At 11:36 AM 5/2/01 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>In any scenario, it seems like a few points are likely to be crucial -
>
>1. Was the logging foreseeable at the time the statement/promise
>regarding "no logging" was made?
>If there was no intentional misrepresention, pretty much everything except
>breach of contract fails.
>
>2. Was the transaction between user and service provider a "sale" -
>e.g., was there consideration? a contract? If the activity between the
>parties did not involve the exchange of value, then it's hard to argue that
>there's been a fraud, a breached contract, or an unfair business practice.
>
>So, if I were designing a system which hoped to rely (only in part,
>hopefully) on legal impediments to the creation of logs, I would make that
>system one which (a) involved an exchange of value and (b) frequently
>restates the operator's promise not to keep logs, ideally as part of the
>transaction, such that the transaction can be aborted if the promise is
>missing or otherwise unsatisfactory .. and can be said to rely (perhaps
>detrimentally) on the statement about the lack of logging.
And conversely: there is no legal impediment for a self-claimed free
anonymizing
website to keep logs.
>
>Even so, that's pretty weak protection.
>
Yep, this is all academic, rely on math & physics not law.
