As a Norwegian I want to point out that there are no Norwegian owners of Norwegian Cruise Lines. It is to my knowledge fully American owned. It was Norwegian long time ago.
Sorry just don’t want to get us associated with such extremely unethical behavior.
Frankly it ought to be punishable in the justice system.
Sadly you are probably correct.
The Nordics are the perfect cousins the rest of us Europeans keep being unfavourably compared to.
We have to keep digging!
If you’re really looking: Norway makes a significant chunk of money from oil exports, contributing to (and profiting from) what is arguably the greatest threat facing our civilisation today.
On the other hand, 98% of their domestic electricity is renewable (95% hydroelectric). If other nations followed Norway's lead by nationalizing their respective oil sectors, it could be an important step towards curbing consumption.
Well, then if 98% is already renewable, why keep pumping oil out of the ground and contributing to global warming? (Hint: money)
I don't really think there's a way around this for Norwegians. If you're upset about climate change (and you should be) then you should also be honest that continuing to extract and sell oil is contributing to the problem.
It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education, and opportunities for easy (relatively speaking) renewable energy. Many countries don't have those luxuries.
With that being said, I applaud Norway in general as a country. I think they do a lot of great stuff. But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
You criticize Norway for continuing to pump up oil, which you attribute to greed, and then, in the same comment, point out that many other countries don't have the opportunities for renewable energy that Norway (allegedly) has. Do you not see a connection here?
> It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education
This all seems off-topic to me.
> But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
Considering this post is about an US based cruise ship lying about a virus, nothing in your comment is really appropriate for "the context of this discussion".
Their politicians love touting that 98% green energy production but it’s incredibly misleading.
Sorry by the way I really don’t mean to take this conversation so off topic. It was meant half tongue in cheek :) every country has blind spots and this was about coronavirus and cruises, not global warming! And this is only their politicians; Norwegians are the most lovely people. Nothing against the country.
Why not point out that they were right about Corona being a sham basically? It's flu season and that's it... As a Norweigian you're as conformist and appealing to authority as I expect.
That will teach you to sell your business to America/International conglomerates! /s
I wonder if a country can force a multinational to stop using a country name because of misrepresentation. i.e Norway (tourism?) forces Norwegian Cruises to stop using its name.
And to their (Norwegian Air) honor they provide WiFi at no extra cost (at least I had it anytime I was flying from Helsinki to London or the reverse). Fantastic airline. I wish they could expand more and take some routes from Wizz/Ryan.
I read the headline and though 'Norway! Surly they're a decent country' and was relieved to see it's a big corp. Unsurprising to see lying in sales tactics but this is really bad. This must be criminal somehow? Fraud at least?
uBO is temporary in the way Debian is temporary - i.e., in the short term, not at all. 80% of the top websites are going to be ad-free and working 80% of the time, for some value of 80%. It's true that some fraction will not work, but is any consumer software 100% reliable?
I'm calling uBO temporary because adTech is evolving to evade adBlockers (in-domain tracking and ad obfuscation).
Surfing the web is a nightmare for the average user, and the tech industry barely notices. The web has an unsustainable business model, and we need to address the issue.
In-domain tracking and ad obfuscation have both been around for years. And uBO has evolved to address them. There is content-based blocking/filtering for in-domain, and script injection to defuse obfuscation. I'll agree there's an arms race between ads and ad blockers, but it's like DRM, in that the home team (ad blockers in this case) always wins eventually.
Depending on the target market and customer's place in the sales funnel, a country's sales team is called "ministry of culture", "ministry of foreign affairs" or "army".
First I thought it was the country then the airline. Never the cruise line.
But this is a Miami based news source, so I can forgive the lack of clarity as my impression is that cruise ships are very significant there, so for their audience the cruise line might be what they associate first.
It is not their fault it gets linked to a worldwide audience on HN...
This recent coronavirus outbreak has been very enlightening, cause it gaves us more information on why cruises are a bad idea, and perfect for an epidemic. The same air is recirculating among all cabins.
However, it does not explain why we haven't heard of flu outbreaks in cruises before this coronavirus. It seems cruises are perfect for the proliferation of any airborne virus.
>However, it does not explain why we haven't heard of flu outbreaks in cruises before this coronavirus.
Anecdotally I hear about it almost every time the topic of cruises come up on Reddit or other social media. I just don't think its particularly newsworthy so it isn't making headlines. Cruise ships and Conventions are pretty similar in the sense that people just get notoriously sick after attending is my understanding.
