Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
I know some very good ones too and have come to know even more since the scandal started. There is nothing in RIPA which supports your comment on web sites and published data, so I am not sure who told you that but it simply isn't true.
|
In your opinion. Don't let all the TV interviews and requests for comment go to your head.
Do you think the Home Office advice was drawn up by a dimwitted low-grade civil servant? In fact it was drawn up by a legal team who just didn't understand enough about the way HTTP was used today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
RIPA states public telecommunications network with regards to which types of networks apply (as opposed to private which you seem to be saying in your post) but then extends itself to private networks (such as business networks) which has already seen a conviction in the UK and a failed appeal.
|
Irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
Furthermore, Phorm do not state they will abide by robots.txt at all
|
You're rapidly losing credibility here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
Now with respect, the -law- states consent is required and that it must be informed consent from -all- parties, So I am afraid I don't agree with your analysis or that of your legal experts.
Alexander Hanff
|
You don't have to agree. But if you stick to the clear facts of the case you will have a greater chance of gaining support and credibility with your arguments.
The fact is you will find a lot of lawyers who agree with the implied consent argument for published works. So why bother even discussing it when you have a rock-solid example of how RIPA is breached with private messaging and email services.