Comment by 001sky | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 001sky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This sense of protection -- ie, to be protected from the government -- is probably not the best use of words. Its akin to a protection racket (pay me and i won't hurt you).

That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (historically) for scam-artists (bait ans switch rooms, or general hold-up probelms, etc).

The Interesting question is this: Does the transparency and accountability of Online provide adequate protection? If it does not, does it have the potential to? Back in the day (like, pre-ww2) its easy to imagine things going on in hotels that hurt clients but were "behind the scenes" with no proof other than he-said-she-said. But now we have e-mail, terms of service, electronic booking, CCTV and other things that might change the calculus a bit--at the public policy level.

Open for debate, at least.

Wow . . . I am doing a bad job of keeping my message clear.

Yes, of course, I mean protected from the government, but I also mean protected from customers, and protected from less scrupulous competition (which may be uncomfortably close to the point that tlrobinson was trying to make, but you have to understand that the airbnb owners are generally not following the same rules that the hotels are required to).

I am just waiting for the first time someone gets sued because they didn't post the rates and a map to the fire escape on the back of the door.

No worries, "consumer protection" laws and "protection racket" are quasi-idomatic expressions. [1] e.g. even here in your example of the fire: its true that not-breaking the law "protects you" from being prosecuted. But the law itself (ie=must show fire escape) is called a "consumer protection" law (ie, by idiom). Its not on the books to keep the hotelier out of jail...it's on the books to keep the consumer from dying in a fire because s/he gets lost =D/.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

It's not just protection from scams. What about the hygiene of the linnens? The fire escapes? Are there sprinklers in these rooms like there are in hotels? Is the room secured from intruders?

This is interesting, in the sense that the question is two-fold; (1) how much disclosure is needed; and (2) are there any special protections for short vs long terms?.

Arguably a sub-letted property needs to be habitable (landlord to let), so this should be ~covered. And with "yelp" style reviews hopefully discloure is possible (ie, are the linens Ok or is there mold etc). But there are some things that have health considerations...cross-contamination, rodents, etc. And who is responsible? Is this OK at "caveat emptor"?

These are interesting fundamental questions about how much its possible for private contracts to work with/out Gov't regulation. Its exciting to think about ways to solve these problems (ie, not just gloss them over) with technology rather than with politics/bureaucrats, etc. That is: if it is possible, or not.

No, consumer reviews are a replacement for safety inspections. The morbid side of me says "dead men post no reviews". But the real problem is how many people would need to be hurt (financially or physically) before enough reviews got out? If its one then a seller could be held hostage by a single bad review(legitimate or otherwise).

This is where the abnb model seems to have an angle: if you are part-time subletting, the interest in the person living there full time is to keep a livable place. so if the FT lessor is paying 2K a month and lets his house 3 days a month, the 3 days are much more likely to be OK (~= to the other 27). The problem in one sense, is with "absentee" or professional landlords, who don't live there and have the "skin in the game". On that end of the spectrum, hotel licences seems to make a more compelling case (consumer might want an inspection if he cant trust the landlord would live in the place himeself).

So should you be allowed to have any overnight guests in your home?

These same arguments apply to family and friends coming for a visit and crashing at your place. Or to a kid's sleep-over for that matter.

(I am not a lawyer, but probably you aren't either, so at least we are on a level playing field ;P.)

> From your mother-in-law to the UPS delivery guy, when someone else sets foot on your property, you could be liable if they’re injured, whether you did anything to cause the injury or not.

http://budgeting.thenest.com/can-sued-somebody-getting-hurt-...

Due to the US notion of "join and several liability", one would imagine in such cases that both the renter and the landlord would be sued by the guest, and in the end it would likely be the landlord (who probably moves larger amounts of money) that would end up paying, requiring them to get it back from the renter.

I imagine this is one of the reasons (in addition to situations involving squatters, etc. <-) why many rental agreements actually have limits on the ability for you to even have guests that stay for more than a few days at a time more often than every few weeks or months.

Those people don't pay for the privilege, and they are people you already know. You aren't providing a service in exchange for payment.

The situations really aren't comparable - in the same way that (topically) giving a ride to a friend isn't comparable to running a taxi service.

Those examples are not commerce, and therefor not relevant. Should the USDA regulate your garden? How about the vegetables in a grocery store?

Further to your question: Hotels in Rhode Island are required to post in each room that if you put your railroad mileage books (among other things) in the safe, the hotel is not liable for loss of said property. These laws were first drafted in the 19th century.

General Law 5-14-1 covers: "any money, jewels, jewelry, watches, ornaments, railroad mileage books and tickets, bank notes, bonds, negotiable securities, and precious stones"

Framing it as an absurd, antiquated law is hardly charitable.

This is a little harsh, although this is good info/context. The salient nugget is that the laws are ones that are both old do not get updated often. It would be more fair to say words to the effect that "the counter-argument is they have withstood the test of time". But the fact that they still write "railroad mileabge books" instead of "Transportation Tickets" or some-such, is indicative of the lack of iteration. At least at first glance, to an outsider. Nothing against RI.

It does suggest that looking at these laws en-toto and updating them for modern living (lifestyles, technology, etc) might warranted. And that updates might-be net-beneficial to society. Its not clear they need whole-sale revision thought.

We're going through this now with e-mail and cloud privacy laws that are out of date, too. Its not just a cheap shot at one state or one industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com