He had the healthcare thing in the bag until Brown showed up. The timing of that was such that they had to pass the un-reconciled version of the bill. They couldn't fix the mismatches between the House and the Senate, so it's got holes and parts sticking out. If Brown wasn't there to block a re-vote in the Senate, both houses would have passed the reconciled version and it would have solidified Obama's power over them, making everything else a bake-off. Instead the GOP went into hold-my-breath-until-i-turn-blue mode. The debt thing was just them discovering that it won't kill them literally, and being okay with never being re-elected, especially when they know with enough money they can make you forget they're the problem.
You don't have a right to climb on a billboard and change it.
You don't have a right to log into a website that you're not wanted in, whether they've taken the step of locking your account or not.
You might have a right to load the login page. But if they block your IP you can't get the courts to agree that you have a right to force them to unblock it so you can load the login page.
I take it back. You need to go read, a lot, before you go vote.
It's an open space, but not a public one. That will be interesting to see dealt with in court, because OWS is about to hand Mike Bloomberg his ass on a stick for a number of things that happened last night.
But, all the Brookfield people need to do to make you trespassers is to put a little picket fence around their park. Nothing more. They don't have to lock the gate, post a sign, or tell anyone any rules. The fence says that you're trespassing there if they haven't told you that you have permission to be there and do what you're doing there. They can let any number of people do exactly what you're doing, but still get you charged with a felony for doing the same thing at the same time, just because they decide you no longer have their permission, even if they never told you that you did or didn't.
But there's no fence there. Though I'm pretty sure that Brookfield early on set rules for how OWS should use it, and made them well known. Which would be enough to let them decide when enough is enough and invoke trespassing and make it stick.
So the real issues will be in how they got it enforced, and how the enforcers treated the rights of the people they were enforcing it against, and how many pieces the people of NYC can rip Bloomberg's re-election prospects into.
There's no requirement to post when there's a barrier there. That should be enough. And posting doesn't even invoke the law if someone's just walking past your "no trespassing" sign, across your unfenced yard, and off your property. They can do that. That sort of posting makes hunting on the land a crime. Ironically, the sign is usually redunantly hung on a fence, or worse, the door of a house. People are dumb.
Your buddy's case is more one of deciding between intent and accident, which could enter into this legal wrangling. But it's clear that what this case is really about is intentional access outside the bounds of the TOS for the purpose of hurting someone, so coming up with other scenarios doesn't really stick to the point.
If the law against unauthorized logging into a computer isn't similar to unauthorized walking through someone's open front door, then there's something wrong with the computer law.
I suspect after a few years of this sort of litigation, they'll be very similar.
They'll still be very different in other details based on the fact that you can do very different things once you're in there, but the just-being-there part should be the same.
BTW, in most cases, entering or being in someone's house when you don't have their permission isn't just a crime, it's a felony, and there's no rule for whether you do or don't know you have permission*. So you're making their point.
* - the thing about "posting" land is for open land and applies to particular intentions like entering the land to kill animals (i.e. hunting). There's no requirement to post anything when the case involves a building or fenced land (though climbing over someone's fence is a misdemeanor. ain't law fun?).
1. it's not a contract, since nothing of value is promised by you, and because there's no terms for completion of the exchange.
2. it is an agreement, and the website can sue you for violating it, or vice versa, but since there's nothing of value involved, and no harm caused other than violation of the agreement, you're going to have to make up a claim for damages. generally the agreement spells out in detail what you'll be liable for if you violate the agreement, and if there's nothing to collect the website locks you out and leaves it at that.
3. if the people you harm while using the website sue the website, the website has every reason to turn around and sue you, and use the TOS as further proof of your actions and character and culpability, and to use it as a defense against them. they didn't have to lock you out because you were supposed to stay out yourself.
4. getting charged with a crime and getting sued are different things but can come from the same causes. you can easily get both if you hurt someone. generally the criminal case goes first, because the prosecution's need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt provides high-quality evidence and a high probability of having a preponderance of the evidence for the civil case, even if you are acquitted in the criminal case (see OJ for a glaring example). the civil case sometimes doesn't follow the criminal case because the plaintiff realizes at that point the defendant doesn't have anything left to go after, but if the defendant still has earning power, being broke won't stop anyone.
