If someone absconds with the designs for a nuclear weapon, copies of blue prints for government installations or vessels, the president's itinerary, names and addresses of informants, intelligence collection methods in various location, etc. , it is not "lost face by a few government officers", it is serious damage to national security.
With the the Stuxnet incident, insertion of a virus could cause damage later. Also, the installation of back doors into critical systems could set up a future attack.
Your understanding of the situation is simplistic and you do not think about the full consequences. You just think about people being embarrassed rather than what information could be taken and how it could be used.
An attack by a small group of people against a government installation may be considered a criminal attack or an act of terrorism.
An attack by another nation against a government installation would probably be considered an act of war.
Substitute computer system for installation in the above and you will see you are using a false dichotomy. It depends on who is committing the attack. If the North Korea hacks the FBI, then it may be considered an act of war. If YOU do it, then it will probably be considered a criminal act.. If a coordinated group does it, it may be considered an act of terrorism as well as a crime. And, if the group is backed by a government, it may be considered an act of war, an act of terrorism, and/or and criminal act.
Really, your understanding of the law is quite simplistic and childish.
Another law everyone will be breaking, so when the govt wants to fuck you over, they can do it freely and legally.
If he was using a turn of phrase, it was to say that people like him are "everyone", which is false. But, judging from how he used it, he meant it literally. Everything you listed IS and HAS BEEN enforced, with people being given tickets or arrested, charged, tried, and convicted.
"Unenforcable." You keep say that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you find the terms unconscionable, don't use the service. You are told that access to the service is contingent on you following the terms of service and that you should read same before agreeing. You agree to follow the terms of service with no intention of actually following them. That is dishonorable.
Your example is a straw man using a perverted analogy. There is not one single service. One is not required to use any of the services as there are many services providing the same or similar content off-line, and the ToS doesn't prevent one from expressing one's self rather it states one may not give out one's access credentials so other may use the service without paying. Your analogy does not represent any of those things and so is false.
I do not see Netflix's ToS as wrong, so please explain in detail why it is wrong, especially considering your analogy above is false and non-representative.
Failing to read the TOS is your fault. Every single website I have signed up with, including this one, has a box one has to check that says something to the effect of "I have read and agree to the Terms of Service for using this site". Failing to read the ToS and agreeing to follow them does not abrogate you from having to follow the ToS. You willingly entered into the contract, regardless of whether read the ToS or not, and you also lied when you checked the box.
I do not have to read the ToS of every website I open. I just have to follow the ToS once I have signed up and checked that box. If I violate the ToS after I have signed up and indicated that I have read and will follow the ToS, it is solely my fault for willingly entering into the contract and stating I did read the ToS and will follow it.
This is classic caveat emptor. Don't agree to it unless you know what you are agreeing to. Don't sign the contract unless you know and understand what it says. Don't check the box that says "I have read and will follow the Terms of Service" unless you have done just that. If it won't let you sign up for the service unless you do check it, Read the ToS and then either check the box or don't sign up.
Yes, because everyone gives out there usernames and passwords to their friends and family. Except for me. And everyone I know. Really, how many people do you give your username and password to?
Because most people understand that artists, photographers, musicians, actors, directors, etc. need to make money on the product of their work in order to fund more of their work and eat and have a place to live and feed their kids.
Oh, and because most people don't WANT to share their passwords.
Because, you and your friend can't both drive the car at the same time and you actually own the car.
Really, this is a very bad analogy because you don't own any of the services or content being accessed with the username and password. The better analogy is if you sign a contract allowing you to drive a rental car anytime you want, but the contract states you can't take the car then lend it to someone else. While it would still be legal for you to lend the car to your friend, you are breaking the contract with the company. Then, the law in the article becomes the equivalent of a law against you renting a car and then lending it to your friend to drive.
While it is, in a way, copyrighted material, you are not giving unlimited access to your friend by reading your email at your friend's place. Interestingly, from what I have read, your second example would NOT fall under the law. You didn't give him your password and, once logged out, he can't get back in unless you return and put your password in again. Remember, this law is aimed at people who crack a password DB or in some other way obtain large numbers of IDs and passwords and then sell them.
