I don't believe an encyclopedia has what is meant by a legal duty of care (all deference to the lawyers among us).
Duty of care is usually a term in civil law relating to a case where someone may be expected to rely on a statement or representation to the point that the statement should not be made recklessly. While a criminal case could be made for some imagery (legal opinion needed), or a moral case for other imagery (not a legal issue), duty of care is probably not tenable. As to the other, the answer is that I would not expect to learn anything from the badge as to whether the person presenting it is genuine or not. That's not how I would check (seems incredibly naive) and someone who did rely on a shape shown to tham is in the same category as people who let strangers in their house because they wore a uniform and claimed to be from the police or whoever (namely, hopefully not too badly harmed when it goes wrong). Most people don't meet the FBI on a routine basis so they have no way to know what's genuine and what isn't, and badges won't help. Considering average ignorance about basics (moon v sun being closer, basic science, etc) I would be amazed if more than a couple of % could determine a fake FBI badge anyway. FT2 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Duty of care is a legal term. > > Yes, and a legal term Wikipedia editors would be wise to learn the > meaning off. > > OK, you're shown a badge. How would you know from the genuine if there is > no image of the genuine on the FBI webpages. And how could they have a > genuine image without themselves releasing the image? > > Actually if the FBI approached me I would know them by their manner, > which is quite distinctive, although not impossible to mimic. > > Fred > > > > > I think more to the point an expectation of commonsense applies to those > > having a random badge waved at them, to verify it and not merely take it > > on > > trust. > > > > FT2 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Well, you know, I think there is a duty of care involved. If a genuine > >> badge can be purchased along with a genuine identification card and > >> uniform there is an obvious danger to the public. Even to the agency > >> itself. > >> > >> Fred > >> > >> > >> > If I were the FBI or secret service (or a member of the public) I > >> > wouldn't > >> > rely on a "badge". Waving round a badge, no matter the design, proves > >> > nothing - any more than waving round a badge would prove the person > >> or > >> > people who ring the bell, have a nice uniform, and want to enter your > >> > home, > >> > are genuine police officers. > >> > > >> > FT2 > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> If I were the FBI or the Secret Service I would keep track and > >> change > >> >> such images when they become publicly known regardless of expense. > >> >> There > >> >> is absolutely no excuse for disclosing accurate information which > >> would > >> >> permit an Al Qaeda operative having an FBI or Secret Service badge > >> or > >> >> identification of the correct design. > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
