| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and
> > there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to
> > have a valid one in your posting ID.
>
> I believe you are incorrect.
Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing
this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey
area.)
> First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email
> addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of
> the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address against the will
> of the participant, even if that UNspammer thought he was doing something
> good based on the clear and unambiguous, repeated statements of that
> participant ("it's junk and I don't want it, didn't ask for it").
It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so
the only thing you did specific to Lugnet is to look up an e-mail address.
If that is in violation of the ToS, why then, I did the same just the other
day, e-mailing you from work with some tips on FTX. In fact, I've used
Lugnet to retrieve e-mail for my own purposes many times. If using e-mail
addresses noted via Lugnet news posts is wrong in and of itself, then
there's a lotta bad people out there, I suspect.
> Now, analyse the ToU...
>
> Section 6 of the main ToU:
>
> 6. You will not use this site for any illegal activities and you will not
> attempt to gain unauthorized access to this site or to other sites or
> systems through this site.
>
> It can be argued that unsubscribing someone using an email address one dug
> up is "gaining unauthorised access to other sites" (in this case, one
> "site", and the "access gained" was to remove a subscription) "through this
> site".
Ya, but I think you're stretching. (really stretching, actually) Did you
use Lugnet for anything beyond information? Did you move to this other site
from a link on Lugnet, or by using Lugnet as a portal in any way?
What if you had gotten that e-mail 6 months ago, for legitimate dealings
with Scott, and taken it from your address book, instead of directly from
Lugnet. Would you still be in violation of this clause? How about if you
now used that e-mail for legitimate dealings, would that mitigate it?
I don't think taking information publicly available (this is an open forum
for reading, after all) qualifies as "an attempt to gain unauthorized access
to [...] other sites or systems...".
> Further, section 6 of the discussion group ToU:
>
> 6. (do not) Post or transmit any information, software, or other material
> which violates or infringes upon the rights of others, including material
> which is an invasion of privacy or publicity rights or which is protected by
> copyright, trademark, or other proprietary right, or derivative works with
> respect thereto, without first obtaining permission from the owner or right
> holder.
>
> Again, it can be argued that a clear and unambiguous statement "it's spam
> and I did not request it" is not the same as *permission*. So in
> unsubscribing him, I did so without his permission. Thus violating section
> 6... because I "transmit"ed "information" that is an "invasion of privacy"
> ... "without first obtaining permission from the owner". That assumes that
> the knowledge (of what Scott's email address happens to be) is "property"
> that belongs to him and that he can grant the use of.
This only applies if you are extending Lugnet's ToU to your activities
elsewhere. It's very clear that these terms apply strictly to information
posted to Lugnet, else by term 8, you would be in violation of Lugnet's ToU
by posting binaries to rec.toys.lego.
> Which is why I readily admit I am in violation of the ToS. I just played
> rules lawyer to show why it IS a violation, refuting your assertion it is not.
I think you are only in violation of the ToS by extreme technicality, but
because it is a judgement call, unless a higher authority steps in, there
isn't any farther to go with this.
thanks,
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