I'm inviting you to visit, and, oh, by the way, the rules are posted right there for you to read as soon as you come in to look around. And they were proffered to you right there on the page where you created your account so you could be a member and access deeper parts of the website and alter things there. Break my rules and you don't have the right to log in any more, even if I don't delete or lock your account. That's true whether you bother to read the rules or not. Capiche?
Breaking an agreement would be a tort if it actually caused some harm, otherwise, it's just breaking an agreement.
Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime. It's an agreement, not a contract. It's not a contract because you haven't promised them anything of value in return for the access they provide. So most contract law is moot off the bat. But agreements still carry weight, and if you violate an agreement and that means you have to consider yourself banned and then you access the website afterward, whether you've been not to or not, then you fall under the law regarding unlawful acess of a computer.
Should that be a crime? I don't think it should in all cases, but if you're doing it to harass someone, then it's an aggravating circumstance in the harassment.
The laws regarding computer access are new and mostly untried, and things like this will set the precedents that courts will use when deciding whether to throw the book at you, let you go, or anything in between. They get a lot of leeway to refine the meaning of non-specific laws, and the constitutional power to apply leeway even when the laws are very specific but conflict with other laws or the Constitution.
So it's not automatic that if the courts apply the law this way to a case where someone harassed someone else into suicide it means that you can be jailed just for logging into a machine after violating some minor clause in the agreement.
You try doing anything with the Constitution working against you. If you assholes had just showed up at the fucking polls in 2010 and especially if you assholes in Massachusetts had kept Scott Brown out, there'd be no filibuster culture and Obama would have cured cancer by now.
You get another chance in just under a year. Do not fuck this up. If you do, just move to another fucking country, because you're not working out in this one.
That thing about the universe in perpetuity is actually very common in contracts. It seems inane, but it makes clear that the contract will always be in force no matter the situation or jurisdiction. Leaving it out can produce some fucked-up legal problems (see the international situation regarding intellectual property, for example).
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime, and carry penalties concomitant with the harm that could be caused.
I just don't think that the way they're frankensteining the legal precedents together is very skillful. So I'd agree it won't hold up in court, at least, not until someone drafts a law that spells out exactly what they're going for here, instead of overbroadly applying two different concepts.
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement. When the facility gained by impropertly using that website is used to commit crime against someone, it's an aggravating circumstance in the proximate crime.
The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.
As for your questions: yes, if the agreement between Facebook and the website says so, it can export its TOS to whoever imports its API; and yes, but how are you going to get Jeff Bezos to visit your site? Email is not the World Wide Web. BTW, there's already a law against spam, and you can get Jeff Bezos to send you hundreds of dollars for every coupon you didn't somehow ask for (though just visiting Amazon.Com may be enough to constitute asking for them; see its TOS).
Hollywood runs about 50-50 on comic-book type movies any more. Dr. Who isn't a comic book (well, it is, but not really), but it's the same fan base. Depends entirely on who's running the show as to whether the franchise gets respect, or is just exploited because the fans will pay a few bucks to see it whether they think they'll be pissed off or not. Then again, Seth Rogen wrote the Green Hornet script and, despite his attempts to respect it, fucked it up enough that there will almost certainly not be another GH movie for another 40 years...
If only we could get some Joss Whedon rubbed on this one...
Slashdot Mirror
And the massive computers are going 100 Petaflops (that's 100,000 Teraflops).
To disable an arm, you cut the nerves somewhere before they get to the arm. Like in the spine.
The arm will work if you bypass the cut.
Atrophy is just a decrease in mass of the parts. A course of therapy and exercise with this thing, and it would build back up again.
Hey! I didn't mean to type that! How-- aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
How much goat do you put in yours?
