 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yep, but even worse than that is that help desk personnel will tend to
> reset passwords for anyone who says they are the person calling in.
At university we had to actually go to the IT place and show our photo-ID
before they would reset the password. They would stick the ID into the
machine (after supposedly checking the photo), and then scan in the barcode
on the outside of an envelope. Inside the envelope was your new password
:-)
I'm pretty sure that here I could just phone the IT guys and they'd reset my
password - but saying that I think they pretty much know everyone's voice as
we're quite a small outfit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> vt52, vt100, vt220 and vt240 (using its grahical modes to plot things
> IIRC) but I started on on a beehive terminal where you could edit one line
> locally and then use the 'send' button to send to the mainframe.
> No fancy full screen editors like VI yet.
> Output to be collected the next day at the front desk.
My dad got me a vt220 (IIRC) from work once when I was about 9 or 10. I
hooked it up to our BBC via serial link and would chat with my sister from
room-to-room after we were meant to have gone to bed! We even tricked a few
of our friends by me hiding in another room and my sister pretending to chat
to someone famous using this "amazing new technology".
Should have realised the potential of this usage and written an internet
chat program!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else can
> see what you are doing.
I see no law specifying this.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
For example, it's prohibited to create (and especially distribute) lists
which link numbers (such as social security numbers, car license plates,
student numbers in universities, etc.) to the persons assigned to those
numbers. For example at universities when they publish course results,
they can only print out to public view either the student number or the
student name, but not both. (Most prefer printing only the student number
because it's more "anonymous".)
Sometimes executing this law goes a bit to extremes. For example there
was a website which collected photographs of cars with amusing license
plates. It received a cease-and-desist order from authorities because
it effectively was a listing of license plates and photographs of the
cars they belonged to. This is a no-no.
I'm quite certain that likewise it would be prohibited to photograph
people leaving their homes, because such photographs would effectively
be a list connecting people with their homes.
I'm not sure what is the interpretation of the law with regard to the
police spying on internet traffic, though...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else can
>> see what you are doing.
>
> I see no law specifying this.
It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an agreement
with the company that gives you access to the internet. If you don't agree
with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't find one that you
agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the internet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an agreement
> with the company that gives you access to the internet. If you don't agree
> with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't find one that you
> agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the internet.
That doesn't automatically mean that the police can go and do whatever
it wants.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:01:15 +0200, scott wrote:
>> Yep, but even worse than that is that help desk personnel will tend to
>> reset passwords for anyone who says they are the person calling in.
>
> At university we had to actually go to the IT place and show our
> photo-ID before they would reset the password. They would stick the ID
> into the machine (after supposedly checking the photo), and then scan in
> the barcode on the outside of an envelope. Inside the envelope was your
> new password :-)
Yeah, some places are saavy enough to do this, but sadly not enough of
them.
> I'm pretty sure that here I could just phone the IT guys and they'd
> reset my password - but saying that I think they pretty much know
> everyone's voice as we're quite a small outfit.
Here they require you to show up in person to the security office (or the
help desk area, I don't know which) with your access card; but we also
have the ability to change our own passwords using a secret question/
answer and a PIN; the PIN is used by the phone system for voice mail
access as well, so most people remember that easier than their password.
Just don't lose your badge. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
That's one of the areas in which the USA is rather backwards. :-?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:56:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> In Finland there are quite restrictive privacy laws.
>
> That's one of the areas in which the USA is rather backwards. :-?
Yeah - actually, been wondering what you think of the Governator's
reversal of the data protection laws in CA...?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah - actually, been wondering what you think of the Governator's
> reversal of the data protection laws in CA...?
I fear I've been an Actioneer for the last couple of months. I haven't
really been keeping up with the news that doesn't directly affect me.
However, glancing thru a couple of news articles, and considering I've
worked in the payment processing arena for 15 years, I have to say I
agree with him. From the little I see, it's the payment processing
stuff he doesn't want to change. That's very different from the other
information.
I don't really care if someone steals my credit card info. It's not my
card. It's the bank's card. What I don't want is people selling all my
personal information without my consent. I can already stop people from
getting my payment history that don't need to know it. The payment
processing laws in the US are stronger (i.e., more consumer friendly)
than most of Europe, as I understand it. It's just the stuff that people
collect independent of actually payment information that's loose.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting, looks like you know more about it than I do - does it just
then relate to payment information and not personal data?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an agreement
>> with the company that gives you access to the internet. If you don't
>> agree
>> with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't find one that you
>> agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the internet.
>
> That doesn't automatically mean that the police can go and do whatever
> it wants.
If the ISP agrees to it they can - the key point is that *you* don't have to
agree, because you've already handed over that responsibility to your ISP
when you signed up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> If the ISP agrees to it they can
I would like to see the law which says this.
--
- Warp
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> If the ISP agrees to it they can
>
> I would like to see the law which says this.
It's the law that says something along the lines of 'legally binding
business contracts are legally binding'. Unless specifically stated
otherwise to the contrary, you can in theory agree to anything and it's
legal. It doesn't need a law to say 'you can do this', it needs a law
to say 'you CAN'T do this'.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> If the ISP agrees to it they can
>
> I would like to see the law which says this.
