of this involved consumer law – which is largely the perspective I wrote this from. I’ve a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about but readers cannot construe anything said here as legal advice – that’s something you must seek yourself in order to make sure it is accurate and tailored to your own situation. No liability is accepted whatsoever.