| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 69176 | 2006-05-24 10:39:00 | War Driving story on the news tonight | Greven (91) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 457400 | 2006-05-25 22:26:00 | Without going into lawyer-speak.. to me; if you use something that is someone elses (without their knowledge or approval) you are stealing from them. It would be like the next door neighbour coming over and borrowing your chainsaw 'coz I saw it there and you didnt have the garage door closed'. To take someones bandwidth (esp with NZs capped limits) is theft from them. IMHO |
Myth (110) | ||
| 457401 | 2006-05-25 23:19:00 | not exactly, prosecutions often hinge on the definition of a word. in this case, you would have to prove that a router is a computer system, which i dont feel it is.it is a telecomunications device rather.Why? The router is already a part of a computer system, regardless of what you classify the router itself as. The router is part of the system that allows computers to connect to the internet. Hence 'computer system'. A system doesn't have to be a single machine. Actually if you think about it (and the prosecution lawyer probably would), a system doesn't even have to be a physical thing at all, it could be just a method for doing things. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 457402 | 2006-05-26 00:39:00 | I walked through a supermarket the other day. There were appetising looking fruits, sweets, cakes and iced buns, all in open baskets and bins. These have been presented in psychologically designed ways to tempt people to pick them up. I have an idea that if I picked up any of these items, and ate them, rather than taking them to a checvkout, I would be guilty of shoplifting. Not if you took the empty packet with its barcode through checkout... |
pctek (84) | ||
| 457403 | 2006-05-26 00:46:00 | Not if you took the empty packet with its barcode through checkout... Still a problem with the fruit bins though....hard to pay for an apple if you've already eaten it. :horrified |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 457404 | 2006-05-26 01:49:00 | Still waiting for someone to define "computer". Is it the little box that controls my car, or the card that runs my washing machine or the thing a friend has in his ear to help him hear. Seems anything that has a transistor in it is called a computer. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 457405 | 2006-05-26 05:33:00 | It's getting to the point that computer chips are cheaper than transistors, Jack . (I remember when it got to the point that manufacturers would put in a transistor instead of a resistor . That was in the days when you could see a resistor . ) Many cars are very complex computer systems . I think one (BMW?) has over 250 computers) . That's because it's much cheaper to put in a stack of simple chips on a CAN bus and a single power bus than car-weight wires and switches for everything which uses power . Car thieves beware . . . they'll join Tux in his legal class in the cellblock . . . The Select Committee has made detailed recommendations for amendments to the Bill in relation to offences against rights of property . The main recommendations are as follows: the definition of "computer system" to be extended to cover links between computers and other devices (New Clause 19, New Section 249) ; the inclusion of drafting amendments to the offence of damaging or interfering with a computer system (New Clause 19, New Section 251) ; the amendment of the penalties for the computer damage and intentional damage offence by a penalty of up to ten years' imprisonment where the person doing the damage knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result and up to seven years' imprisonment for all other property or computer damage (New Clause 19, New Sections 251 and 270) . . . . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||