> The interesting aspect of this ruling is that it [...] has affirmed > [...] that "online behaviour" is (largely) ruled by the same laws, > customs and so on as "real world" behaviours.
Except it hasn't, because it isn't. At least not in general. "Online" behaviour _is_ ruled by the same laws and customs as off-net behaviour when all, or at least enough, of the parties are in the same (off-net) jurisdiction. _That_ is what this ruling has affirmed. But, unlike offline behaviour, on-the-net behaviour is very often thoroughly cross-jurisdictional, with no clear way to determine whose laws apply. Someone in Germany buys from a Japanese company through an Egyptian-hosted website paying with a US payment broker and the product ships from Brazil, and it's, um, a little less clear. Nor do you really want it otherwise, I suspect, because I suspect that most of your - and my, and just about everyone else's - on-net actions are illegal _somewhere_. Unless you expect to enforce your laws against others but are unwilling to accept reciprocal enforcement of others' laws againt you. > If you really thought that just because computers, "virtual > communities" and other such electronic ephemeera were involved that > somehow all this "int-duh-web stuff" was magically "different" or > "special", then maybe _you_ are the "special" one??? Not just because they're involved, but because they are fundamentally different. See by blah entry on the subject, http://ftp.rodents-montreal.org/mouse/blah/2009-09-08-1.html, if you're interested in my thoughts on the matter. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
