Home
Thursday, May 25, 2017
5:04:46 PM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Website Feedback
Website Feedback
Forums | Website Feedback Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page 
Two accounts, mine is banned, my brother's is not?
pappes 
11/8/08 10:29:12 PM
Titan

It is all hypothetical and because neither of us is a judge in a court of law nether opinion is more valid than the other.

I still believe that a person who has been banned and contiues to take measures to post after being banned is causing unathorised modification of data, but without a testcase we will not know for sure.

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
11/8/08 10:57:33 PM
Primarch
A legal opinion from a person with a better understanding of the law, and who can show logically why an act does not apply to an unrelated situation, especially when there is an act more suited to that situation is certainly more valid than the legal opinion of someone who was not aware of the differences between a civil and criminal offence.

You are just now backing away from your argument, because you are wrong, but you won't admit it, and instead are saying we will never know unless there is a testcase, which since that particular law does not apply, will never happen.


Edited by TheSecret: 11/8/2008 11:00:28 PM

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

Meeko 
12/8/08 7:31:16 AM
Titan

A test case would be easy to create, if you know what I mean.

In fact, I think one already exists if they wanted to pursue it.

-----

pappes 
12/8/08 8:25:59 AM
Titan

TS as a law student you should know that legal advice if not paid for is worse than useless, it is dangerous.

I say I have no authority because I do not. You are not a judge so your interpretation holds no more weight than mine (unless backed up by precedent). The difference is that I know my opinion is worthless and am happy to admint it. What would be the consequences of someone acting on your advice? Would they have any recouse to damages against you if it turned out your opinion was not held by the presiding judge? On atomic we are all just contributing opinions. Even in the tech forums NOOBs can contribute somwhat to the sum total of atomic knowledge.

I am not backing away, I still believe that making posts after being banned is causing unathorised modification of data. Feel free to show me where I have backed away from that. The specific law that I have been adressing states the penalties for unathorised modification of data.

We can go around in circles but unless you can address specific points in my posts then you are not refuting that specific law that I have been adressing states the penalties for unathorised modification of data.

"I won't continue to argue this unless you can start to show evidence" I don't have evidence because I don't have a testcase.

Can you please explain how the "Spam act law from 2003 has a higher jurusdiction".

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
12/8/08 9:01:08 AM
Primarch
Are you kidding me?

So by your point of view, any volunteer advice is useless? You know, shitty lawyers charge to, and sometimes even make it to become judges...

I have shown you, several times where you are wrong, and you ignore those points and say neither of us will know. That is backing away. For example, I showed first of all how the word data can be interpreted, but this apparently passed you by.

The fact that you ae asking how a commonwealth law has higher jurisdiction than a NSW law is further proof that you don't know what you are talking about. That's the end of this for me.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
12/8/08 12:56:05 PM
Titan

"shitty lawyers charge to"
If you pay for legal advice and are given malicious advice you have recourse to damages.

If you look at my link it proves a legal definition of "restricted data". If you had argued the definiton of "associated with a function of the computer" you would have made more sence.

TheSecret :"I would argue that data refers not just to random bits and bytes, but information created by humans for machines or humans to interpret, or ifnormation provided by machines for humans to intepret(at least eventually), such as logs."
But by posting you are modifying not just bits and bytes but also logs, datafiles, database indexes, forum indexes, backup tapes and much more.

"I won't continue to argue this ... That is backing away ... That's the end of this for me"

I am willing to debate the terms, we just need to agree where the differences are.


"The fact that you ae asking how a commonwealth law has higher jurisdiction than a NSW law"
OK so the reason is one is federal, the other is state. If you had mentioned that it was a federal law (or even given the proper title of the law) or linked to the law that would have been more obvious. I will take your word for it that federal law overrides state law though a judge would refer to the constitution to see if the commonwealth or the states had jurisdiction.

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

1shot1kill 
12/8/08 4:59:55 PM
SuperHero
Colossus


Quote by pappes
TS as a law student you should know that legal advice if not paid for is worse than useless, it is dangerous.



Does that apply to legal aid? What about pro bono legal advice?

-----
Harden up, BITCHES!!

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

It's still rocket surgery. I just make it look easy, is all.

