| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > He did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did
> > > *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his
> > > usual belligerent manner:
> > >
> > > ==+==
> > > See, I march to my own metronome, and the violation of his privacy rights
> > > when weighed against the harm he causes here on a daily basis with his lies
> > > and slurs and troublemaking just tilted the balance for me to do something I
> > > know is a violation of the ToS.
> > > ==+==
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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").
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Contrast that with Scott, who, when confronted about a misdeed, as he has
> been many times in the past (consider the recent row he started about LEGO
> donations to charity, for example... what utter slime. I have it on good
> authority that he made people at LD cry over his hateful behaviour.), plays
> rules lawer to try to deny any culpability.
>
> I'll repeat. I know now that it was a violation of the ToS (at least in
> spirit) to unsubscribe Scott. I apologised. I expressed regret and remorse
> for that violation of his right to privacy. I have not claimed that I had a
> right to violate his rights (contrary to his *lie* that I did say that,
> upthread). I did not. If the administrators so choose, some punishment is
> appropriate.
>
> If asked a direct question about my actions in future, I cannot lie and vow
> that I would not do it again. At this point, at some significant remove in
> time from it, I think it rather unlikely. In fact I've taken steps to make
> it harder for anyone to do it.
>
> But to claim with certainty would be a lie. Unlike Scott, I do not lie or
> distort the facts to get out of trouble.
Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar"
without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis
that point. You are deluded. You need help.
Scott A
>
> If only one person should be banned over this, it ought to be Scott. Or, as
> Richard argues, ban us both.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
