Testing the service is using the service. And, use of the service requires truthful information. Why do you think you have a right to lie and defraud just because it suits you?
When you agree to the TOS, you are entering into a contract for a quid pro quo relationship. Your part of the relationship is to provide truthful information. Their part is to provide the service. Why do you feel you have the right to cheat them? Don't you have any honor or sense of responsibility?
The injury is not in violating the TOS. The injury comes from the effects of the abuse of the service. Injury, as defined by law, encompasses many things. The terms of service spells out the deception.
You have a legal right to have an alias. However, businesses are allowed to require you to provide truthful, valid information in order to do business with them. And, by lying about your identity, you are commiting fraud.
And, additionally, there's always a reason to remain some discretion anywhere. Would you go out advertising your name and address publicly if you wanted to buy something from a sex shop?
Fail. You are not advertising anything.
Maybe you are afraid of that information being handed to the government...
Why? Are you doing something wrong? Why would the government even care unless you were doing something wong?
If I go into Firefox and set my user agent to Opera or IE, am I committing a felony by lying to the server over what browser I am using?
Do the terms of service require you to truthfully disclose your user agent?
What if I'm afraid of the business selling my information to spammers (despite claiming the contrary?)
If you are afraid of the business, why are patronizing the business?
Talk about a completely lame argument. You need more tinfoil.
Why is it a criminal matter and not a civil one? There's not even theft committed in this case.
Theft of service is being committed. More importantly, fraud is being committed.
Why wouldn't you provide a real name? You have no idea who has access to your information; a hacker or rogue employee, for instance, can use the information to harass you or whatever. Not only that, but phishing sites exist and there's always the remote possibility of DNS poisoning.
You mean like when you write a check or sign up for movie rentals or sign up for a gym or rent an apartment or give over your credit card? Your reasons are lame because those same risks apply in real life.
Why should it be any more of a felony to lie to myspace than to lie to someone on the street over what my name is?
Because the person on the street is not providing you a service on the condition that you truthfully represent yourself.
Did the terms of service say "Be truthful or no access"? Did she lie to get access? The definition of fraud is
intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
And the legal definition is:
A false representation of a matter of fact--whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed--that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
A private individual or company (they) does not have to let one exercise one's free speach right. They do not have to let someone else use my system or website to expound ideas They do not agree with. And, They have the right to condition access to same on not expounding those ideas.
That is part of freedom of speach and freedom of association.
They also have the right to condition access on being truthful. By lying to obtain access, one exceeds one's access. It is obtaining access by fraud. It just happens that obtaining access by fraud is illegal.
Now, I obtained these with full permission of the companies in question, as a contractor,
This says you had permission to obtain the certificate. Therefore, you had a verifiable connection with the company. The certificate company could have contacted the company and asked if you were allowed to obtain a certificate on their behalf.
The only thing the Dems are disregarding are their constituents.
They are shirking their duty to deal with pressing issues. Then, when the Reps make a public stink, the Dems kicked the reporters out of the Speaker's Lobby.
Imagine the outcry and headlines in the leftist propaganda sites if the political roles were reversed.
That is, and I'd hope you agree, completely irrational.
And, what is happening in the commodity and stock market is rational? Most analysts I have heard say that there is no rational reason for the price of oil to be as high as it is.
Your context is wrong. There is a difference between inspecting something and seizing something for an unspecified period of time for analysis.
Let's apply this to all your luggage and see if it is still reasonable.
Inspection: They look through your bags to see if you are brining in anything you shouldn't.
What they do with laptops: They seize your bags and all it's contents, ship them off to a lab to be tested for evidence of something that may or may not be criminal. They don't tell you when or even if you will get them back as they can hold your bags indefinitely.
Now, this is unreasonable search and seizure. There needs to be a constitutional challenge to this because it is unreasonable to take and search someone's laptop with no evidence, let alone suspicion of wrong doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Testing the service is using the service. And, use of the service requires truthful information. Why do you think you have a right to lie and defraud just because it suits you?
When you agree to the TOS, you are entering into a contract for a quid pro quo relationship. Your part of the relationship is to provide truthful information. Their part is to provide the service. Why do you feel you have the right to cheat them? Don't you have any honor or sense of responsibility?