>
Check your User Agreement and search procedures in your country. The
agreement, at least the ones from ISPs I've used, allows them to do what
ever they want with the data as long as it is not identifiable, or to
turn the data over to law enforcement. Search procedure in the USA
allows the 'inhabitant' to authorize a search. Inhabitant might be a bad
word for this, but a house sitter can allow the police to search a house
not owned by them because they are the current guardian of that house. A
renter or a land lord can authorize the search an apartment. Since the
ISP is the guardian of the data on their servers, they would have the
option of turning it over to police within what ever terms they set up
in their user agreement.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:56:33 +0200, scott wrote:
> the key point is that *you* don't have to agree,
Actually, the ISPs I have dealt with may even have explicitly included
that in their terms of service - that the ISP will comply with legal
requests from law enforcement, and that your use of the service
constitutes agreement with this policy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> If the ISP agrees to it they can
> >
> > I would like to see the law which says this.
> >
> Check your User Agreement and search procedures in your country. The
> agreement, at least the ones from ISPs I've used, allows them to do what
> ever they want with the data as long as it is not identifiable, or to
> turn the data over to law enforcement.
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).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:03 -0400, 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> 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.
Yes, because most such contracts are contracts of adhesion. In other
words, you don't really have a choice what the terms are, because
there's no negotiating going on. Can you pay the ISP another $.50 a
month to not turn your records over to the police? No. Is there another
ISP in the region with the same speed and capability? No. Then it's
reasonable for the populace to get together and say "we disagree that
it's OK for you to force this choice upon us."
Welcome to society. Enjoy your stay. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott 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.
>
> 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!
Not really. You didn't break clause B because clause B is is illegal to
include in the first place. The presence or absence of clause B is
irrelevant to the enforcability of the contract.
In any case, most contracts have clauses of severability, meaning they
have a clause that says "If any part of this contract is illegal, the
other parts still hold." Which means clause B, being illegal, would be
severed from the contract. This is an ass-cover so the company writing
the contract can sue you for breaching parts of it even if you manage to
prove an irrelevant part is illegal to include.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> The NSA has been listening to almost everyone for 50+ years,
> but they mostly stay out of local stuff, at least on paper.
In the USA, citizens (and to a different extent residents) have rather
different sets of rights w.r.t. government activity than foreigners in
the USA or outside it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> So my freedom to choose to allow someone to spy on me is removed in the
> name of 'privacy'.
Well, you have the freedom of not suing the one who spied on you...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> 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.
It wouldn't make too much sense for the entire license to become invalid
just because one point was invalid.
> 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.
I'm sure that wouldn't hold in court.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 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.
If the license is invalid, why would you have to send the software back?
Then (in the USA) it just turns into a copyright question. I.e., the use
and copying of the software is controlled by the laws that regulate what
you do with any other purchase you make without an explicit license,
like buying books or artwork or food or whatever.
If the license says you have to send it back, and the license is
invalid, then you wouldn't have to send it back.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If the license is invalid, why would you have to send the software back?
> Then (in the USA) it just turns into a copyright question. I.e., the use
> and copying of the software is controlled by the laws that regulate what
> you do with any other purchase you make without an explicit license, like
> buying books or artwork or food or whatever.
What have you bought though if you haven't got a license to use the
software? A useless coaster? Or do you have a right to use software with
some "default" license that specifies how/where you can use it etc?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:33:55 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Tim Attwood wrote:
>> The NSA has been listening to almost everyone for 50+ years,
>> but they mostly stay out of local stuff, at least on paper.
>
> In the USA, citizens (and to a different extent residents) have rather
> different sets of rights w.r.t. government activity than foreigners in
> the USA or outside it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
until such time the government divides them up into different groups so
they can be dealt with in a way that pleases them. ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> What have you bought though if you haven't got a license to use the
> software?
The same thing you have if you bought a book without a license. Is a
book useless that way? How about a CD?
> A useless coaster? Or do you have a right to use software
> with some "default" license that specifies how/where you can use it etc?
You own it. You can use it however you like that doesn't violate
existing laws. (One would think copyright law would be the main one
you'd be able to violate with software, altho murdering someone by
bashing them over the head with the box is also probably illegal.)
IANAL.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escribió:
>>> By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else
>>> can
>>> see what you are doing.
>>
>> I see no law specifying this.
>
> It's not a case of law or not, it's the fact that you signed an
> agreement with the company that gives you access to the internet. If
> you don't agree with their terms, then use another ISP, or if you can't
> find one that you agree with then make your own ISP or don't use the
> internet.
>
Ahh that's the fun of ISPs around here. You could get an Internet
service after a few phone calls without ever seeing an agreement, let
alone signing it.
They call offering the service (=telemarketing!), you say yes, and a few
weeks later they come install it. Then you (the following is actual
experience) notice the price they're charging is like twice what they
offered. So you call. "I was told it would be 19.99 for the first three
months but I got charged 39.99 the first month!" and they go "Huh? We
have never had a 19.99 promotion..."
And how the heck do you prove what the marketing guy told you if you
have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in paper about the Internet service?
But then, if I get spied, "I never signed anything agreeing to that" :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
