On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > Obviously, it is _not_ unlawful to 'even open' a file that is 'labelled as > private'. > > Herr Ghost subsequently clarified that he meant 'opened by a person' -- which, > if _that_ is an accurate description of the law in question, means that a > purely mechanical process, such as a loop running file(1) on all files, and > logging a filtered subset of that output would _not_ qualify as 'opening' > under the law, either.
That's Frau Ghost, if you please. Look, the problem isn't running some analyzer on the files, it's the subsequent evaluation and interpretation of its output by a human operator. That's the exact point in time where the law applies (the law doesn't care about apparatus, it cares about human behavior). Over here, you can run as many filters on the files in an automated fashion, but that won't do you any good when you're not allowed to interpret the results (or even to merely *look* at them), and *act* accordingly. > To wit: If you're building on _my_ property, I _do_ have the right to demand > proof that you are doing it 'legally'. Please acknowledge that different jurisdictions also do have different philosophies... and especially different priorities w.r.t. the rights they are supposed to uphold. If I understand what you're saying, it means that in your place, private property rights rank higher than privacy protection obligations. That's okay, and not something to criticize, but it's not the case everywhere else in the world. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
