101–104 of 104 posts
This may be a two edged sword. It also means that collecting data based on your IP is not an invasion of privacy. With IPv6 there is the potential for much finer grained assignment of IP addresses to such an extent that an IP address could become uniquely identified with an individual more readily than today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm implying the exact same mentality that shows how to hack computer programs isn't the one you use for the law. For all people mock the law, humans are involved, and the sort of transparent excuses that would easily fool a computer probably won't fool a judge for a second any more than it would fool a guy on the street. There are ways to hack the law, but it looks different.
Parent says "What if the business's purpose is to provide an open suburban hotspot?" You say: "excuses that would easily fool a computer probably won't fool a judge for a second any more than it would fool a guy on the street." I don't think it comes across as an excuse although prosecution would of course present it that way. There is certainly instances where someone would provide an open hotspot for neighbors. (My…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I recommend you spend some time reading up on it I work for a portal that was recently acquired. The company who acquired the portal is, in part, owned by the same companies that own the telco that sold the portal, but the composition is different. I'm not even sure there are no cycles in the graph - it's perfectly possible some of the entities involved own themselves.
That's amusing. Can you have two companies that own each other? If so, how long does it take to finalize the books at tax time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is an Internet Cafe responsible for what all its patrons do? Is Verizon responsible for everyone who buys bandwidth from them?
I believe that common carriers are forced to comply with certain rules, so in a sense yes.