Which is more at fault, encryption or airliners?
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry for the inflamitory subject line, but this kind of upsets me. If we are going to blame researchers for the misuse of their inventions then we may as well start with Boeing. One of the great modern problems it that the same technology that helps so many also can be misused.
Yes, that is correct! You would be unable to sue an online offshore casino because of either non payment of debts or because you felt they were crooked.(don't kid yourself about how a casino would behave if you either thought they were cheating or if you did get lucky and broke the bank!)
I agree with Australia's decision. I think a lot of people have a backwards understanding of contracts and personal freedoms. A contract may be an agreement between two parties, but a legally enforceable contract is an agreement between three at least and one of them is always the government (meaning us)!
When you say a contract is legally enforceable, that means the rest of society is willing to force each of the parties to abide by the terms of the contract. There are LOTS of contract that aren't legally enforceable and shouldn't be, contracts with minors, contracts that involve crime (for example a hit man can't sue his employers for non payment), and contracts involving the sale or slavery of humans!
Consider the case of online gambling. Australia has not enforcement power over these online casinos. They don't know if they are crooked or anything about them at all and have no power to fix any problems.
OK, fine you say, so let the buyer beware. Right, I agree with this, but it becomes a two way street. In the same way that these entities are beyond the power of the Australian government, the Australian government will simply refuse to enforce any debt these groups claim to be owed! In other words this Australian government is simply say that these casinos are beyond all possible regulation in all ways. It is a plain case of let the buyer beware, for both parties (anarchy is never pretty). If the casinos wish to do business in a country and have the country enforce debts owed them, it is fair to expect them to allow regulation by the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the inflamitory subject line, but this kind of upsets me. If we are going to blame researchers for the misuse of their inventions then we may as well start with Boeing. One of the great modern problems it that the same technology that helps so many also can be misused.
Yes, that is correct! You would be unable to sue an online offshore casino because of either non payment of debts or because you felt they were crooked.(don't kid yourself about how a casino would behave if you either thought they were cheating or if you did get lucky and broke the bank!)
I agree with Australia's decision. I think a lot of people have a backwards understanding of contracts and personal freedoms. A contract may be an agreement between two parties, but a legally enforceable contract is an agreement between three at least and one of them is always the government (meaning us)! When you say a contract is legally enforceable, that means the rest of society is willing to force each of the parties to abide by the terms of the contract. There are LOTS of contract that aren't legally enforceable and shouldn't be, contracts with minors, contracts that involve crime (for example a hit man can't sue his employers for non payment), and contracts involving the sale or slavery of humans! Consider the case of online gambling. Australia has not enforcement power over these online casinos. They don't know if they are crooked or anything about them at all and have no power to fix any problems. OK, fine you say, so let the buyer beware. Right, I agree with this, but it becomes a two way street. In the same way that these entities are beyond the power of the Australian government, the Australian government will simply refuse to enforce any debt these groups claim to be owed! In other words this Australian government is simply say that these casinos are beyond all possible regulation in all ways. It is a plain case of let the buyer beware, for both parties (anarchy is never pretty). If the casinos wish to do business in a country and have the country enforce debts owed them, it is fair to expect them to allow regulation by the country.