 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —James Powell
|
| | | | | | (...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I object to that statement -- it's wording. My opinion is that LUGNET does not exercise editorial control but will, when required, forcibly remove information from its server when it has been notified that the information must be removed on (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) excise (...) fashion. (...) requirement. (...) It doesn't. Enforcing the T&Cs is exercising editorial control. I've said this a bunch of times, I think almost all of us want you to do it, so it's not about whether you should do so or not, it's (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded. However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons, how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a facetious question.) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Errr...That should read "That is not a facetious question." --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) This may be a dead horse, but I'm just reading this thread now. I think part of the muddiness is that Larry is talking from the side of how the law will be applied. A word can have a very different meaning in court than in Webster's (or (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
