Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Demolition Calc
Grant Stockly wrote:
>
> >> Question 1.
> >> Do you believe that any data stored on company equipment
> >> is property of the company, including personal data created
> >> or downloaded by the employee using that equipment?
> >Yes unless the equipment was given or sold to you. If it is owned by the
> >company, whatever is stored on it belongs to the company. If you export
> >data to another machine, it is no longer company property.
>
> Since it was created with company equipment while he was working witht the
> company it probably is. I'd have to see his job contract.
It was created with his brain, therefore it is his property. Unless it
pertains to his work, it is his own.
> Right now everything as far as electronics doesn't belong to me due to the
> license I had to sign.
>
> >> Question 2a.
> >> Do you believe that any data you cause to be transmitted
> >> across any computing device on a network is legally inspectable
> >> by the owner or that device? (this includes the internet, every
> >> machine this data goes across is owned either by the govenrment
> >> or a corporation).
> >Only if the owner of the equipment has notified the user that
> >transmissions may be monitored (before transmission occurs). You have to
> >consent to be photographed and filmed, why shouldn't consent be required
> >for data transmission monitoring?
>
> I take pictures without consent... In NewYork in the streets you are
> photographed an average of 30 times an hour.
You are _SUPPOSED_ to have consent. Maybe that's just for publishing.
> >> Question 2b.
> >> If said data is encrypted, should the owner of a device the
> >> data passes through have the right to either decrypt
> >> the data, or legally order decryption by the transmitter?
> >Nope. If s/he is monitoring the data, all s/he can have is the data
> >itself. If he can't decrypt it, it's his problem. If you sent a picture
> >across your company network in some crazy obscure format and your boss
> >couldn't open it, he shouldn't be able to make you open it for him
> >should he?
>
> He can if he has a federal search warant.
Uh, not the last time I checked the law. Maybe it's different in the
great white north.
> >> Question 4.
> >> Do you believe that posession of information that could be
> >> used to create a device that could harm someone should
> >> be illegal?
> >Nope. Seeing and doing are different. If I'm married and I see a
> >beautiful woman, it's fine. But if I screw her, it's adultery. I think
> >I'm rambling.
>
> But, what if you 'don't inhale'. :)
WTF?
> >> Question 5.
> >> Do you believe that posession of a homebuilt explosive
> >> device (that does not violate the federal law against
> >> manufacturing your own explosives, ie, a device that
> >> uses commercial dynamite, purchased legally, but
> >> fitted with a homebuilt initator) should be illegal?
> >Yep, but you have to define explosive. The government might twist that
> >to make your furnace or anything that ignites be classified as
> >explosive.
>
> Or anything that can hurt someone else. Like a 700watt grage door opener
> could realy hurt someone if they were holding on to the antenna.
Well, I was writing in the technical sense, because "explosive" can be
construed to mean many things.
-Gabe
Follow-Ups:
References: