11–20 of 56 posts
If one of the smartest computer security guys was prepared to do all this work and throw lots of expensive experts (well grad students) at finding your bugs - would you: 1, Send developers to all their seminars to learn something 2, Buy them drinks 3, Sue them
in many cases banks refused to reimburse cardholders who reported unauthorised card use, claiming that their systems could not fail
The University of Cambridge is legally obliged to stand behind this research under the 1986 Education Act which states:
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes
(in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises
of the establishment is not denied to any individual
or body of persons on any ground connected with—
(a)the beliefs or views of that individual or of any
member of that body; or
(b)the policy or objectives of that body.
If one of the smartest computer security guys was prepared to do all this work and throw lots of expensive experts (well grad students) at finding your bugs - would you: 1, Send developers to all their seminars to learn something 2, Buy them drinks 3, Sue them
If anything, the banks promoting this technology should be sued for false advertising. in many cases banks refused to reimburse cardholders who reported unauthorised card use, claiming that their systems could not fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_and_PIN
An important but often overlooked fact is that while there's no universal freedom of speech in British Law (although the UK is a member of the European convention on human rights which has such a protection), universities specifically are required to act to protect freedom of speech of their members. The University of Cambridge is legally obliged to stand behind this research under the 1986 Education Act which states…
Perhaps not in written law, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the British constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech.
As my legal friends as fond of pointing out, an unwritten constitution has the important advantage that its words can't be twisted the way that a written constitution can.
An important but often overlooked fact is that while there's no universal freedom of speech in British Law (although the UK is a member of the European convention on human rights which has such a protection), universities specifically are required to act to protect freedom of speech of their members. The University of Cambridge is legally obliged to stand behind this research under the 1986 Education Act which states…
while there's no universal freedom of speech in British Law... Perhaps not in written law, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the British constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. As my legal friends as fond of pointing out, an unwritten constitution has the important advantage that its words can't be twisted the way that a written constitution can.
Dear Jeff Bezos and Amazon: Take note of how it's done by real men. By your actions WRT Orwell and Wikileaks, you've shown that you aren't worthy to shine the shoes of a real information-bearer, and you aren't fit to host my cloud nodes either. Sincerely, Marsh Ray
Totally the same thing. How did I miss this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
while there's no universal freedom of speech in British Law... Perhaps not in written law, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the British constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. As my legal friends as fond of pointing out, an unwritten constitution has the important advantage that its words can't be twisted the way that a written constitution can.
But an unwritten constitution is easier to change, because there is nothing written down to refer to as a 'base.'
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the commerce clause of the US constitution was intended to grant the vast powers which it has been used to uphold; but because the US constitution is -- theoretically -- not subject to growth and reinterpretation the way that the Canadian or British constitutions are, a legal fiction has been adopted instead.
If the commerce clause had been interpreted within the context of the Canadian or British constitutions, it would probably have been handled as "we're going to read one new power into this" on a number of occasions, rather than the "yes, this clause gives you the power to do everything" which seems to have occurred in the US.
Dear Jeff Bezos and Amazon: Take note of how it's done by real men. By your actions WRT Orwell and Wikileaks, you've shown that you aren't worthy to shine the shoes of a real information-bearer, and you aren't fit to host my cloud nodes either. Sincerely, Marsh Ray
A service provider terminating Wikileaks for AUP violations after they began publishing classified diplomatic cables; one of the oldest educational institutions on Earth standing up for a student's MPhil thesis. Totally the same thing. How did I miss this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
while there's no universal freedom of speech in British Law... Perhaps not in written law, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the British constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. As my legal friends as fond of pointing out, an unwritten constitution has the important advantage that its words can't be twisted the way that a written constitution can.
But an unwritten constitution is easier to change, because there is nothing written down to refer to as a 'base.'
Except for 1000 years of legal precedence