> This recent coronavirus outbreak has been very enlightening, cause it gaves us more information on why cruises are a bad idea, and perfect for an epidemic. The same air is recirculating among all cabins.
We already knew that about cruises.
> However, it does not explain why we haven't heard of flu outbreaks in cruises before this coronavirus
We have, actually, but we don't hear about it much, because, except with the scrutiny occurring during this COVID-19 outbreak, which led to media exposure for a cruise ship flu outbreak [0], cruise ships are only required track and report when gastrointestinal disease hits a certain threshold, not respiratory ailments. [1]
Interesting. On [0], it seems like people on that ship were not tested for coronavirus though, because they weren't meeting criteria that the CDC had laid out for who could be tested. Let's hope it was really just the flu!...
I've been on a whole 2 in my life, but enjoyed both trips quite a lot - especially when people get off at various ports and I have huge areas mostly to myself :). Understanding there's some potential for this sort of thing, but may take the risk again in the future.
Perhaps because most people already have some immunity to flu and other not-new viruses? Those viruses are spread around a ship just as much but the effect is less noticeable.
I'm interested in what the known spreading instances on ships and at conferences tell us about how the virus is transmitted.
As I understand it, the message from CDC etc is, roughly: It's transmitted through droplets coughed or sneezed from one person that then end up through common touching of not-cleaned surfaces and thence into the body through face-touching.
My gut feel is that if that's how transmission occurs, we shouldn't see infection spread between large numbers of people who were simply present in the same room as each other for a few days.
Which makes me wonder if all the hand washing is just "Epidemiology Theater".
There are plenty of commonly-touched surfaces when people spend a long time in the same space: door handles, elevator buttons, countertops, buffet utensils, gym equipment, money...
> My gut feel is that if that's how transmission occurs, we shouldn't see infection spread between large numbers of people who were simply present in the same room as each other for a few days.
People cough and sneeze all the time, even healthy people, and the droplets of saliva from that land on surfaces that other people touch and then they touch their faces, rub their eyes and pick their noses. So the virus will spread in the air and also by transmission onto mucus membranes from your hands. It’s not airborne but there is droplet transmission. The danger is relatively small if people don’t touch, like shaking hands, hugging or kissing, and if surfaces are wiped down with disinfectants regularly and everyone washes their hands but that does not describe most people’s experience of being in a room with other people for a few days.
I read in another thread that sneezing aerosolizes the payload such that it will stay in suspension in a large volume of air (a large room for example) for hours. I'd call that "airborne transmission" but it seems that means something different. That being the case, could it be that the hand washing is more to do with reducing the surface area onto which a droplet can land and make it into the target's body? This would explain quite well how someone can infect 50 other people in a large room, and also why hand washing is helpful (but not a 100% protection since droplets can still float in through the nose and mouth).
Not sure about conferences, but for cruise ships buffets would be my guess. Most people on cruise ships eat at least a few meals at an overcrowded buffet. Multiple people touching serving utensils, stacks of plates, fishing for silverware, etc. Not to mention sneezing around open food containers.
Coronavirus has a lot going for it over the flu; a very long incubation period where you can still actually spread the virus before you start really showing symptoms, higher virulence, and a lack of vaccines.
Why would recirculated air be a concern on cruise ships? They're not airplanes. Also COVID-19 only seems to be airborne in the sense that you can get it from coughed/sneezed droplets directly from a sick person, not aerosols that can be widely distributed.
> Kentaro Iwata, an infectious diseases expert at Kobe University who visited the ship, strongly criticised the management of the situation in two widely circulated YouTube videos published on 18 February.[36][37][38][39] He called Diamond Princess a "COVID-19 mill".[40] He said that the areas possibly contaminated by the virus were not in any way separated from virus-free areas, there were numerous lapses in infection control measures, and that there was no professional in charge of infection prevention—the bureaucrats were in charge of everything.
That's borderline criminal. To blatantly lie about the risks - especially elderly passengers - people are taking should be actionable in some way. These emails will come back to haunt them if family of future casualties sues them. I sincerely hope they go out of business.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I am not your lawyer.
Salespeople lying, within certain limits, does not seem to be treated as fraud by most governments, caveat emptor and all.
If they tell you the alcohol on the cruise will be free and you sign a contract saying so, and then it actually isn’t and you have to pay more, that’s one thing. If they tell you it’s going to be sunny and warm when you’re taking a cruise to Alaska in winter, that’s a different thing.
Lying or deceiving during sales about things other than the product is a large part of a salesperson’s job, I believe (including but not limited to making the customer think the salesperson likes and respects them).