He had the healthcare thing in the bag until Brown showed up. The timing of that was such that they had to pass the un-reconciled version of the bill. They couldn't fix the mismatches between the House and the Senate, so it's got holes and parts sticking out. If Brown wasn't there to block a re-vote in the Senate, both houses would have passed the reconciled version and it would have solidified Obama's power over them, making everything else a bake-off. Instead the GOP went into hold-my-breath-until-i-turn-blue mode. The debt thing was just them discovering that it won't kill them literally, and being okay with never being re-elected, especially when they know with enough money they can make you forget they're the problem.
It's clearly working.
Walking around in your underwear making people think they can passive their way into power? Good luck with that.
Yeah, uh, about that. Do you know what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is?
STFU until you do.
>It is pretty clear that it should NOT be a crime
Go vote.
>billboard
You don't have a right to climb on a billboard and change it.
You don't have a right to log into a website that you're not wanted in, whether they've taken the step of locking your account or not.
You might have a right to load the login page. But if they block your IP you can't get the courts to agree that you have a right to force them to unblock it so you can load the login page.
I take it back. You need to go read, a lot, before you go vote.
Give this thread another read. You've got a lot of stuff wrong, and I've answered a lot of these things in posts to others asking the same things.
It's an open space, but not a public one. That will be interesting to see dealt with in court, because OWS is about to hand Mike Bloomberg his ass on a stick for a number of things that happened last night.
But, all the Brookfield people need to do to make you trespassers is to put a little picket fence around their park. Nothing more. They don't have to lock the gate, post a sign, or tell anyone any rules. The fence says that you're trespassing there if they haven't told you that you have permission to be there and do what you're doing there. They can let any number of people do exactly what you're doing, but still get you charged with a felony for doing the same thing at the same time, just because they decide you no longer have their permission, even if they never told you that you did or didn't.
But there's no fence there. Though I'm pretty sure that Brookfield early on set rules for how OWS should use it, and made them well known. Which would be enough to let them decide when enough is enough and invoke trespassing and make it stick.
So the real issues will be in how they got it enforced, and how the enforcers treated the rights of the people they were enforcing it against, and how many pieces the people of NYC can rip Bloomberg's re-election prospects into.
Oops. I didn't read ahead.
No, you're wrong, for reasons I stated above.
There's no requirement to post when there's a barrier there. That should be enough. And posting doesn't even invoke the law if someone's just walking past your "no trespassing" sign, across your unfenced yard, and off your property. They can do that. That sort of posting makes hunting on the land a crime. Ironically, the sign is usually redunantly hung on a fence, or worse, the door of a house. People are dumb.
Your buddy's case is more one of deciding between intent and accident, which could enter into this legal wrangling. But it's clear that what this case is really about is intentional access outside the bounds of the TOS for the purpose of hurting someone, so coming up with other scenarios doesn't really stick to the point.
That's a good example.
If the law against unauthorized logging into a computer isn't similar to unauthorized walking through someone's open front door, then there's something wrong with the computer law.
I suspect after a few years of this sort of litigation, they'll be very similar.
They'll still be very different in other details based on the fact that you can do very different things once you're in there, but the just-being-there part should be the same.
BTW, in most cases, entering or being in someone's house when you don't have their permission isn't just a crime, it's a felony, and there's no rule for whether you do or don't know you have permission*. So you're making their point.
* - the thing about "posting" land is for open land and applies to particular intentions like entering the land to kill animals (i.e. hunting). There's no requirement to post anything when the case involves a building or fenced land (though climbing over someone's fence is a misdemeanor. ain't law fun?).
1. it's not a contract, since nothing of value is promised by you, and because there's no terms for completion of the exchange.
2. it is an agreement, and the website can sue you for violating it, or vice versa, but since there's nothing of value involved, and no harm caused other than violation of the agreement, you're going to have to make up a claim for damages. generally the agreement spells out in detail what you'll be liable for if you violate the agreement, and if there's nothing to collect the website locks you out and leaves it at that.
3. if the people you harm while using the website sue the website, the website has every reason to turn around and sue you, and use the TOS as further proof of your actions and character and culpability, and to use it as a defense against them. they didn't have to lock you out because you were supposed to stay out yourself.
