🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Wismer (cr764@torfree.net) wrote:
: Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: : On 2 Jul 1998 15:09:40 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
: : Bissonnette) wrote:
: : >>The following will result in your account being terminated:
: : >>
: : >> 1. Being convicted of using the resources of the TFN in an illegal
: : >>    manner by a Canadian court of law with the appropriate 
: : >>    jurisdiction
: : >>
: : >> 2. Any attempt to compromise the security of, or to gain unauthorized
: : >>    access to, any computer connected to the Internet.
: : >
: : >Hyppocrasy again

: : No Marc, just you stretching desperately for another excuse to use
: : insults in lue of actually having a point.

: : >. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. 

: : Breaking system security may or may not be illegal, that is not
: : relevant since I have already stated that legality is a matter for the
: : courts to decide.

: but you also seem to be saying that with regard to at least one type of 
: criminal offence (breaking system security is covered under sections 342 
: and 430 of the criminal code of canada) you are willing to forgo legal 
: proceedings...

I'll try to clarify, I am not against the TFN having rules, I am against 
the TFN attempting to interpret the rules of the justice system, I support 
the TFN's right to say we can terminate youre account because you broke 
*OUR* rules, not because we *THINK* you broke the rules of Canada.

i.e. Good Rule: Though shall not violate our system security, bad rule: 
though shall not do anything illegal.

We *DO* have the qualifications and jurisdiction to determine of someone 
violated our system security, we *DO NOT* have the qualifications or 
jurisdiction to determine if someone violated Canadian law.

Get it yet?

Whether we have the due process to deal with either, however, remains a 
question in my mind.

: : As a public service, we have *NO*  right to dictate what you *SAY* via
: : our system, or to determine the legality of that speech.

: : We do however have a right to control *HOW* our system is used, what
: : services we make available, and to protect our equipment and
: : configuration from being damaged.

: : Anyone that blatantly attempts to compromise our system design is
: : therefore refusing  to use the system as it was designed to be used,
: : in which case we are justified in preventing them from using it. 

: but it would seem to be more in keeping with your views on speech that we 
: wait for the law to prove an individual actually compromisedc our system 
: design...

: : This has nothing to do with interpreting the law or freedom of speech

: no, it has to do with interpreting other laws... they may not pertain to 
: speech, but they are laws...

To simplify; it's OK if against our rules *AND* is against the law, it's 
not OK if it's against our rules *BECAUSE* it's against the law.

As long as our actions are based on the inerpretation of *OUR* rules, not 
interpretations of the law.