Skull 
12/8/08 5:24:04 PM
Champion

Quote by 1shot1kill
Quote by pappes
TS as a law student you should know that legal advice if not paid for is worse than useless, it is dangerous.



Does that apply to legal aid? What about pro bono legal advice?



it is there in writing 1 shot - DANGEROUS

-----
SKULL

And Remember....
DON"T SLEEP ON THE ROAD!

These are my thoughts and opinions and anything presented may or may not be factual, and may or may not offend the viewer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuCQOC479t0&f

1shot1kill 
12/8/08 6:33:16 PM
SuperHero
Colossus


Ah, sorry. My bad!

-----
Harden up, BITCHES!!

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

It's still rocket surgery. I just make it look easy, is all.

pappes 
12/8/08 6:50:15 PM
Titan

Quote by 1shot1kill
Quote by pappes
TS as a law student you should know that legal advice if not paid for is worse than useless, it is dangerous.



Does that apply to legal aid? What about pro bono legal advice?


dunno IANAL

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
12/8/08 8:20:11 PM
Primarch
Quote by 1shot1kill
Quote by pappes
TS as a law student you should know that legal advice if not paid for is worse than useless, it is dangerous.



Does that apply to legal aid? What about pro bono legal advice?



Pro bono and free legal advice will normally have relevant disclaimers, indemnifying themselves.

Just like a paid lawyer will also have similar terms and conditions, and you can only take action if they gave you incorrect advice, eg a more suitable law should have been cited. You can't do anything against just bad advice where they did their best but not anything wrong.

An example would be a lawyer hired to go after someone for continuing to make accounts on a forum website where they were banned, and citing the computer crimes act. You could then take action against the lawyer for not citing the act that actually deals with unwanted electronic messages, and seek damages.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
13/8/08 7:50:06 PM
Titan

I had another thought on this. The law I quoted is not directed only at hacking, it is also directed at ex-employees (or current employees) who access data without authorisation.

I.E. if you are fired from your job, then your authorisation to access internal computer systems is revoked. If you continue to access those systems then that law could (maybe) be used against you.

That would certainly explain the wording of the law as
"Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system"
instead of
"circumvention of an access control system" which is what I would define as hacking.

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

Skull 
13/8/08 8:22:21 PM
Champion

Quote by pappes
I had another thought on this. The law I quoted is not directed only at hacking, it is also directed at ex-employees (or current employees) who access data without authorisation.

I.E. if you are fired from your job, then your authorisation to access internal computer systems is revoked. If you continue to access those systems then that law could (maybe) be used against you.

That would certainly explain the wording of the law as
"Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system"
instead of
"circumvention of an access control system" which is what I would define as hacking.



You don't even have to be fired.
At one place I worked at, one of the head honchos accounts which was suppose to be his eyes only didn't have the right security.
When found out his system was compromised 1st thing was they obviously plugged the whole, then did a full investigation on all users that had peeked at his files and dealt with them

EDIT: just noticed current employess


Edited by Skull: 13/8/2008 08:22:49 PM

-----
Champ

TheSecret 
13/8/08 10:23:07 PM
Primarch
Quote by pappes
I had another thought on this. The law I quoted is not directed only at hacking, it is also directed at ex-employees (or current employees) who access data without authorisation.

I.E. if you are fired from your job, then your authorisation to access internal computer systems is revoked. If you continue to access those systems then that law could (maybe) be used against you.

That would certainly explain the wording of the law as
"Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system"
instead of
"circumvention of an access control system" which is what I would define as hacking.



You are not circumventing an access control in a technical sense by creating a new account. This is again where the fact that atomic invites you to open a new account comes in to play.

I still don't understand why you think a law dealing with unauthorized access, which would be harder to apply to this case, is more suited than unauthorized electronic messages. With the unauthorized messages, the access control method is irrelevant.

Edit: I just checked, and you do not have to agree to any terms and conditions whatsoever when creating a new user account, making them even less relevant, and the fact the website invites you to register more so.


Edited by TheSecret: 14/8/2008 3:42:28 AM

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
14/8/08 8:23:35 AM
Titan

>>You are not circumventing an access control
I agree. My point was, if this was soley an anti-hacking law I would expect it to be targeted at circumventing an access control system. Hence it suggestes to me that the law was drafted with wider implications in mind.

