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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <41DD1530.20704@sbcglobal.net>
From: chromazine at sbcglobal.net (Steve Kudlak)
Subject: Example of Legal Ruling involving Internet
	Issues: >> Re: Yahoo and inheiriting someone's email

James Tucker wrote:

>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).
>
>  
>
However policy is bound by the laws of the state in which the entity 
setting policy resides or these days does business.  Legal details are 
painful and boring sometimes but it determines a lot. Especiallhy when 
one deals with things like inheiritance and righta of survivorship which 
often trump policy. However there are a limited number of these legal 
areas where this can happen. So policy is often policy and the way 
things go, but people can occassionally twart things and that should be 
taken into consideration,

Have Fun,
Sends Steve