Saying “demand is high in Caribbean” is fine since the definition of demand is subjective. Saying coronavirus doesn’t affect warm weather places is criminal.
The issue is that any competent law firm will pull up articles and comments by officials stating that warm weather will dampen or hinder COVID-19 spread. They would only need to pull up a video of Trump stating as much and make a case that it's "reasonable" to believe the president.
And even more serious sources basically say: "we don't know at this time", which is not enough to make these actions criminal (as per current laws, per my limited unprofessional understanding).
Then again, who is stupid enough take medical advice from a vacation salesman? These customers have agency and are ultimately the decision makers. What this company is doing is unethical, but we all need to be responsible for the decisions we make. If I decide to go on a cruise right now, knowing what has been going on, it’s not the company’s fault if I get sick.
It's not really medical advice in the sense someone would normally think of it, it's vacation safety advice. While one should probably treat the words of any salesperson with extreme skepticism, a lot of people don't, and those most at risk (the elderly) use the official word of their cruise company as their main source of safety advice (usually of the form "get this vaccination" or "beware this part of town" or "this kind of tour operator on shore is a scam"). And regardless, salespeople are absolutely expected to be responsible for the claims they make, regardless of one's views on how much they should be trusted.
Sure, but scamming the gullible is still both criminal and immoral. And similarly intentional dangerous misrepresentation of facts like this should be criminal (and maybe already is, I do not know American law that well) even if you would have to be an idiot to actually believe it.
Companies like this are worried about more than the lack of new sign-ups. They're also trying to keep existing business, such as folk that booked their dream vacation a year ago and are now calling up to cancel or re-schedule it.
I can see it. If you are healthy and you know that for most people the virus is mild and the mortality rate is roughly on par with the flu (they previously had it higher but the latest numbers look to be more like the flu at 0.1%, mostly all elderly or already ill), and you know the ships are likely to have less people on them, and you can likely get a deal, and they'll probably treat you like gold if you go...yeah I can see it.
Hell, just writing that out actually makes me think twice about calling and booking something. But I have young children and my wife would be unnecessarily worried the whole time and she doesn't even like cruises.
Lots of the people booked on cruise ships right now probably made their reservations months ago. That's how we did it on the cruise we went on last year. Put down a deposit to reserve a room in September, paid in April, sailed in August.
Cruises mostly get more expensive towards the date of departure, so booking in advance is the thing to do if your ability to take the time for a cruise is predictable. I have a cruise scheduled for March 2022. If a cruise price does go down it is because they overestimated demand, and cruisers will be watching for when the price of new bookings drops below the price they paid. The deposit, so far in advance, can be both tiny and fully refundable.
Meta point: do we have to accept deception as a necessary part of sales? It seems strange that we accept deception and manipulation as necessary ingredients in the market, and that its on the buyer when they "get duped".
But couldn't we have a standard where literally anything anyone says to a customer must be true, or was not false to the knowledge of the person saying it? Scammy warranties, timeshares, and other "gotcha" products would be a thing of the past. To make money, providing honest value with a product that matches the expectation of the customer would be required.
In these situations, cruise lines will of course lose money in the short term. But the alternative is that we accept the risk to human life to people taking these cruises, all in the name of short-term capital gain. What if instead we had to either "eat the loss", or invest in true safety (we can take 50% of normal passenger load, add these safety measures, these cleaning routines, etc).
Advertising fraud is already illegal. The situations where case law dictates what is illegal are varied and nuanced. As a side note, there are many categories of claims that fall in neither "provably true" nor "provably untrue", and enforcing upon these claims is tricky.
You can google for "advertising fraud precedent" "advertising fraud case law" and "advertising fraud case studies" for more information.
No. These are words and phrases that hold literal meanings. They are used by advertisers to deceive people. There are/is no fine print in broadcast or digital ads. Except in Pharma... which is only allowed to advertise in the US and NZ. No where else on earth allows pharmaceutical advertising on TV.
Sometimes the meaning can be different between the literal or regulatory defined meaning and what people assume or expect.
The USDA's minimum for "free range" labeling for example for non-certified organic foods can be met with a standard chicken coop with a door and a few feet of screened in porch the chickens may or may not ever actually use. "No Hormones" on the other hand has the technical definition and the layman definition aligned, but is federally mandated anyway making it a meaningless feature.
Yes, and then there's the advertising get-out-of-jail-free card of "puffery". You can lie all you want in your marketing materials as long as your lawyers can convince a judge that no reasonable person would actually believe what you said.