Giving the wrong details is lying.
And, true, injury must follow, and it has.
For match.com, maybe. There is the question of injury.
For the off-topic post, did you misrepresent yourself?
Fraud is more complicated than that.
The injury is not in violating the TOS. The injury comes from the effects of the abuse of the service. Injury, as defined by law, encompasses many things. The terms of service spells out the deception.
No, we would call it stalking and harrasment, and other such crimes.
You have a legal right to have an alias. However, businesses are allowed to require you to provide truthful, valid information in order to do business with them. And, by lying about your identity, you are commiting fraud.
Fail. You are not advertising anything.
Why? Are you doing something wrong? Why would the government even care unless you were doing something wong?
Do the terms of service require you to truthfully disclose your user agent?
If you are afraid of the business, why are patronizing the business?
Talk about a completely lame argument. You need more tinfoil.
Theft of service is being committed. More importantly, fraud is being committed.
You mean like when you write a check or sign up for movie rentals or sign up for a gym or rent an apartment or give over your credit card? Your reasons are lame because those same risks apply in real life.
Because the person on the street is not providing you a service on the condition that you truthfully represent yourself.
Did the terms of service say "Be truthful or no access"?
Did she lie to get access?
The definition of fraud is
And the legal definition is:
It sounds very much like fraund to me.
It is also possible that all the air in your room will gather up in a corner. It is not probable or practical, but it is possible.
Does the Terms of Service say you must provide a real name and valid address? If so, they yes.
Now, why would you be signing up to a website you don't feel safe giving a valid name and address to?
Fail.
This does not involve a censorship law, and has nothing to do with censorship. I suggest you buy a dictionary and learn to use it.
Obtaining access by fraud is a felony. She lied to get access, therefore she obtained access by fraud. Therefore she committed a felony, QED.
A private individual or company (they) does not have to let one exercise one's free speach right. They do not have to let someone else use my system or website to expound ideas They do not agree with. And, They have the right to condition access to same on not expounding those ideas.
That is part of freedom of speach and freedom of association.
They also have the right to condition access on being truthful. By lying to obtain access, one exceeds one's access. It is obtaining access by fraud. It just happens that obtaining access by fraud is illegal.
The problem with your assertion is the following:
Now, I obtained these with full permission of the companies in question, as a contractor,
This says you had permission to obtain the certificate. Therefore, you had a verifiable connection with the company. The certificate company could have contacted the company and asked if you were allowed to obtain a certificate on their behalf.
The only thing the Dems are disregarding are their constituents.
They are shirking their duty to deal with pressing issues. Then, when the Reps make a public stink, the Dems kicked the reporters out of the Speaker's Lobby.
Imagine the outcry and headlines in the leftist propaganda sites if the political roles were reversed.
That is, and I'd hope you agree, completely irrational.
And, what is happening in the commodity and stock market is rational? Most analysts I have heard say that there is no rational reason for the price of oil to be as high as it is.
Your context is wrong. There is a difference between inspecting something and seizing something for an unspecified period of time for analysis.
Let's apply this to all your luggage and see if it is still reasonable.
Inspection: They look through your bags to see if you are brining in anything you shouldn't.
What they do with laptops: They seize your bags and all it's contents, ship them off to a lab to be tested for evidence of something that may or may not be criminal. They don't tell you when or even if you will get them back as they can hold your bags indefinitely.
Does it still seem reasonable?
Better yet, keep it all on an encrypted external hard drive and then send it via FedEx.
That might be considered importing obscenity.
Now, this is unreasonable search and seizure. There needs to be a constitutional challenge to this because it is unreasonable to take and search someone's laptop with no evidence, let alone suspicion of wrong doing.
This would be news if the CEO of MS said it. Coming from the CEO of RedHat, it is not even worth mentioning.
Hmmmm?
Have the fixed the bug that causes crashes in Yahoo Mail Beta?
Sure I would. Unlike you, I am not a coward as you are, nor do I spew out stupid and foolish lies as you do.
Now, go cry to mommy, shithead.