You do know that "basically" and "same" have very different meanings right?
The point is that neither of them (should) carry a criminal penalty for the violation of them unless the violation actually violates the law. The problem here is that they are using their *policy* to stipulate what is illegal.....using very ambiguous overreaching laws. Even though using criminal courts in place of civil is all the new rage.
Exactly what does it change?
They're both loose "contracts" on what is authorized for the service/network/etc.
Using horribly vague, ambiguous and broad laws to cover civil matters (especially big corporate civil matters) is a crazy concept that people seem to just ignore as "welp don't break the law" until they get snagged up in it.
An "access policy" is basically "terms of service".
You are right though the word "policy" is enough of a description to make a criminal charge (an upheld appeals) seem ridiculous.
Lower courts have held that violating a (basically TOS) is a crime? Is there ever real world logic applied to these decisions or is it basically (let's rewrite every law when it applies to the internet).
"What are you in for?"
"Leaving food stuffs in the fridge after 5pm on friday, clearly against company policy".
No, just like now, a phone user will have to call his provider and using his account information report the phone stolen. It's not iron clad but I highly doubt the system would be setup to make it impossible to reverse the process in error, and if you call up and use someone else information to disable their phone I would bet there's a law covering that.
Employees that are comfortable, relaxed and happy are more productive.
Better rush them back into the cube farm to be lulled asleep by the sea of mindless chatter and relentless policies designed to make the staff virtual automatons.
I'm assuming you are the DA there and basing this on hard evidence. If not you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing (and the media companies love): Hook-Line-Sinker.
The opinion of completely uninformed (yes even if you've read everything possible in the media you are uninformed) parties is irrelevant. The authorities and others who are privy to real facts and evidence. There's a really good reason they don't give all of the evidence to the 24 news networks and let them handle administering justice.
...Would render any effort completely useless from the get go. No, not systems security silly, that other kind where you are more secure by the government being able to track anything and everything you or anyone else does on a whim.
Bingo.
Save the money and just learn a bit. There is no such as inbound QoS. No matter what the product.
The calls are choppy to you because of inbound traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that "basically" and "same" have very different meanings right? The point is that neither of them (should) carry a criminal penalty for the violation of them unless the violation actually violates the law. The problem here is that they are using their *policy* to stipulate what is illegal. ....using very ambiguous overreaching laws. Even though using criminal courts in place of civil is all the new rage.
Exactly what does it change? They're both loose "contracts" on what is authorized for the service/network/etc. Using horribly vague, ambiguous and broad laws to cover civil matters (especially big corporate civil matters) is a crazy concept that people seem to just ignore as "welp don't break the law" until they get snagged up in it.
An "access policy" is basically "terms of service". You are right though the word "policy" is enough of a description to make a criminal charge (an upheld appeals) seem ridiculous.
Lower courts have held that violating a (basically TOS) is a crime? Is there ever real world logic applied to these decisions or is it basically (let's rewrite every law when it applies to the internet). "What are you in for?" "Leaving food stuffs in the fridge after 5pm on friday, clearly against company policy".
No, just like now, a phone user will have to call his provider and using his account information report the phone stolen. It's not iron clad but I highly doubt the system would be setup to make it impossible to reverse the process in error, and if you call up and use someone else information to disable their phone I would bet there's a law covering that.
...a market competitor! Kill it George!
Like people who used phones hooked to walls and paid 300$ for a walkman cd players would know anything about science or the climate.
Employees that are comfortable, relaxed and happy are more productive. Better rush them back into the cube farm to be lulled asleep by the sea of mindless chatter and relentless policies designed to make the staff virtual automatons.
I'm assuming you are the DA there and basing this on hard evidence. If not you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing (and the media companies love): Hook-Line-Sinker. The opinion of completely uninformed (yes even if you've read everything possible in the media you are uninformed) parties is irrelevant. The authorities and others who are privy to real facts and evidence. There's a really good reason they don't give all of the evidence to the 24 news networks and let them handle administering justice.
President Madagascar Runs the TSA. shut.....doWN....EVERYTHING
...Would render any effort completely useless from the get go. No, not systems security silly, that other kind where you are more secure by the government being able to track anything and everything you or anyone else does on a whim.
Bingo. Save the money and just learn a bit. There is no such as inbound QoS. No matter what the product. The calls are choppy to you because of inbound traffic.