The limit is on people living under one roof, not being under one roof. It wouldn't prevent a house party or even having 20 guests over for an entire weekend. The time one is considered a guest would be in the definition of "residing" used in the law.
The fiver is yours and you can lend it to him. Of course, if you demand a twenty in return and threaten to break his legs if he doesn't pay, that is illegal.
If your friend is below drinking age, then yes it is a criminal offense.
If your friend does not have a valid driver's license, then yes it is criminal offense.
The difference here is that this law, which is aimed at crackers and others who obtain and sell passwords in bulk, is poorly written to be as broad as possible and thus would ensnare people ostensibly not the target of the bill.
Oh, and you agreed that you would not give out your username and password to anyone else when you signed up for the service and agreed to the terms.
No, because you have not given him your username and password. Giving him your username and password so he can go to his dorm room and watch a movie on his computer would be illegal, but letting him choose the movie using your equipment would not be as long as you did not give him the actually login credentials.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In a number of states, the law requiring the use of seat belts is primary offense meaning one can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. The mere fact that one can and has receive a ticket for not wearing a seat belt means the law is enforceable.
To the best of my knowledge, which may be incomplete, there is no "downloading music law". There is, however, copyright law and it is quite enforceable as has been demonstrated numerous times.
Now, please explain in detail how the law in the article "gives the law a way to arrest you at any moment".
Stop violating terms of service and violating copyright law. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the material. Stop trying to claim you have rights you don't have.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Sony. LulSec did it to PBS over a story LulSec didn't like. They did it to censor PBS. That is acting like a bully.
If someone absconds with the designs for a nuclear weapon, copies of blue prints for government installations or vessels, the president's itinerary, names and addresses of informants, intelligence collection methods in various location, etc. , it is not "lost face by a few government officers", it is serious damage to national security.
With the the Stuxnet incident, insertion of a virus could cause damage later. Also, the installation of back doors into critical systems could set up a future attack.
Your understanding of the situation is simplistic and you do not think about the full consequences. You just think about people being embarrassed rather than what information could be taken and how it could be used.
An attack by a small group of people against a government installation may be considered a criminal attack or an act of terrorism.
An attack by another nation against a government installation would probably be considered an act of war.
Substitute computer system for installation in the above and you will see you are using a false dichotomy. It depends on who is committing the attack. If the North Korea hacks the FBI, then it may be considered an act of war. If YOU do it, then it will probably be considered a criminal act.. If a coordinated group does it, it may be considered an act of terrorism as well as a crime. And, if the group is backed by a government, it may be considered an act of war, an act of terrorism, and/or and criminal act.
Really, your understanding of the law is quite simplistic and childish.
If he was using a turn of phrase, it was to say that people like him are "everyone", which is false. But, judging from how he used it, he meant it literally. Everything you listed IS and HAS BEEN enforced, with people being given tickets or arrested, charged, tried, and convicted.
"Unenforcable." You keep say that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
From the GPP:
If you find the terms unconscionable, don't use the service. You are told that access to the service is contingent on you following the terms of service and that you should read same before agreeing. You agree to follow the terms of service with no intention of actually following them. That is dishonorable.
Your example is a straw man using a perverted analogy. There is not one single service. One is not required to use any of the services as there are many services providing the same or similar content off-line, and the ToS doesn't prevent one from expressing one's self rather it states one may not give out one's access credentials so other may use the service without paying. Your analogy does not represent any of those things and so is false.
I do not see Netflix's ToS as wrong, so please explain in detail why it is wrong, especially considering your analogy above is false and non-representative.
Hey, look, it is the lying sack of shit who mod-bombs me.
Failing to read the TOS is your fault. Every single website I have signed up with, including this one, has a box one has to check that says something to the effect of "I have read and agree to the Terms of Service for using this site". Failing to read the ToS and agreeing to follow them does not abrogate you from having to follow the ToS. You willingly entered into the contract, regardless of whether read the ToS or not, and you also lied when you checked the box.
