New answers tagged

0

Employees need to artive at contract not the other way around. The battle for contract to maintain importance is in the hands of bearer's witness, and when lacking the wit to do so fails, the extra added work is not footwork and the ideal is that they can face themselves in executing that network of the crime to only allowing it for a union of that bearer's ...


2

The courts have to have established the scope of the word "intentionally" in "intentionally access without authorization". The narrow reading is "intentionally access" meaning that the state does not have to establish intent with respect to authorization. The first step therefore is to determine exactly what law is applicable. 18 USC 2701 refers to one who ...


-1

The state has to prove “intent” beyond reasonable doubt If the state can’t prove your intention to “access without authorization/exceed authorization” then you didn’t commit the crime.


1

You seem to be conflating two issues: copyright and plagiarism. Providing proper citations generally resolves the plagiarism issue, but does nothing to resolve issues of copyright. If are only including brief quotes from the underlying work you may be covered by fair use or a local equivalent. If you are copying "substantive" portions of the article without ...


1

You can't copy other people's stuff unless ... You have their permission. You don't have this. Your copying is fair use if US law applies, fair dealing if Commonwealth of Nations law applies (which between them cover most of the English language world) or the equivalent if you are somewhere else. Your usage case may be fair use, its almost certainly not ...


0

Typically most work computers and networks will contain a notice during log in that use of this system constitutes consent to [thing you want to do] so it should immunize you a good deal against what ever it is you want to do. Since the right is on the individual user and the laws exist to protect their right against monitoring, the user must consent to any ...


6

A law has to be "broad" to include a lot of possible crimes and intent of criminals and account for the good faith of non-criminals. "Intentionally access without authorization/exceed" is actually fairly specific; "intent" is the keyword. Someone making a mistake may have intent to login, but no intent to commit a crime. Someone confused by "different pages ...


2

Since you've specified Indonesia, I'll take this opportunity to highlight something fairly unique. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, Indonesia "exempts the non-commercial reproduction and distribution of copyrighted materials through information and technology media from the scope of the authors’ exclusive rights." This is the first ...


1

There is a lot of confusion around the UK and its laws which supposedly require full log retention - the only law which addresses this is the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act (amended by the 2018 Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations Act) and this act requires you to retain full logs only on receipt of a valid "retention notice" from the Secretary of State....


3

It is probably illegal under Indonesian law for you to launch a cyber-attack on a website that you believe violates Indonesian law, just as it is illegal for you to shoot a person for fraud. The Indonesian government reserves the right to judge guilt or innocence, and to mete out punishment, within Indonesia. It is definitely illegal under US law, also UK ...


3

You have two downvoted answers here. One of them is actually correct, one is nonsense. Question: Which one? Answer: Doesn't matter. If you provide this service without getting advice from a competent lawyer first, your risk is much too high. Making the wrong decision (either giving up on a good business idea without reason, or providing a banking service ...


-1

Sounds like you’re providing a (limited) banking service If you are, you will need a financial services licence and to comply with all relevant rules such as reporting and anti-money laundering.


0

If you are specifically interested in Youtube, a Made for Kids label disincentivizes uploaders, because in response to a Made for Kids designation, YT blocks data collection (therefore revenues go down), and comments are disabled. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing for everybody. The same rule applies to anyone hosting their own videos: if the material ...


0

I'm assuming that you were either tricked into being a "money mule" or you were yourself the victim of fraud. Presumably you were sent money and asked to forward it on to someone else. In the money mule scenario this money is the product of a crime and you are helping launder it. Or this may have been the variant where the incoming payment bounces after you ...


2

If the communication verifiably came from the PhotoClaim attorneys, then the answer is more strongly in the "must pay" column, whereas otherwise it could be a scam. It appears that they require confirmation from clients that a use is infringing. They offer to negotiate in case the fee is unaffordable, but their business is to protect their client's rights. ...


5

Your court will surely lack jurisdiction against an unidentified scammer in a foreign country hiding behind a sequence of VPNs. Unless by some wild application of both skill and coincidience, you identify the scammer in a nation from which you have a chance of filing litigation. Yes, you would have a case that the requirement to keep a web browser page ...


15

This may be a good faith and fair dealing violation which would give the victim a civil cause of action to recover at least his original investment.


28

Accused of what? Clearly stating under which conditions you (the accuser) would earn money by doing nothing more than staying online for 7 days? You agreed to these conditions, but did not fulfill them, so the scammer (the accused) was the one that earned money for doing nothing. The scammer had the same motive as you had, earning money for doing ...


16

Yes The directors of a company have a fiduciary duty to act within the law for the benefit of their shareholders - not to their customers, not to the government, not to the environment and not to the public. A lawsuit against the company will incur financial loss irrespective of if it is won or lost. It is difficult to see how it is in the shareholder's ...


6

This would be illegal in Australia (Criminal Code Act 1995 part 10.7: any unauthorised impairment of electronic communication to or from a computer), the US (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and any other jurisdiction that I can think of. There is no exception allowing vigilante action in case a person has a reasonable belief that the material on a website is ...


Top 50 recent answers are included