Clay Davis a écrit :
> Maybe #3, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt it. Never
> #2; SORBS holds no "official" position or power. When you make an accusation
> of extortion, you better be using the "legal" definition. I'm no lawyer, but
> I am pretty sure the legal definition involves some force coupled with an
> illegal act. I don't see what SORBS is doing as either. When I go to court,
> I'm taking the statute... not the Webster's! ;-)
>
> What one would argue as "taking advantage"; SORBS would argue as a legal,
> economical service.
# 2 is still a possible interpretation:
1- sorbs list people
sorbs has no official role to do so. "self designed
police" is not an official role.
2- sorbs indirectly recommend their lists
the common "but I ask nobody to use my list" is as silly as
"but I ask nobody to use my weapons" or "but I ask nobody to
consume my drugs. They are for sale, not for consumption".
3- sorbs do nothing (or not much) to warn against using their list
4- sorbs _require_ money to get delisted (for some lists only)
5- Money must be donated to a "SORBS nominated charity or good cause"
This is unclear. What are the conditions for nomination? Can they
provide examples of "good causes" so we see? What if they nominate
organisations that are considered terrorist or criminal in my country?
6- They can list innocents. (they listed the postfix ML twice last year)
Depending on your country, this may or may not be a sufficient to sue
sorbs. so this is just theoritical. but unless I get 2/3 lawyers saying
that it's ok, I will keep far away... after all, there are safer lists:
sbl, xbl, opm, cbl, njabl, ahbl, ordb, dsbl, bogons