It's this kind of of nonsense that led me to consider all marketing messages and claims to be lies by default.
Don't those unlimited plans state that data may be throttled, etc? Unless you cite a specific example it's pretty tough to argue against.
To argue against your theoretical case: If there is a data plan that advertises unlimited data without giving any fine print describing the throttling behavior, or other strange details after high data usage, then yes, they should be able to have false advertising claims pressed against them successfully.
What mechanism other than litigation and the consumer protection bureau do you think should enforce against false advertising? How much resources should be expended to fight it? Do you have an alternative to propose, or do you prefer instead to attack a known-to-be-imperfect system?
Yeah, OK. But here's what happens if a company gets publicly caught. "At ConCo we take ethics seriously. The statements by the employees in question are not in line with ConCo's policies and practices. Those employees will be burned alive, then put on a personal improvement plan, and then their heads will be displayed on pikes at their respective places of employment."
I think punishing or firing the employees is appropriate. It is often, but not always, also appropriate for those employees to have criminal punishments imposed on them.
I suppose you think that current norms for these punishments are too lax. It's not easy to tell what you actually believe though. If you want to tease out your own actual beliefs on this, look up some advertising fraud cases and find one that was punished too loosely, and find one that was punished too severely.
> But couldn't we have a standard where literally anything anyone says to a customer must be true, or was not false to the knowledge of the person saying it?
This would be hard to prove beyond existing rules, and what would you do about opinionated statements?
Further, this is one of those standards that cuts both ways but people only see it when they're the ones suing.
I want to prevent consumer pain due to bad sales practices, but I also appreciate that the burden of proof required means that it would be harder for someone to sue me into bankruptcy for speaking my mind at some point.
"Anything anyone says to a customer must be true" is difficult. "Anything the consumer signs must be true" is a much better, and easier to enforce method in my opinion. There's a long way to go on plain language there (and people can and have already tested enforceability) but it's a much clearer standard. (Not a lawyer, just a citizen)
I am of the opinion that the very concept of commissioned sales is cancerous, because of the obvious perverse incentives it sets up. Whenever I am forced to buy form commissioned salespeople (car, furniture/mattress, insurance, interacting with an 'advisor' at my bank), I can never take that salesperson's advice at face value. I always wonder if I'm the mark in some institutionalized or just regular straight-up con. I will (and sometimes do) pay extra to avoid the feeling of needing a shower after such 'interactions'.
"do we have to accept deception as a necessary part of sales?" I would like to think "no", but as someone who's worked building a technical product, which is then turned around and sold, it's hard not to feel like portraying your work in the best possible light, combined with moderately effective sales techniques, leaves the buyer with a strictly inaccurate impression of what the products capabilities are.
I'm not okay with saying these situations are unavoidable, but I think they arise pretty naturally out of situations where people are paid to make a sale, and people hear what they want to hear.
> Meta point: do we have to accept deception as a necessary part of sales? It seems strange that we accept deception and manipulation as necessary ingredients in the market, and that its on the buyer when they "get duped".
I guess I would clarify what you mean by deception. One of the key parts of sales, at least when it comes to technical sales, is that an answer to a question or a presentation of capabilities needs to be made in a context. You have to know your audience. When you're talking about how your software does authentication it's absolutely appropriate to describe it as "integrating into your existing investments in authentication" when speaking to the business side of the audience. This is compared to going into detail (e.g. NTLM, Basic, SAML, Kerberos, OIDC, JWT, whatever) when speaking to the technical side of the audience. Is the generic answer to the business side deceptive? I don't see how it is. It's not their role to analyze the technical merits. They just want to know how much extra work will it require, in general, to deploy the software.
Is outright lying necessary? No. I've only been on the sales (technical sales, but nonetheless sales) side of the world for 1.5 years, but no, you don't. I am fortunate that my manager has carved out a team where the _expectation_ is that we are technical stewards of our customers. Obviously our end goal is selling software, but the immediate goal is to make the software work. It's a norm on our team that it's entirely acceptable to join a call and tell the customer that a competitor would be better suited for the use case.
While it's not necessary, it is hard. The incentives for sales aren't aligned with telling the truth. But this is where culture matters quite a bit.
111 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadSurely it would be insanity to drum into people’s heads “profits before species!”
I’m sure this is an isolated incident.
Sorry just don’t want to get us associated with such extremely unethical behavior.
Frankly it ought to be punishable in the justice system.
Finland, on the other hand.. much respect :)
I was quite livid when they opened a new major oil field last year but it takes time to change things.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/carbon-capture-a...
