full-disclosure - Example of Legal Ruling involving Internet Issues: >> Re: Yahoo and inheiriting someone's email

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: jftucker at gmail.com (James Tucker)
Subject: Example of Legal Ruling involving Internet
	Issues: >> Re: Yahoo and inheiriting someone's email

Policy is policy.

If the policy is to be ignored, then so can your copyright signs, any
security notices you put on your e-mails to do with
anti-theft/anti-eavesdrop or whatever else posted anywhere else.

There is no better way to express this issue than, if it gets
overruled then it will make a farce of all digital 'agreements'
including things such as the GPL or common EULA's.

No matter what your opinion on these things as individual items or the
context in which they occur, if you remove the meaning of the
agreement, there is nothing you can replace it with, as anything could
be over-ruled at will.

Yes, maybe Yahoo does not have a comprehensive enough agreement to
deal with this issue; that would be _an_ opinion. That does not mean
ignore the agreement, that should mean maybe correct it for next time,
if there is enough agreement among the customer base that the
agreement should be changed.

Yes, maybe they (e-mails) are part of the estate, except the e-mail
itself, that is random bits, that cannot be summed or accounted for
properly (a common issue with IS). What DOES physically exist is the
agreement which he signed up to, which states exactly what it says.

Yahoo could be in as much trouble to override their agreement as to
uphold it. I say give them a break; THAT IS WHY THEY SAY _READ_ THE
AGREEMENT. Most people just click yes without thinking about it.

A contract can say "void after death" (e.g. many non-life insurance
contracts), and there are few arguments about that. There should be no
difference in that regard here. Read the contract/agreement, act
accordingly. That is law as far as I understand it, although IANAL.

Evidence of contractual agreement is available, thus the contract must
hold true.

another $0.02. although this is all getting a little tiring, which is
partially why I had to reply. (ironically stupid I know, but hey, I am
human too).