Quote:
Originally posted by dodgy.geezah
Caramba Stuart, are you still bleating on about being caught with your pants down and getting spanked !!!!
You did wrong, you got caught who gives a monkeys flying left breast whether or not the relevant, in your opinion IIRC the original threads correctly, sections were quoted.
|
OK, this is
EXACTLY my point.
I did wrong, I was caught.... but ntl quoted irelevant parts of the T&C. I was not even remotely worried about getting caught, it was an experiment. I am not complaining about being caught, or promoting the uncapping of CM's. I was just pointing out that the AUP team had quoted IRRELEVANT parts of the T&C.
If it "doeesn't matter" which parts are quoted, or how they are interpreted, what is the point in having T's & C's????
My point is that ntl do not know how to enforce the existing T&C, so why worry about the "cap" when they are so unlikely to enforce it properly.
There are (and were at the time) simple black and white entries in the T&C which I clearly broke. NONE of these were quoted to me however. I was just quoted on interfeering with equipment and reverse engineering ntl's software, NEITHER of which was done by, or on behalf of myself.
Now, just to get my point accross as clear as possible.....
I don't care for / about the CAP as in my opinion it will never be used to enforce ANYTHING at all.
In my expirience with the AUP team, they have quoted irelevant T&C's, breached the data protection act and represented themselves as an entirly unprofessional group of individuals.