>>...is more suited ...
I have not stated that I think it is more suited. I just think that it is applicable. I.E. the statue that was enacted into law makes it an offence for a person to have "Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system" so if you engage in "Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system" then you have broken the law.

>you do not have to agree to any terms and conditions
I agree.
However if you are sent an email telling you to "cease and desist" or if you are sent a letter telling you to "cease and desist" then I believe that would override any inmplied "invitation" that is on the website. FTR I still do not see how the website is making an invitation to create an account.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Ainvitation

Feel free to educate me if any of the above is uninformed rabble

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
14/8/08 8:42:09 AM
Primarch
The law you keep referring to is deliberately abstract, like all laws, so it can be applied in unforeseen situations. This is not one of them. If you don't think the law is more suited, there is little point to arguing. Any reasonable lawyer would not for a defense with a law that was harder to apply, and besides, this is where it is not clear if it is unauthorized access to or modification of data, regardless of any technical argument you give. The invitation is the word register, which you can click on to make a new account. The first definition on google supports that.

If this is now a semantic argument and not a legal argument, it is not worth continuing.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
14/8/08 1:01:17 PM
Titan

>>it is not worth continuing
feel free to stop at any time....

>>this is now a semantic argument and not a legal argument
With a precedent or a testcase, what did you expect? Oh and if you only want to debate with lawyers, a) become a lawyer, b)find a forum full of lawyers. At atomic anyone can contribute and content rules over qualifications.

>This is not one of them.
assuming my definition of data which may or may not be right, it could apply. There may be more relevant laws but the text of this on makes it an offence to have "Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in computer...restricted by an access control system"

I am interested in exploring if the word "register" constitutes an invitation but you are not interested in symantics. I am also interested to know why you think an explicit cease and desist notice can be overridden by an automated access control system (which is being used as intended, not being circumveted) but am not interesetd in exploring that by myself(maybe in my head but not on a public forum).

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
14/8/08 3:53:38 PM
Primarch
I am not going to go scrunging for cases, but there a quite a few examples where the fact the you are invited to make a new account had a bearing on the case.

While it is true that anyone can contribute, don't you understand how it can be frustrating when you won't you are wrong, just because you don't understand how? I know very little about cpu architecture, and I would not enter in to a debate on that subject, and if I did I would not deny the opinions of those more knowledgeable in the field because I did not understand why it was wrong.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

pappes 
14/8/08 6:53:51 PM
Titan

It is all good TS, I was just letting you know that "I stuidied law" does not make you ight on every legal subject. You can always get additional perspective from others and we can learn form each other.

FYI I just had a look at the SPAM ACT 2003 and it appears to deal with unsolicited "commercial electronic messages" so it would probably not apply to some juvenile spaming up the forums with goatse
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sa200366/s15.html

also had a closer look at the law I was quoting
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s308a.html#access
"(2) In this Part, "modification" of data held in a computer means:
(a) the alteration or removal of the data, or
(b) an addition to the data."

-----
I am petitioning to be the first person to be awarded a Nobel prize for prescience. It doesn't exist yet but mark my words it will.

TheSecret 
14/8/08 7:48:59 PM
Primarch
Hey Pappes,

It is indeed all good. I am sorry if I was seeming arrogant or impatient sometimes, I do tend to get easily frustrated, which I should work on. I would not think for a second I know all about law, but I do have quite a good knowledge of the concepts and application.

I know the law you were quoting defined modification of data, and it applies here that addition to the data would indeed be modification, I was wrong on that account. But that is a minor point I believe, as signing up an account would not unauthorized access, unless haymarket got a court order explicitly forbidding someone access to their site. Although, with these vague laws, a good lawyer could argue that a new record in the database would not cover that law, as they could interperet addition to data to mean addition to an existing record. I can't debate this point, because we can't see how it would go in court, and it would depend on how technical they allowed the interpretation to be.

Sect 6 of the spam act goes on to define what a commercial electronic message entails, and it is unlikely that any poster on here has not posted at least one message fitting one of those criteria.

This site http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/htcb/htcb005.html does not entail to your specific act, but the problems outlined at the bottom still apply.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  | Next Page 
Forums | Website Feedback