On 4/10/2012 5:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 13:42, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 3:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2012 13:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Well, no, but its part and parcel to the same bloody problem of
>>>> figuring out
>>>> what you are looking at, and who sent it.
>>>
>>> It's easy to tell what you're looking at. You already have it.
>>>
>>> It's impossible to tell who it is from, except in a fairly abstract way
>>> like "at least one of the people who ought to be keeping their private
>>> key private has sent this."
>>>
>> If it was that trivial, people wouldn't keep falling for it. Just saying.
>
> You misunderstand. It's easy to look at an email message and tell what
> it says. It's very hard to look at an email message and tell what human
> it's from. That latter part is the primary cause of people "falling for
> it." If you could solve the latter problem, the former problem would
> drop to background radiation levels.
>
Yep, that is the issue, definitely.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2012 7:42 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
>
>
> http://www.fastcompany.com/1826121/employers-want-your-facebook-password-now
>
>
> Boy the more I read stories like this, the more I'm convinced that
> privacy and personal freedom is a thing of the past. Governments and now
> employers seem to be marching lock step, and arm in arm all over things
> that up until /were/ deemed scared. Why don't they just go ahead and
> implant a chip in our necks and be done with it :-(

When I sign up for an on-line service, many of them specifically require 
that I keep my password confidential from all other parties.  This user 
agreement is a binding contract.

I am wondering whether any jurisdictions permit an employer to require 
an applicant to breach a contract as a condition of employment.  That is 
probably illegal in many places.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 5/22/2012 5:26 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>
> When I sign up for an on-line service, many of them specifically require
> that I keep my password confidential from all other parties. This user
> agreement is a binding contract.
>
> I am wondering whether any jurisdictions permit an employer to require
> an applicant to breach a contract as a condition of employment. That is
> probably illegal in many places.
>

I'm sort of waiting for a company to get sued for exactly this reason.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/05/2012 02:33 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> I'm sort of waiting for a company to get sued for exactly this reason.

Because that, apparently, is how the law works. The result of one court 
case determines what the law is, and until that court case happens, the 
law is undefined.

And here I was thinking that the law-makers define the law...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:08:11 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 23/05/2012 02:33 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 
>> I'm sort of waiting for a company to get sued for exactly this reason.
> 
> Because that, apparently, is how the law works. The result of one court
> case determines what the law is, and until that court case happens, the
> law is undefined.
> 
> And here I was thinking that the law-makers define the law...

Lawmakers define law.  The courts interpret it - and sometimes interpret 
it to mean something other than what the lawmakers wrote it to mean.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 23/05/2012 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:08:11 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> On 23/05/2012 02:33 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sort of waiting for a company to get sued for exactly this reason.
>>
>> Because that, apparently, is how the law works. The result of one court
>> case determines what the law is, and until that court case happens, the
>> law is undefined.
>>
>> And here I was thinking that the law-makers define the law...
> 
> Lawmakers define law.  The courts interpret it - and sometimes interpret 
> it to mean something other than what the lawmakers wrote it to mean.
> 
> Jim


Lawmakers define law, for reasonnable people.
Courts have to deal with perverts that seek and abuse holes in the
letter of the law. So, they must pave the void in the law with
interpretation.

What if... a law stated :"storing an apple is the right of any citizen
in town."

reasonnable people might have at home an apple or some pounds of them.

But perverts might make a business of storing hundred of tons of apples
at a common place.

Now the issue is that apples would expell ethylen gaz as part of their
aging. one apple is fine, but too many in a not-ventilated room.. there
is a fire-hazard... the court has to state about that: the law says
storing of apple is ok, but maybe large storing of apple need a bit of
regulation, or not.

Post a reply to this message

> Lawmakers define law.  The courts interpret it - and sometimes interpret
> it to mean something other than what the lawmakers wrote it to mean.

Interestingly, I have some experience in this direction.

Under lab regulations, you have to have written procedures for certain 
things. Once you write such a procedure, it becomes a "law" as such. If 
you don't follow that procedure, hypothetically you could go to jail. 
[Although that's rather unlikely in practise.]

Before the procedure goes into effect, it has to go through a long 
convoluted bureaucratic collaboration and approval process. But once the 
procedure is "issued", it becomes law. Whatever the procedure says, 
that's what you have to do.

Usually this isn't a problem. The problems start when some unusual 
circumstance that the procedure writer hadn't considered occurs. Then 
you get people standing around scratching their heads and interpreting 
the hell out of the actual written text of the procedure.

You would think that in the event of an unusual circumstance, the 
scientists running the experiment would be expected to use their best 
judgement to determine the most scientifically sound course of action. 
You would be wrong. Instead, the scientists are required to blindly 
follow the procedure document, no matter how stupid that is. The 
impetus, then, is on the procedure writers to write procedures which 
take into account every possible unusual circumstance that could ever 
occur in the history of civilisation.

OTOH, nobody tries to subvert procedures "on purpose". I gather people 
actually do that with laws. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> What if... a law stated :"storing an apple is the right of any citizen
> in town."
>
> reasonnable people might have at home an apple or some pounds of them.

The same in UK law about red traffic lights.  It a specific offence to 
cross the line on the road next to a traffic light if it is showing red. 
  But there is no specific definition of "cross", eg what if you were 
half over it as the red light came on, what if you drove around the side 
of it (to avoid physically crossing the line), what if you are crossing 
the line on red to allow an emergency vehicle to continue on its way, 
does rolling the front two wheels over the line count, etc.

It would be a big waste of time (and almost impossible) to write every 
single law in enough detail to cover every single possibility.  In 
fringe cases the court is there to interpret and enforce what it 
considers the purpose/intention of the law.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/05/2012 01:56 PM, scott wrote:

> It would be a big waste of time (and almost impossible) to write every
> single law in enough detail to cover every single possibility. In fringe
> cases the court is there to interpret and enforce what it considers the
> purpose/intention of the law.

And here I was thinking that the lawyers are paid to interpret the law 
in whatever way makes their rich client Not Guilty...

Post a reply to this message

>> It would be a big waste of time (and almost impossible) to write every
>> single law in enough detail to cover every single possibility. In fringe
>> cases the court is there to interpret and enforce what it considers the
>> purpose/intention of the law.
>
> And here I was thinking that the lawyers are paid to interpret the law
> in whatever way makes their rich client Not Guilty...

Of course having better lawyers than the other side helps, especially in 
complex cases.

Post a reply to this message