 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> and that your use of the service
>> constitutes agreement with this policy.
>
> No agreement can go against the law. At least not here.
It's legal AFAIK in the US to permit a TOS or EULA to require users give
up some of their rights in exchange for services or products. Of course,
shrink-wrap laws like that haven't been fully tested in the US courts, so
it's possible it's not legal to do so, but it would take someone actually
challenging it court to invalidate it.
It's not automatically invalidated over here.
> For example, if a license agreement of a software says that you cannot
> make backup copies of it, that's just not valid. You can accept the
> license agreement and still make backup copies. They have nothing
> against you.
Is it written into Finnish law that you can make backup copies of
software? That would seem to me to be a case of "management by
exception" - I'd be interested in how that's codified in the laws over
there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:34:18 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I wasn't asking what the ISP can do. I was asking what the police can
> do.
> In most countries there are limits on how the police can spy on people
> (so that the evidence is valid in court).
Over here they need a warrant - and for a warrant, they have to
demonstrate to a court (could be a 'normal' court, could be the FISA
court) that there is probable cause.
If they have a warrant and go to the ISP, the ISP has two choices: Turn
over the information requested in the warrant, or challenge the
authorities in court.
Perhaps it's a question of ownership - in the US (at least), the data
housed by the ISP is owned by the ISP, not the users of the ISP. The
records of your activities online are not owned by the individual, AFAIK.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why do you need a law to allow a company to voluntarily supply data to
>> the
>> police? If the police wanted to force data unwillingly from the company,
>> then sure...
>
> Because the data is used without the person's consent.
You gave consent when you signed up with the ISP...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <ask### [at] mecom> wrote:
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <ask### [at] mecom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
I don't know Finnish law, but would the police need a warrant for a
confession that someone offered to them? Do they need a warrant to even
ask 'Have you seen this person'? Here, they can ask but there is no
legal requirement to answer. And if Person A consents to a search of
something they possess then the evidence is valid in court without a
warrant, even if the evidence is gathered from the posessions of Person
A but later used against Person B.
The law does go above the license agreement, but not always in a way
that is helpful to the end user.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:04:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Yes. Very explicitly and with unambiguous wording. It also says
> explicitly
> that any license agreement saying otherwise is ineffective.
That's very progressive compared to the primitive state of intellectual
property here in the US.
Most people *assume* "I bought it, I can do what I want with it
regardless of the EULA", but occasionally the "lawyer hammer" is brought
to bear for an infringement suit. Usually the individual cannot afford
to fight it, so they settle out of court.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yes. Very explicitly and with unambiguous wording. It also says explicitly
> that any license agreement saying otherwise is ineffective.
Same in the US, too, at least for one backup copy. Because copyright
law is federal and licenses are state law, copyright law trumps
licenses. Prolock v Copywrite. I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal
advice. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