I don't really think there's a way around this for Norwegians. If you're upset about climate change (and you should be) then you should also be honest that continuing to extract and sell oil is contributing to the problem.
It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education, and opportunities for easy (relatively speaking) renewable energy. Many countries don't have those luxuries.
With that being said, I applaud Norway in general as a country. I think they do a lot of great stuff. But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
> It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education
This all seems off-topic to me.
> But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
Considering this post is about an US based cruise ship lying about a virus, nothing in your comment is really appropriate for "the context of this discussion".
https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-...
Their politicians love touting that 98% green energy production but it’s incredibly misleading.
Sorry by the way I really don’t mean to take this conversation so off topic. It was meant half tongue in cheek :) every country has blind spots and this was about coronavirus and cruises, not global warming! And this is only their politicians; Norwegians are the most lovely people. Nothing against the country.
I’ll leave it here. Sorry again.
IIRC, fishing industry and oil industry were 2 major reasons why they did not want to join EU.
Then again, I'm from NL. Same with our fishing industry, and Shell has done some naughty things in the past, too.
I wonder if a country can force a multinational to stop using a country name because of misrepresentation. i.e Norway (tourism?) forces Norwegian Cruises to stop using its name.
I can add that the name Norwegian is associated with the Airline company here in the nordics. So using just Norwegian in the headline is unfortunate.
I assumed it was a weirdly worded title about the country... but then I wondered why they had a 'Sales Team'.
Also any front facing sort of government services type folks who provide direction / help in some ways are sales... ish.
But this is a Miami based news source, so I can forgive the lack of clarity as my impression is that cruise ships are very significant there, so for their audience the cruise line might be what they associate first.
It is not their fault it gets linked to a worldwide audience on HN...
Outside of port towns where they visit, we've got no clue.
However, it does not explain why we haven't heard of flu outbreaks in cruises before this coronavirus. It seems cruises are perfect for the proliferation of any airborne virus.
Anecdotally I hear about it almost every time the topic of cruises come up on Reddit or other social media. I just don't think its particularly newsworthy so it isn't making headlines. Cruise ships and Conventions are pretty similar in the sense that people just get notoriously sick after attending is my understanding.
We already knew that about cruises.
> However, it does not explain why we haven't heard of flu outbreaks in cruises before this coronavirus
We have, actually, but we don't hear about it much, because, except with the scrutiny occurring during this COVID-19 outbreak, which led to media exposure for a cruise ship flu outbreak [0], cruise ships are only required track and report when gastrointestinal disease hits a certain threshold, not respiratory ailments. [1]
[0] https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-royal-carribean-fl...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/surv/gilist.htm
As I understand it, the message from CDC etc is, roughly: It's transmitted through droplets coughed or sneezed from one person that then end up through common touching of not-cleaned surfaces and thence into the body through face-touching.
My gut feel is that if that's how transmission occurs, we shouldn't see infection spread between large numbers of people who were simply present in the same room as each other for a few days.
Which makes me wonder if all the hand washing is just "Epidemiology Theater".
I don't think the hand-washing is epidemiology theater, in part based on this thread: https://twitter.com/PalliThordarson/status/12365493051895971...
People cough and sneeze all the time, even healthy people, and the droplets of saliva from that land on surfaces that other people touch and then they touch their faces, rub their eyes and pick their noses. So the virus will spread in the air and also by transmission onto mucus membranes from your hands. It’s not airborne but there is droplet transmission. The danger is relatively small if people don’t touch, like shaking hands, hugging or kissing, and if surfaces are wiped down with disinfectants regularly and everyone washes their hands but that does not describe most people’s experience of being in a room with other people for a few days.
> Kentaro Iwata, an infectious diseases expert at Kobe University who visited the ship, strongly criticised the management of the situation in two widely circulated YouTube videos published on 18 February.[36][37][38][39] He called Diamond Princess a "COVID-19 mill".[40] He said that the areas possibly contaminated by the virus were not in any way separated from virus-free areas, there were numerous lapses in infection control measures, and that there was no professional in charge of infection prevention—the bureaucrats were in charge of everything.
I guess it was owned by Norwegians at one point.
Salespeople lying, within certain limits, does not seem to be treated as fraud by most governments, caveat emptor and all.
If they tell you the alcohol on the cruise will be free and you sign a contract saying so, and then it actually isn’t and you have to pay more, that’s one thing. If they tell you it’s going to be sunny and warm when you’re taking a cruise to Alaska in winter, that’s a different thing.
