🚀 go-pugleaf

Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:

: Ok, help me out here, as this is an honest question to the part of this 
: counter-argument that I don't understand:

: How can the re-stating of Canadian Laws, already in existance, get us into 
: trouble or make us liable?

	1.  if you give an interpretation of the law (as opposed to the 
actual piece of legislation).
	2.  if you do not provide it in all languages in use by the membership.
	3.  if you omit pieces of legislation.
	4.  if it suggests the tfn will do something it is incapable of 
(including due process to all complaints).

: We already reserve the right to terminate accounts for any reason we see fit 
: (though that power has only been excercised a couple of times, to my knowledge, 
: and apparantly for (what the board felt was) good reason. 

: The draft AUP sets out a list of actions the board MAY take, if any action is 
: taken at all. The actions are, IMO, quite reasonable, including; warnings, 
: referral to enforcement agencies, referral to legal experts, arbitration, 
: suspension, and termination. (I feel like I should be saying all of this with a 
: Schwarzzennegellian accent)

: How does this make us *more* liable?

	1.  wording
	2.  suggestion it can be responsible for everything stored on it.
	3.  suggestion it can meet legal requirements re: obscenity laws, 
restriction to minors laws, ..

	these are undoables.
	
--