At least in the US, fitness for a particular purpose requires that you tell the seller what your purpose is, or that your purpose is implied from the circumstances, and generally you don't tell the seller of your software what your purpose will be. In the case of MS and Windows, you would be talking about the implied warranty of Merchantability.
The interesting question is whether MS, in its shrink wrap agreement, can eliminate the implied warranty of Merchantability, especially considering that most people don't read the license agreement before they buy. This is the classic problem with these sorts of laws, and there is not much legal theory to determine whether these agreements are valid. There is conflicting law throughout the US legal system.
There are two parts to 4th amendment law applicable here. The first is "search or seizure". The second is the warrant requirement. This case said that planting a gps tracking device on your car is not a "search" and therefore there is a lesser police suspicion required. Because it is not a "search" within the constitutional perspective, a warrant is not required.
This is similar to a previous case where a beeper was placed inside a barrel that was used to track drugs. In both cases, as long as it was possible to track the items WITH THE NAKED EYE, it was constitutional to track them with technological methods.
The general rule is that if you can do it without technology or technology that is widely available, the police can do it with technology that is NOT widely available. Unfortunately this lowers the cost of police surveillance, which allows more surveillance and some fear the eventual creation of widespread "dragnet" surveillance which the court has warned it would not allow. The supreme court has not ruled on this specific issue, but it will eventually because there is a conflict between the various circuits of the federal system
I have no problem with his argument, except from what I have read, the bad guys were going to mix the chemicals on the ground AFTER they had passed the initial security checkpoint but before they had boarded the plane. For example in the bathroom next to the Duty Free shop. Therefore his whole argument doesn't really hold up.
They could mix the chemicals in the bathroom in glass bottles, and then transfer them into water bottles (or was it sports drink bottles?) and then detonate them on the planes.
Otherwise it is a good critique. It just goes to show you that people who want to blow up planes aren't complete idiots.
Actually there is one major exception relating to national security. That is the publishing of when troops ships are going to be loaded and their destinations. This was during WWII but could probably be extended today for similiar things like troop movements, the location of nuclear submarines and the like.
Reasonable steps, are the exact opposite of subjective. The test is what a reasonable person would view as the proper level of security for the data. Ughhh.
It is any LAWFUL order. If the order involves inhuman, degrading, treatment etc, the order is no longer LAWFUL and is therfore the exception is no defense. This exception really only applies to borderline cases.
In most common law countries filing a claim which there is no reasonable belief that one can recover is illegal. The lawyer's filing such claims are subject to sanction. Therefore your suggestion is a very bad idea.
I believe what you are referring to in Catalonia is more likely a form of anarchism proposed by philosophers such as Bakunin. Communism in fact requires some sort of governmental apparatus (the famed dictatorship of the prolatariat(sp?)) to coerce equality and remove the power of capitalists.
Slashdot Mirror
The interesting question is whether MS, in its shrink wrap agreement, can eliminate the implied warranty of Merchantability, especially considering that most people don't read the license agreement before they buy. This is the classic problem with these sorts of laws, and there is not much legal theory to determine whether these agreements are valid. There is conflicting law throughout the US legal system.
There are two parts to 4th amendment law applicable here. The first is "search or seizure". The second is the warrant requirement. This case said that planting a gps tracking device on your car is not a "search" and therefore there is a lesser police suspicion required. Because it is not a "search" within the constitutional perspective, a warrant is not required. This is similar to a previous case where a beeper was placed inside a barrel that was used to track drugs. In both cases, as long as it was possible to track the items WITH THE NAKED EYE, it was constitutional to track them with technological methods. The general rule is that if you can do it without technology or technology that is widely available, the police can do it with technology that is NOT widely available. Unfortunately this lowers the cost of police surveillance, which allows more surveillance and some fear the eventual creation of widespread "dragnet" surveillance which the court has warned it would not allow. The supreme court has not ruled on this specific issue, but it will eventually because there is a conflict between the various circuits of the federal system
I have no problem with his argument, except from what I have read, the bad guys were going to mix the chemicals on the ground AFTER they had passed the initial security checkpoint but before they had boarded the plane. For example in the bathroom next to the Duty Free shop. Therefore his whole argument doesn't really hold up. They could mix the chemicals in the bathroom in glass bottles, and then transfer them into water bottles (or was it sports drink bottles?) and then detonate them on the planes. Otherwise it is a good critique. It just goes to show you that people who want to blow up planes aren't complete idiots.
Actually there is one major exception relating to national security. That is the publishing of when troops ships are going to be loaded and their destinations. This was during WWII but could probably be extended today for similiar things like troop movements, the location of nuclear submarines and the like.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Oddly enough, Scalia does agree with you.
Reasonable steps, are the exact opposite of subjective. The test is what a reasonable person would view as the proper level of security for the data. Ughhh.
The rule against perpituities only applies to future interests in land, not to trusts. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
It is any LAWFUL order. If the order involves inhuman, degrading, treatment etc, the order is no longer LAWFUL and is therfore the exception is no defense. This exception really only applies to borderline cases.
In most common law countries filing a claim which there is no reasonable belief that one can recover is illegal. The lawyer's filing such claims are subject to sanction. Therefore your suggestion is a very bad idea.
I believe what you are referring to in Catalonia is more likely a form of anarchism proposed by philosophers such as Bakunin. Communism in fact requires some sort of governmental apparatus (the famed dictatorship of the prolatariat(sp?)) to coerce equality and remove the power of capitalists.
Is it okay If I few the solar eclipse through several layers of an antistatic bag?