| |
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.
If only one person should be banned over this, it ought to be Scott. Or, as
Richard argues, ban us both.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) 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.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) 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. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