Lying or deceiving during sales about things other than the product is a large part of a salesperson’s job, I believe (including but not limited to making the customer think the salesperson likes and respects them).
And even more serious sources basically say: "we don't know at this time", which is not enough to make these actions criminal (as per current laws, per my limited unprofessional understanding).
That wasn't a "scientist", that was the President of the US of A.
His lies are going to get people killed.
Hell, just writing that out actually makes me think twice about calling and booking something. But I have young children and my wife would be unnecessarily worried the whole time and she doesn't even like cruises.
Assuming that immunity from the virus lasts longer than a few days/weeks.
"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),"
and it is backed up by a WHO factsheet https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
But couldn't we have a standard where literally anything anyone says to a customer must be true, or was not false to the knowledge of the person saying it? Scammy warranties, timeshares, and other "gotcha" products would be a thing of the past. To make money, providing honest value with a product that matches the expectation of the customer would be required.
In these situations, cruise lines will of course lose money in the short term. But the alternative is that we accept the risk to human life to people taking these cruises, all in the name of short-term capital gain. What if instead we had to either "eat the loss", or invest in true safety (we can take 50% of normal passenger load, add these safety measures, these cleaning routines, etc).
You can google for "advertising fraud precedent" "advertising fraud case law" and "advertising fraud case studies" for more information.
There is no such thing as truth in advertising. There is only a Make Lawyers Rich lawsuit..
The USDA's minimum for "free range" labeling for example for non-certified organic foods can be met with a standard chicken coop with a door and a few feet of screened in porch the chickens may or may not ever actually use. "No Hormones" on the other hand has the technical definition and the layman definition aligned, but is federally mandated anyway making it a meaningless feature.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-does-free-range-really-me...
It's this kind of of nonsense that led me to consider all marketing messages and claims to be lies by default.
To argue against your theoretical case: If there is a data plan that advertises unlimited data without giving any fine print describing the throttling behavior, or other strange details after high data usage, then yes, they should be able to have false advertising claims pressed against them successfully.
Yeah, OK. But here's what happens if a company gets publicly caught. "At ConCo we take ethics seriously. The statements by the employees in question are not in line with ConCo's policies and practices. Those employees will be burned alive, then put on a personal improvement plan, and then their heads will be displayed on pikes at their respective places of employment."
I suppose you think that current norms for these punishments are too lax. It's not easy to tell what you actually believe though. If you want to tease out your own actual beliefs on this, look up some advertising fraud cases and find one that was punished too loosely, and find one that was punished too severely.
This would be hard to prove beyond existing rules, and what would you do about opinionated statements?
I want to prevent consumer pain due to bad sales practices, but I also appreciate that the burden of proof required means that it would be harder for someone to sue me into bankruptcy for speaking my mind at some point.
"Anything anyone says to a customer must be true" is difficult. "Anything the consumer signs must be true" is a much better, and easier to enforce method in my opinion. There's a long way to go on plain language there (and people can and have already tested enforceability) but it's a much clearer standard. (Not a lawyer, just a citizen)
I'm not okay with saying these situations are unavoidable, but I think they arise pretty naturally out of situations where people are paid to make a sale, and people hear what they want to hear.
I guess I would clarify what you mean by deception. One of the key parts of sales, at least when it comes to technical sales, is that an answer to a question or a presentation of capabilities needs to be made in a context. You have to know your audience. When you're talking about how your software does authentication it's absolutely appropriate to describe it as "integrating into your existing investments in authentication" when speaking to the business side of the audience. This is compared to going into detail (e.g. NTLM, Basic, SAML, Kerberos, OIDC, JWT, whatever) when speaking to the technical side of the audience. Is the generic answer to the business side deceptive? I don't see how it is. It's not their role to analyze the technical merits. They just want to know how much extra work will it require, in general, to deploy the software.
Is outright lying necessary? No. I've only been on the sales (technical sales, but nonetheless sales) side of the world for 1.5 years, but no, you don't. I am fortunate that my manager has carved out a team where the _expectation_ is that we are technical stewards of our customers. Obviously our end goal is selling software, but the immediate goal is to make the software work. It's a norm on our team that it's entirely acceptable to join a call and tell the customer that a competitor would be better suited for the use case.
While it's not necessary, it is hard. The incentives for sales aren't aligned with telling the truth. But this is where culture matters quite a bit.
Haven’t taken up on it yet but likely will. Cancelling the test of the trip is going to be tough, financially, so I’m looking on how this progresses.