It's not "delivered incorrectly" if the address is right (your house) but the contents are wrong (meant for your neighbor)... That's basically what is going on here. While it could easily be argued that they acted with intent (since they certainly don't have a business called Kelllogggs that they need to send/receive email for) it is still within the bounds of "we read it because we were the intended recipient"... Those boilerplates are about as useful as walking around with a t-shirt saying "you just read this now you owe me twenty quid".
While I'll agree the 'envelope' was correct - it was delivered to the correct address; the person who it was delivered to was not the recipient.
If this was applied to mail, not only would it be that they 'know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly', they are certainly acting with intent. It would be hard to claim they didn't "know or suspect" these mails were not meant for them!
Sure, the boilerplate is meaningless; but to take the postal analogy further - this would be like me deliberately opening a company with a similar name in a similar road to another; with the sole reason of opening their post. It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to say this has been delivered 'correctly', and pretty obvious that it should be unlawful.
This is sure to have happened in the past, I'm sure someone somewhere has mismatched names with addresses on a mail merge. So if I received a bank statement, with your name but my address on it - would you say it was legal for me to open it?
It is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else.
Post cannot be opened if it is to the addressee's detriment and without reasonable excuse.
Reasonable excuse is not defined by the Act.
An example of a potential conflict is if a landlord opens a previous tenant's post in order to trace them.
Post cannot be opened if someone knows or reasonably suspects the post has been incorrectly delivered.
It is also an offence to divert someone's post in order to intentionally delay them from receiving it. An example of this could be where a person re-posts documents or cheques to delay the addressee from acting upon them.
>Let us see if that stupid boilerplate text has any legal standing
It doesn't. It didn't work for real mail so why should it work for email?
You get something unsolicited, and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. It's up to the sender to get the address right in all cases.
--
BMO
Not true, at least in the UK:
Interfering with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84
Triable Summarily (Magistrates court)
6 Months and or a fine (Max)
A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.
A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, opens a postal packet which they know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly.
If you work for the Post service you could commit other offences under Section 83 triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) and get a sentence of 2 years and or a fine.
It would definitely make T-Mobile even less happy; but bittorrent is actually an excellent choice for coping with every aspect of that except the tiny bandwidth bit...
Yes... apart from the bandwidth. Just 1.3 million text messages later and you can have an entire episode of Futurama!
You said one problem. Yet I had linked to an article which described multiple problems on that day, and linked back to the stabbing of two weeks before. That isn't "one".
Nine people... in one location... in Hyde Park... and you're getting your information from The Sun 'newspaper'.
There were hundreds of these across the country every year! You've picked one place that had trouble THREE YEARS AGO, in arguably the second worst newspaper in the country?
I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.
I think you need to calm down. There's no evidence of "hacking"
I guess you didn't read to the end of the article. It said that at a similar event 2 weeks before someone was fatally stabbed.
Don't get me wrong, from the story as presented by the Guardian, it sounds like the police completely overstepped the mark. I just wanted to point out that they may have reason to believe it won't be the fun you seem to think it is.
I guess you missed what I said - there were hundreds of these water pistol events across the country. One person gets stabbed. Outcry, but it's not cancelled.
This guy then tries to arrange it again this year over BBM, has he messages hacked, his privacy raped, a lot of peoples fun is cancelled, and he ends up in court, probably with a record that will stick with him the rest of his life.
I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.
these things need to be told to your doctor, not a facebook page. your doctor will then report this to the company and the government along with some data about you so that scientists can try to make a theory or find some common elements between people complaining about side effects.
I've tried this, when I was suffering from side-effects years ago. It doesn't work. Programmes such as this certainly help when no doctor wants to listen; as do support groups. That's not to say you shouldn't tell your doctor, just often they aren't the most experienced in your problems.
I think having a support group on the companies' facebook page could be a massive marketing opportunity - if these drugs worked the way they're advertised; but they don't, hence the complaints.
It's not "spying", but I don't really care what you call it. First, I'd love to know what his source is - law enforcement should be getting warrants for any domestic surveillance.
You just defined what 'spying' is. With a warrant, it wouldn't be spying.
Second, I'm not putting my information on Facebook for the benefit of the government, terrorists, divorce lawyers, advertisers, or anyone except my friends.
No, but Assange isn't aiming this at you. Plenty of other people are. Sure Facebook is useful for some things; but this is just a warning that it could be misused.
Facebook cannot exist without the information they collect. That it is the most popular site on the internet just screams how useful people find it.
Agreed.
That a giant database containing relationships is useful is more of a boring restating of the obvious - not an OMG NOW THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPY ON US! No one else is bringing this up because it is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. When all that information is available in one place, questions should be asked as to who has access to it.
Shouldn't that be something to be at least slightly aware of?
Yes - I would never object to educating people to real dangers. When he starts talking about "spying" and "government", he's being disingenuous and full of hyperbole. As you yourself pointed out, the largest threat most people face from Facebook is blowback from stuff their boss or friends don't like that they made public.
It is "Spying" though, and I don't doubt that the Government are using their access for individuals information as well as aggregate information of the population as a whole. Calling it 'disingenuous' implies Assange knows more than he's letting on. Hyperbole is a matter of opinion, I think the problems of Facebook have been underblown, not exaggerated; and Assange is right to bring this up - no-one else is in the mainstream media.
I don't think Assange is doing a bad thing by warning people; in fact, it's a fairly honourable thing for him to do.
Except that he's warning them about the wrong thing. The ignorant sort of people you are indicating is his target audience are far more at risk from Nigerian scammers and phishing attacks then from some big brother threat. He's not interested in these people at all, other than it seems scaring them furthers some kind of agenda of his. I have no idea what his agenda is, but scare tactics are pretty textbook.
Who says I'm indicating those people? There's 250 million people on Facebook. Thats more than just a few idiots giving out their bank details. Slight fear here should be real, we've all seen the effects having all your information on the internet can have. Mark Zuckerburg, arguably has the most amount of data about the public in one place; it *is* a spy machine. Shouldn't that be something to be at least slightly aware of?
but I'm not a big fan of people not realising how much of their personal and private information they're putting up online.
Isn't that just a little condescending?
Going by the numbers of people that are doing it and not realising the effects it will have on their life and career, maybe its necessary?
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but if most people know that the government can tap your phone and fly helicopters into other countries to kill people, they can certainly pull data from a website.
You'd think so, but I think most people are thinking too little to realise. You'd think your personal information was safe with Sony, but that's not true. Now for most criminals, getting caught is a good thing to society; but we know that's not the case for everyone.
I don't think Assange is doing a bad thing by warning people; in fact, it's a fairly honourable thing for him to do.
But all he did is restate what people already know about Facebook using scary words.
Why do people use Facebook? There are many reasons, but for most "so people I wouldn't keep in constant touch with can find me" would be on their list of reasons. Does that include the government? Yes. Are most people hiding from the government? No. Can the government see your whole list of friends? Yes - only most people would just say that ANYONE can see your whole list of friends.
I'm not sure what he's up to, but I'm not a big fan of people using fear for their own agenda.
I think what Assange was saying was that governments have more access to Facebook information than most people do. Probably up to the level that Mark Zuckerberg has.
You might not be a big fan of Assange using fear, but I'm not a big fan of people not realising how much of their personal and private information they're putting up online. Yes, its their fault - but Assange is giving a good warning; far more so than the fear and lies put around by other media and governmental outlets.
Domino's charges about half as much if you pick up the pizza yourself, yet still claims delivery is free...
Is this only if you go in the store? On their website, delivery and collection is the same price.
You get buy one get one free on collection, but not on delivery round here.
Strange. In the UK the delivery and collection is the same price, but you get buy one get one free on Tuesday. Weird.
I'm in the UK! Our local Dominoes seems to have a perpetual buy one get one free offer on (on collection); not just Tuesdays. It must be something they leave up to the individual Franchisees
You're right! They do advertise on their "Twofer Tuesdays", but I've found out they give out vouchers for the same, just telephoning and saying you have a voucher works... They don't even ever seem to want to see the voucher; but it seems no cheaper by collection. Thanks! =D
Well, it probably comes down to the vehicles used, too. Fuel in the UK is - in practical terms - about half the price of the US. Yes, the pump price is higher, but most people drive much more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Asda deliver their stuff in vans about the same size as mine (well, one size up, not a lot bigger) that get about 40mpg from powerful, clean, efficient turbodiesel engines. In the US they'd probably use something with a 9-litre V8 producing about 70bhp and getting 9mpg at 40mph.
The actual price of petrol is about four times what it is in the UK, so I blame distance, not petrol or fuel efficiency.
At least around here, Asda and most supermarkets only deliver in about a 20 mile radius.
Yes it had everything to do with custom firmware and hacking. Other OS became an viable attack vector. Sony was obviously not going to put their entire platform at risk for the sake of the minimal number of people who bothered running Other OS. I find it laughable all the uproar about a feature that I suspect very few people complaining now even bothered to use when it was available.
Sony were the ones who offered this feature, then removed it to all their existing customers. Attack vectors aren't the point here; the PS3 product was sold with OtherOS, and later removed. Surely that demands compensation.
$1B is not much cash considering Nokia employs 130,000 Finnish human beings. Do you know how much the payroll is per year for 130,000 Finnish human beings?
Probably more than it is for 130,000 Chinese human beings who'd rather commit suicide than work for Apple?
A lot of people are saying they don't know why the iDevices are recording as much info and why it is kept for so long. There is an obvious purpose that many seem to have missed: warranty claim checking. It is known that the devices have ways to detect certain warranty voiding events (like having a small piece of litmus paper so they can tell if the device has been significantly exposed to liquid), so why not use this info to. While in most cases it will tell them nothing it could be used to check for obviously false claims. You were at home and it suddenly stopped working you say? Oddly enough your phone's records say you were up a mountain at that time...
So it's okay for Apple to store your longitude, latitude and timestamp, at seemingly 'random' intervals; just in case it ever goes wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "delivered incorrectly" if the address is right (your house) but the contents are wrong (meant for your neighbor)... That's basically what is going on here. While it could easily be argued that they acted with intent (since they certainly don't have a business called Kelllogggs that they need to send/receive email for) it is still within the bounds of "we read it because we were the intended recipient"... Those boilerplates are about as useful as walking around with a t-shirt saying "you just read this now you owe me twenty quid".
While I'll agree the 'envelope' was correct - it was delivered to the correct address; the person who it was delivered to was not the recipient.
If this was applied to mail, not only would it be that they 'know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly', they are certainly acting with intent. It would be hard to claim they didn't "know or suspect" these mails were not meant for them!
Sure, the boilerplate is meaningless; but to take the postal analogy further - this would be like me deliberately opening a company with a similar name in a similar road to another; with the sole reason of opening their post. It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to say this has been delivered 'correctly', and pretty obvious that it should be unlawful.
This is sure to have happened in the past, I'm sure someone somewhere has mismatched names with addresses on a mail merge. So if I received a bank statement, with your name but my address on it - would you say it was legal for me to open it?
In any case, as confirmed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:
It is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else. Post cannot be opened if it is to the addressee's detriment and without reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is not defined by the Act.
An example of a potential conflict is if a landlord opens a previous tenant's post in order to trace them. Post cannot be opened if someone knows or reasonably suspects the post has been incorrectly delivered.
It is also an offence to divert someone's post in order to intentionally delay them from receiving it. An example of this could be where a person re-posts documents or cheques to delay the addressee from acting upon them.
Not true, at least in the UK:
Interfering with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84
Triable Summarily (Magistrates court)
6 Months and or a fine (Max)
A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.
A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, opens a postal packet which they know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly.
If you work for the Post service you could commit other offences under Section 83 triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) and get a sentence of 2 years and or a fine.
It would definitely make T-Mobile even less happy; but bittorrent is actually an excellent choice for coping with every aspect of that except the tiny bandwidth bit...
Yes... apart from the bandwidth. Just 1.3 million text messages later and you can have an entire episode of Futurama!
stress causes you to age...
Go figure!
See, I always presumed they were just using cocaine. Certainly would explain a lot.
You said one problem. Yet I had linked to an article which described multiple problems on that day, and linked back to the stabbing of two weeks before. That isn't "one".
Nine people... in one location... in Hyde Park... and you're getting your information from The Sun 'newspaper'.
There were hundreds of these across the country every year! You've picked one place that had trouble THREE YEARS AGO, in arguably the second worst newspaper in the country?
I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.
I think you need to calm down. There's no evidence of "hacking"
TLDR; keep yourself up to date: MI5 joins social messaging trawl for riot organisers, Riot inquiry to go ahead as MI5 helps investigations and Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that the government would investigate shutting down social networking platforms like BlackBerry Messenger and Twitter if they were helping to "plot" crime. The police recently called on MI5 to crack encrypted messages sent through BBM..
No evidence of hacking, eh? Why are MI5 involved?
This is a annual water fight, it's meant to be a bit of fun, ffs!!
I guess you didn't read to the end of the article. It said that at a similar event 2 weeks before someone was fatally stabbed.
Don't get me wrong, from the story as presented by the Guardian, it sounds like the police completely overstepped the mark. I just wanted to point out that they may have reason to believe it won't be the fun you seem to think it is.
I guess you missed what I said - there were hundreds of these water pistol events across the country. One person gets stabbed. Outcry, but it's not cancelled.
This guy then tries to arrange it again this year over BBM, has he messages hacked, his privacy raped, a lot of peoples fun is cancelled, and he ends up in court, probably with a record that will stick with him the rest of his life.
I'm sure you're right. The police just overstepped the mark, and decided to hack an innocent man's messages JUST IN CASE he decides to murder under the guise of being in a water pistol fight.
*sigh*.
You are joking, right? One problem over hundreds of events in the country?
It's hardly "plotting violence, disorder and criminality", is it?
Its more like the police and Government going bat-shit insane now they have the opportunity to get and do whatever they like.
I'm sure it was just meant to be a fun water-pistol 'fight' - it's taken place in nearby Chelmsford in the park in the past.
It's totally fun, and from what I hear; people are pretty respectful of those who don't want to be involved.
Presumably this this dangerous terrorist will be next. [events site, so much for hacking BBM]
these things need to be told to your doctor, not a facebook page. your doctor will then report this to the company and the government along with some data about you so that scientists can try to make a theory or find some common elements between people complaining about side effects.
I've tried this, when I was suffering from side-effects years ago. It doesn't work. Programmes such as this certainly help when no doctor wants to listen; as do support groups. That's not to say you shouldn't tell your doctor, just often they aren't the most experienced in your problems.
I think having a support group on the companies' facebook page could be a massive marketing opportunity - if these drugs worked the way they're advertised; but they don't, hence the complaints.
You seem to be lost. This is Slashdot, not Digg. When we agree with somebody, we don't say that we "dug" their post.
Yes, unfortunately this results in a lot of confusion; including being alerted in Minecraft IRC channels every few seconds.
Dug happens to be my name, you insensitive clod.
Thankfully, The Guardian (UK) are doing the same thing. Dug
Man, I am WAY behind. Everyone needs to pitch in and do their part.
I've paid my $8.77 - have you?
It's not "spying", but I don't really care what you call it. First, I'd love to know what his source is - law enforcement should be getting warrants for any domestic surveillance.
You just defined what 'spying' is. With a warrant, it wouldn't be spying.
Second, I'm not putting my information on Facebook for the benefit of the government, terrorists, divorce lawyers, advertisers, or anyone except my friends.
No, but Assange isn't aiming this at you. Plenty of other people are. Sure Facebook is useful for some things; but this is just a warning that it could be misused.
Facebook cannot exist without the information they collect. That it is the most popular site on the internet just screams how useful people find it.
Agreed.
That a giant database containing relationships is useful is more of a boring restating of the obvious - not an OMG NOW THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPY ON US! No one else is bringing this up because it is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. When all that information is available in one place, questions should be asked as to who has access to it.
Whats your problem with raising awareness?
Shouldn't that be something to be at least slightly aware of?
Yes - I would never object to educating people to real dangers. When he starts talking about "spying" and "government", he's being disingenuous and full of hyperbole. As you yourself pointed out, the largest threat most people face from Facebook is blowback from stuff their boss or friends don't like that they made public.
It is "Spying" though, and I don't doubt that the Government are using their access for individuals information as well as aggregate information of the population as a whole. Calling it 'disingenuous' implies Assange knows more than he's letting on. Hyperbole is a matter of opinion, I think the problems of Facebook have been underblown, not exaggerated; and Assange is right to bring this up - no-one else is in the mainstream media.
I don't think Assange is doing a bad thing by warning people; in fact, it's a fairly honourable thing for him to do.
Except that he's warning them about the wrong thing. The ignorant sort of people you are indicating is his target audience are far more at risk from Nigerian scammers and phishing attacks then from some big brother threat. He's not interested in these people at all, other than it seems scaring them furthers some kind of agenda of his. I have no idea what his agenda is, but scare tactics are pretty textbook.
Who says I'm indicating those people? There's 250 million people on Facebook. Thats more than just a few idiots giving out their bank details. Slight fear here should be real, we've all seen the effects having all your information on the internet can have. Mark Zuckerburg, arguably has the most amount of data about the public in one place; it *is* a spy machine. Shouldn't that be something to be at least slightly aware of?
but I'm not a big fan of people not realising how much of their personal and private information they're putting up online.
Isn't that just a little condescending?
Going by the numbers of people that are doing it and not realising the effects it will have on their life and career, maybe its necessary?
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but if most people know that the government can tap your phone and fly helicopters into other countries to kill people, they can certainly pull data from a website.