I do not have to read the ToS of every website I open. I just have to follow the ToS once I have signed up and checked that box. If I violate the ToS after I have signed up and indicated that I have read and will follow the ToS, it is solely my fault for willingly entering into the contract and stating I did read the ToS and will follow it.
This is classic caveat emptor. Don't agree to it unless you know what you are agreeing to. Don't sign the contract unless you know and understand what it says. Don't check the box that says "I have read and will follow the Terms of Service" unless you have done just that. If it won't let you sign up for the service unless you do check it, Read the ToS and then either check the box or don't sign up.
It really is that simple.
Yes, because everyone gives out there usernames and passwords to their friends and family. Except for me. And everyone I know. Really, how many people do you give your username and password to?
Because most people understand that artists, photographers, musicians, actors, directors, etc. need to make money on the product of their work in order to fund more of their work and eat and have a place to live and feed their kids.
Oh, and because most people don't WANT to share their passwords.
Because, you and your friend can't both drive the car at the same time and you actually own the car.
Really, this is a very bad analogy because you don't own any of the services or content being accessed with the username and password. The better analogy is if you sign a contract allowing you to drive a rental car anytime you want, but the contract states you can't take the car then lend it to someone else. While it would still be legal for you to lend the car to your friend, you are breaking the contract with the company. Then, the law in the article becomes the equivalent of a law against you renting a car and then lending it to your friend to drive.
Wow, you really are a paranoid freak aren't you? How much tinfoil did you use to make your hat and line your room?
One can not collect from a dead man.
It was legal, but it was and still is against the terms of service for Netflix and every other service out there.
While it is, in a way, copyrighted material, you are not giving unlimited access to your friend by reading your email at your friend's place. Interestingly, from what I have read, your second example would NOT fall under the law. You didn't give him your password and, once logged out, he can't get back in unless you return and put your password in again. Remember, this law is aimed at people who crack a password DB or in some other way obtain large numbers of IDs and passwords and then sell them.
The limit is on people living under one roof, not being under one roof. It wouldn't prevent a house party or even having 20 guests over for an entire weekend. The time one is considered a guest would be in the definition of "residing" used in the law.
In some instances, it is already illegal
The fiver is yours and you can lend it to him. Of course, if you demand a twenty in return and threaten to break his legs if he doesn't pay, that is illegal.
If your friend is below drinking age, then yes it is a criminal offense.
If your friend does not have a valid driver's license, then yes it is criminal offense.
The difference here is that this law, which is aimed at crackers and others who obtain and sell passwords in bulk, is poorly written to be as broad as possible and thus would ensnare people ostensibly not the target of the bill.
Oh, and you agreed that you would not give out your username and password to anyone else when you signed up for the service and agreed to the terms.
Facebook is not a service like Netflix or Rhapsody, where the service charges for access to content. You are comparing apples and oranges.
No, because you have not given him your username and password. Giving him your username and password so he can go to his dorm room and watch a movie on his computer would be illegal, but letting him choose the movie using your equipment would not be as long as you did not give him the actually login credentials.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In a number of states, the law requiring the use of seat belts is primary offense meaning one can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. The mere fact that one can and has receive a ticket for not wearing a seat belt means the law is enforceable.
To the best of my knowledge, which may be incomplete, there is no "downloading music law". There is, however, copyright law and it is quite enforceable as has been demonstrated numerous times.
Now, please explain in detail how the law in the article "gives the law a way to arrest you at any moment".
Violating the terms of service and thus the contract between you and the company for the service instead of living up to your word and having honor.
Stop violating terms of service and violating copyright law. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the material. Stop trying to claim you have rights you don't have.
It is interesting to see Tennessee outlaw what is currently a violation of the terms of service.
A school superintendent is the person who oversees the whole school district and the school principles. Principals oversee individual schools.
Prisoners in the United States are not forced to work, thus your comment is invalidated.