IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Wrong. Read the article more closely next time.
In the initial summary, conclusion #5 is a privacy implication that could wind up affecting people in the USA who don't use GMail. The body of the article explains why.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Shrug. Don't agree.
While I agree with his hope that email vendors should design their systems such that they don't even raise the issue of 4th Amendment protection (which doesn't apply to me anyway), it's a bit like saying that you hope car manufacturers should design their vehicles such that the wheels don't fall off.

(Aiee! Another computer/car analogy! Run away! Run away!)

I did read the article before posting, and I've read it again since then. It still strikes me as overreaction.


Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
New Read my response again, then
I said, in the USA.

Now as for your judgement of the amount of over-reaction, well let's compare your grounds versus Brad's to speak on the issue.

Unlike you Brad lives in the US. He has been heavily involved in legal matters for a long time. And he ran that article by lawyers before publishing.

You, on the other hand, lack all of those qualifications. OTOH you are armed with equal doses of ignorance, a sense of how things ideally would be, and the arrogance to believe that you don't need to know more to form a final opinion.

I think that I'll take Brad's position more seriously, thanks.

Ben

PS I suspect that I know more about the US legal system than you do as well. And reading that article, Brad's concerns struck me as quite plausible. I don't know enough to know whether he is right, but you would need to know more than I do to show that he is wrong.
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
     The privacy implications of gmail - (ben_tilly) - (4)
         There are none. - (pwhysall) - (3)
             Wrong. Read the article more closely next time. - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                 Shrug. Don't agree. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                     Read my response again, then - (ben_tilly)

They're behind the couch.
34 ms