You'd think so, but I think most people are thinking too little to realise. You'd think your personal information was safe with Sony, but that's not true. Now for most criminals, getting caught is a good thing to society; but we know that's not the case for everyone.
I don't think Assange is doing a bad thing by warning people; in fact, it's a fairly honourable thing for him to do.
But all he did is restate what people already know about Facebook using scary words.
Why do people use Facebook? There are many reasons, but for most "so people I wouldn't keep in constant touch with can find me" would be on their list of reasons. Does that include the government? Yes. Are most people hiding from the government? No. Can the government see your whole list of friends? Yes - only most people would just say that ANYONE can see your whole list of friends.
I'm not sure what he's up to, but I'm not a big fan of people using fear for their own agenda.
I think what Assange was saying was that governments have more access to Facebook information than most people do. Probably up to the level that Mark Zuckerberg has.
You might not be a big fan of Assange using fear, but I'm not a big fan of people not realising how much of their personal and private information they're putting up online. Yes, its their fault - but Assange is giving a good warning; far more so than the fear and lies put around by other media and governmental outlets.
previous announcements on may 1 have been about the ending of some form of human terror, or the beginning of a new more insidious kind.
on May 1: 2010- the death of OBL announced.
Interesting, but you know it's 2011, not 2010 right?
Domino's charges about half as much if you pick up the pizza yourself, yet still claims delivery is free...
Is this only if you go in the store? On their website, delivery and collection is the same price.
You get buy one get one free on collection, but not on delivery round here.
Strange. In the UK the delivery and collection is the same price, but you get buy one get one free on Tuesday. Weird.
I'm in the UK! Our local Dominoes seems to have a perpetual buy one get one free offer on (on collection); not just Tuesdays. It must be something they leave up to the individual Franchisees
You're right! They do advertise on their "Twofer Tuesdays", but I've found out they give out vouchers for the same, just telephoning and saying you have a voucher works... They don't even ever seem to want to see the voucher; but it seems no cheaper by collection. Thanks! =D
Domino's charges about half as much if you pick up the pizza yourself, yet still claims delivery is free...
Is this only if you go in the store? On their website, delivery and collection is the same price.
You get buy one get one free on collection, but not on delivery round here.
Strange. In the UK the delivery and collection is the same price, but you get buy one get one free on Tuesday. Weird.
Domino's charges about half as much if you pick up the pizza yourself, yet still claims delivery is free...
Is this only if you go in the store? On their website, delivery and collection is the same price.
Well, it probably comes down to the vehicles used, too. Fuel in the UK is - in practical terms - about half the price of the US. Yes, the pump price is higher, but most people drive much more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Asda deliver their stuff in vans about the same size as mine (well, one size up, not a lot bigger) that get about 40mpg from powerful, clean, efficient turbodiesel engines. In the US they'd probably use something with a 9-litre V8 producing about 70bhp and getting 9mpg at 40mph.
The actual price of petrol is about four times what it is in the UK, so I blame distance, not petrol or fuel efficiency.
At least around here, Asda and most supermarkets only deliver in about a 20 mile radius.
Yes it had everything to do with custom firmware and hacking. Other OS became an viable attack vector. Sony was obviously not going to put their entire platform at risk for the sake of the minimal number of people who bothered running Other OS. I find it laughable all the uproar about a feature that I suspect very few people complaining now even bothered to use when it was available.
Sony were the ones who offered this feature, then removed it to all their existing customers. Attack vectors aren't the point here; the PS3 product was sold with OtherOS, and later removed. Surely that demands compensation.
> But now they got cash now.
$1B is not much cash considering Nokia employs 130,000 Finnish human beings. Do you know how much the payroll is per year for 130,000 Finnish human beings?
Probably more than it is for 130,000 Chinese human beings who'd rather commit suicide than work for Apple?
*tongue firmly in cheek*
A lot of people are saying they don't know why the iDevices are recording as much info and why it is kept for so long. There is an obvious purpose that many seem to have missed: warranty claim checking. It is known that the devices have ways to detect certain warranty voiding events (like having a small piece of litmus paper so they can tell if the device has been significantly exposed to liquid), so why not use this info to. While in most cases it will tell them nothing it could be used to check for obviously false claims. You were at home and it suddenly stopped working you say? Oddly enough your phone's records say you were up a mountain at that time...
So it's okay for Apple to store your longitude, latitude and timestamp, at seemingly 'random' intervals; just in case it ever goes wrong?