|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> "You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes
> prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the
> development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear,
> chemical or biological weapons."
Does this mean you can't use iTunes to play "I am the BOMB!"...? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Legalese can sometimes be rather funny
Date: 22 Jun 2009 11:35:54
Message: <4a3fa4da@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those organisations
> who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't be deterred by
> a bunch of legalese.
I don't think it's that. I think it's there to keep Apple from having to
prove the device is suitable for that purpose. I.e., "No, the military
shouldn't be using the GPS on this to decide where to bomb", and etc.
Kind of the difference between getting FCC approval for your radio vs
slapping a sticker on it that says "Caution: may generate interference." If
it's going to be used in a hospital, you really need the approval.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those organisations
> who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't be deterred by
> a bunch of legalese.
It's more to prevent otherwise legally-acting companies from doing military
stuff with other countries without control from the government. Without the
disclaimer, a company could (to quote the example already given) extract the
accelerometers from iPods and sell them to a missile-making company,
completely avoiding any government control on such devices.
AIUI, in the UK at least, if you export some technology or a product that
even has a remote chance of being able to be used for some military purpose,
then you need to go through a lot more hoops with the government.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But my podcast describing how to develope ICBMs is only available as an
mp4!!! :-(
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:36:35 +0200, scott wrote:
>> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
>> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those
>> organisations who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't
>> be deterred by a bunch of legalese.
>
> It's more to prevent otherwise legally-acting companies from doing
> military stuff with other countries without control from the government.
> Without the disclaimer, a company could (to quote the example already
> given) extract the accelerometers from iPods and sell them to a
> missile-making company, completely avoiding any government control on
> such devices.
Oh, yeah, I understand the intent. It's just really silly to read.
> AIUI, in the UK at least, if you export some technology or a product
> that even has a remote chance of being able to be used for some military
> purpose, then you need to go through a lot more hoops with the
> government.
Yep, same here in the US.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Legalese can sometimes be rather funny
Date: 22 Jun 2009 20:19:29
Message: <4a401f91@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:35:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
>> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those
>> organisations who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't
>> be deterred by a bunch of legalese.
>
> I don't think it's that. I think it's there to keep Apple from having to
> prove the device is suitable for that purpose. I.e., "No, the military
> shouldn't be using the GPS on this to decide where to bomb", and etc.
Well, as I said to Scott, yeah, I understand the real intent. But it
comes across as what I said to most laypeople. That's why the warnings
like the one below:
> Kind of the difference between getting FCC approval for your radio vs
> slapping a sticker on it that says "Caution: may generate interference."
> If it's going to be used in a hospital, you really need the approval.
Come across as silly as well. Or for that matter, warnings telling you
that that chainsaw you just bought isn't to be used for trimming nose
hairs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I wonder how you could use iTunes to develop nuclear weapons. Unless
> they mean that you can't listen to music through iTunes while you are
> developing the weapons...
What, you don't subscribe to the Anarchist podcast? ;)
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:34:15 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
>> On 06/21/09 22:32, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> That, and the rather safe conclusion that people who are willing to
>>> break laws about WMD are not likely to give a rat's about their iTunes
>>> EULA.
>> Well, more seriously, it may be about covering Apple's rear end
> rather
>> than preventing the user from doing something.
>
> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those organisations
> who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't be deterred by
> a bunch of legalese.
It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for
dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for
dragging Apple into court.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:29:36 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for
> dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for
> dragging Apple into court.
Well, sad and funny I'd go as far as. But yeah, it could be used that way.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for
> dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for
> dragging Apple into court.
Wel said!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |