>> You gave consent when you signed up with the ISP...
>
>  That doesn't mean that the data is good in court. The law goes above
> any license agreement.

Which law says that evidence gained from an ISP about a user who has agreed 
for such evidence to be collected, stored and passed to the authorities, is 
not valid in a court?

Post a reply to this message

>> Is it written into Finnish law that you can make backup copies of
>> software?
>
>  Yes. Very explicitly and with unambiguous wording. It also says 
> explicitly
> that any license agreement saying otherwise is ineffective.

Do you mean just the "no backup" clause is ineffective, or the whole license 
agreement?

Post a reply to this message

>>> and that your use of the service constitutes agreement with this policy.
>>
>>   No agreement can go against the law. At least not here.
>
> I think that's, generally, the case everywhere. But lots of places have a 
> list of "this is how it works, *but* an agreement can change that" sort of 
> laws, so that makes it legal.

Also they have things like

A) You must not make copies and sell them.
B) <some illegal requirement/agreement>
C) ...
.
Z) If any of the above terms are broken this license is terminated and you 
must return all software and media and you're not allowed to use the 
software blah blah blah

I have an illegal clause in my job contract (about working for competitors), 
they can't do anything legally about it of course (unless they could show I 
had given away company confidential information), but they would be 
perfectly entitled to "terminate" my contract!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Which law says that evidence gained from an ISP about a user who has agreed 
> for such evidence to be collected, stored and passed to the authorities, is 
> not valid in a court?

  The same which says that license agreements never go over the law.

  If there's a law that says that spying on users without special permit
is not allowed, a license agreement saying "I give permission for the
police to spy on me" will not change the fact in any way. Such license
agreement is ineffective and invalid. At least in general here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Do you mean just the "no backup" clause is ineffective, or the whole license 
> agreement?

  What do you think?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  If there's a law that says that spying on users without special permit
> is not allowed, a license agreement saying "I give permission for the
> police to spy on me" will not change the fact in any way.

It's not spying because you've agreed to it!  If you *didn't* know about it, 
then sure, it's spying and needs a special permit or whatever, but we are 
talking about the situation where you give the ISP permission to log your 
data and pass it to the police if they wish to do so.  What law makes that 
illegal?

Post a reply to this message

>> Do you mean just the "no backup" clause is ineffective, or the whole 
>> license
>> agreement?
>
>  What do you think?

Well both seem to lead to a funny situation, that's why I asked.

If it means the whole license is invalid, then that also means the parts 
that give you permission to use the software, and the parts about not 
copying it and selling it, giving public performances using it, hiring it 
out to people etc.  Essentially your only option (legally) would be to send 
everything back and asking them to send a legal license agreement.

If it means only the "no backup" clause is ineffective, then presumably 
there is another clause that says "if any of the other clauses are broken 
then the whole license is terminated", in which case you could use it as 
normal, but if you made a backup you'd terminate the license agreement and 
have to send the software back.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   If there's a law that says that spying on users without special permit
> is not allowed, a license agreement saying "I give permission for the
> police to spy on me" will not change the fact in any way. Such license
> agreement is ineffective and invalid. At least in general here.

So my freedom to choose to allow someone to spy on me is removed in the 
name of 'privacy'.  In the end, we willingly giving up freedoms, as long 
as we know about it.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:06:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Interesting, looks like you know more about it than I do - does it just
>> then relate to payment information and not personal data?
> 
> No idea. The one news article I read (after you brought it to my
> attention) was talking about payment information.

Ah, OK.. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>   Regardless of the suspected crime type, I'm still not very comfortable
>> if the police could legally spy on anyone they want.
>
> In the USA, the police are *supposed* to go to a judge and convince the 
> judge of the need to do this.  That this is being ignored is troublesome 
> to me. But I don't have much of a problem with it when the judge is 
> involved.
>
> Of course, the bit of "let's watch everyone always who is in public, and 
> record any data leaving or entering their private house" is also 
> troublesome, but certainly easier to get around.

The NSA has been listening to almost everyone for 50+ years,
but they mostly stay out of local stuff, at least on paper.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-2086583-8243611?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=puzzle+palace

Post a reply to this message