4. getting charged with a crime and getting sued are different things but can come from the same causes. you can easily get both if you hurt someone. generally the criminal case goes first, because the prosecution's need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt provides high-quality evidence and a high probability of having a preponderance of the evidence for the civil case, even if you are acquitted in the criminal case (see OJ for a glaring example). the civil case sometimes doesn't follow the criminal case because the plaintiff realizes at that point the defendant doesn't have anything left to go after, but if the defendant still has earning power, being broke won't stop anyone.
I'm inviting you to visit, and, oh, by the way, the rules are posted right there for you to read as soon as you come in to look around. And they were proffered to you right there on the page where you created your account so you could be a member and access deeper parts of the website and alter things there. Break my rules and you don't have the right to log in any more, even if I don't delete or lock your account. That's true whether you bother to read the rules or not. Capiche?
It's clear because I have feelings and thoughts.
Breaking an agreement would be a tort if it actually caused some harm, otherwise, it's just breaking an agreement.
Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime. It's an agreement, not a contract. It's not a contract because you haven't promised them anything of value in return for the access they provide. So most contract law is moot off the bat. But agreements still carry weight, and if you violate an agreement and that means you have to consider yourself banned and then you access the website afterward, whether you've been not to or not, then you fall under the law regarding unlawful acess of a computer.
Should that be a crime? I don't think it should in all cases, but if you're doing it to harass someone, then it's an aggravating circumstance in the harassment.
The laws regarding computer access are new and mostly untried, and things like this will set the precedents that courts will use when deciding whether to throw the book at you, let you go, or anything in between. They get a lot of leeway to refine the meaning of non-specific laws, and the constitutional power to apply leeway even when the laws are very specific but conflict with other laws or the Constitution.
So it's not automatic that if the courts apply the law this way to a case where someone harassed someone else into suicide it means that you can be jailed just for logging into a machine after violating some minor clause in the agreement.
It's their website. If they want to alienate their best customers, they can. MySpace did it just by choosing a fascist slestak as its new owner.
You try doing anything with the Constitution working against you. If you assholes had just showed up at the fucking polls in 2010 and especially if you assholes in Massachusetts had kept Scott Brown out, there'd be no filibuster culture and Obama would have cured cancer by now.
You get another chance in just under a year. Do not fuck this up. If you do, just move to another fucking country, because you're not working out in this one.
That thing about the universe in perpetuity is actually very common in contracts. It seems inane, but it makes clear that the contract will always be in force no matter the situation or jurisdiction. Leaving it out can produce some fucked-up legal problems (see the international situation regarding intellectual property, for example).
No. But you do need to use more allspice in the gumbo.
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime, and carry penalties concomitant with the harm that could be caused.
I just don't think that the way they're frankensteining the legal precedents together is very skillful. So I'd agree it won't hold up in court, at least, not until someone drafts a law that spells out exactly what they're going for here, instead of overbroadly applying two different concepts.
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement. When the facility gained by impropertly using that website is used to commit crime against someone, it's an aggravating circumstance in the proximate crime.
The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.
As for your questions: yes, if the agreement between Facebook and the website says so, it can export its TOS to whoever imports its API; and yes, but how are you going to get Jeff Bezos to visit your site? Email is not the World Wide Web. BTW, there's already a law against spam, and you can get Jeff Bezos to send you hundreds of dollars for every coupon you didn't somehow ask for (though just visiting Amazon.Com may be enough to constitute asking for them; see its TOS).
If you thought the Doctor was politically biased, why didn't you just root for the Daleks?
MOD -1000 HORRIFYING POSSIBILITY!!!!!
(ugh. i wish i could un-read that.)
It needs quite a radical regeneration
There, is that better?
Hollywood runs about 50-50 on comic-book type movies any more. Dr. Who isn't a comic book (well, it is, but not really), but it's the same fan base. Depends entirely on who's running the show as to whether the franchise gets respect, or is just exploited because the fans will pay a few bucks to see it whether they think they'll be pissed off or not. Then again, Seth Rogen wrote the Green Hornet script and, despite his attempts to respect it, fucked it up enough that there will almost certainly not be another GH movie for another 40 years...
If only we could get some Joss Whedon rubbed on this one...