Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 92848 2008-08-25 07:51:00 Judge gone crazy Paul Camford (10007) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
700187 2008-08-26 01:31:00 from stuff
"A point that needs making is that Judge Harvey is no mug when it comes to the internet. He has written a text book on cyber-law in New Zealand.

"On a technical level he probably knows more about the internet than any other judge in the country,"

So then he should know that what he want's is impossable..
paulw (1826)
700188 2008-08-26 02:01:00 So then he should know that what he want's is impossable..

I don't think his intention was to ever make it impossible for people to find out this information online; rather to just make it slightly more difficult. If you're determined, you can find out information about names which have been suppressed. My suspicion is that he was trying to add an extra level of "effort" people would have to go to, in order to find out information about the accused.
somebody (208)
700189 2008-08-26 05:00:00 Just a thought - could it be the Judge knows something we don't? Admittedly he hasn't posted his thoughts here yet, but surely that is just an oversight.

You show great insight R2x1. Mebe, those posting here are not as informed as the person making the decision. I look forward to his justification here on PC World chat.
theother1 (3573)
700190 2008-08-26 05:29:00 You show great insight R2x1. Mebe, those posting here are not as informed as the person making the decision. I look forward to his justification here on PC World chat.

You never know - apparently he used to regularly participate in Usenet discussion boards...
somebody (208)
700191 2008-08-26 06:05:00 Seeing as this isn't a news website, would it be illegal to publish Nathan and Daniel's names on here? roddy_boy (4115)
700192 2008-08-26 06:10:00 If you wanna ban go ahead Speedy Gonzales (78)
700193 2008-08-26 06:16:00 Ah, FairfaxBM (NZ PC World) is a publisher with web based content.

The judges ruling would cover them too and you would have to respect that by not posting identifiable details about those covered by the suppression order.

Just to make that clear, please do not post information covered by the suppression order.

Thanks. :)
Jen (38)
700194 2008-08-26 06:16:00 If you wanna ban go ahead

?

I'm not questioning if I'll get banned, as I wouldn't. Well according to the rules I wouldn't, but when has that ever stopped the mods before :rolleyes:

I'm questioning the legality... I haven't read the suppression order myself, but from what I've seen on the news, it only prohibits news sites from publishing the information.


Edit:

Ah, FairfaxBM (NZ PC World) is a publisher with web based content.

The judges ruling would cover them too and you would have to respect that by not posting identifiable details about those covered by the suppression order.

Just to make that clear, please do not post information covered by the suppression order.

Thanks. :)

Roger that.
roddy_boy (4115)
700195 2008-08-26 06:19:00 If you wanna ban go aheadA ban would be the least of the persons worries. I imagine the judge involved will have no hesitation requesting information to fully identify that person. Jen (38)
700196 2008-08-26 06:25:00 If someone wants to PM me the names I'll post em, I'll happy for the forum admins to ban me and hand over any personal info, and if asked I'll gladly give over my identity, which is no secret anyway. Metla (12)
1 2 3 4