Is it not Kafkaesque if you can be dragged into court on a whim in any location in the world, if the computer you are alleged to have misused is located there, even if it's half a country or even a world away from where you reside and they can put you in jail for a crime that wasn't defined as a crime at the time of your conduct in question? It'd be one thing if you were given a notice that this was the new interpretation; but if you just wake up to find out you are a retroactive criminal, you might as well be in a Kafka novel, because there is absolutely no way to ever know what the definition of criminal conduct will be tomorrow or when it can retroactively be applied to you. Drew, according to reports of the testimony at trial, never read the terms of use. Yes, but she should have known, said the prosecutor. She must have. How do you know? Should the law guess? We can be put in prison because although there is no proof we knew something, we might have or could have or must have?
If you think I am overstating what the brief is saying, feel free to say so, but do read it. At least then, you'll know what the uproar is all about. I know from some of your comments that you think the verdict was all about Lori Drew. I don't think so. I think it's about us.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081128005538214
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg@pelicancrossing.net>
Date: November 29, 2008 3:16:29 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
Reply-To: wendyg@pelicancrossing.net
(For IP if you wish)
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gabe Goldberg <gabe@gabegold.com>
Date: November 29, 2008 1:14:01 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedence Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
Are loony nebulous mumbo-jumbo agreements like that actually binding? Or just legal folly? Who knows.
FWIW, I tried to look at these questions a bit for the Guardian:
Software licenses / EULAs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/law.software
Privacy policies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/10/privacy.it
wg
-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com