Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dot Com’s defence could be screwed if this is retroactive
It wouldn't be retroactive, because when the Supreme Court decides on law, that's the way the law has always been since it was enacted.
This might not be too bad for Kim Dotcom, if he could be prosecuted in NZ, plead guilty and get home detention (as is the norm for far greater white collar crimes), then he'd have been tried on the facts (of running Mega) and would be protected from further criminal prosecution by double jeopardy.
This happened in the case of a young hacker some years ago, I think - the US wanted his ass, but he'd already had a slapped wrist from the District Court and was thus untouchable.
-
Polity: Political strategy and Canada’s NDP, in reply to Steve Barnes,
and a distant cousin of Garry Trudeau, the Doonesbury cartoonist.
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to linger,
Using a car without an owners permission was specifically made a crime when cars became widespread. Using anything other than a vehicle without an owners permission is conversion, and not a crime.
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Ah, I see. But if, as Paul alludes, you apply the concept of "property" to something that's reproducable, then the logic breaks down a bit.
If one borrows a lawnmower and give it back, that's conversion and not a crime? Borrowing a document, reading it and giving it back? Borrowing a memory stick, copying it and giving it back?
-
In terms of receiving (by Nicker Hager) there is no offence if:
any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence has been returned to the owner http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330408.htmlWould this be met by someone remaining in possession of their own emails?
Or does exclusive control constitute a property right which is infringed if somebody obtains a copy of some information?
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
a charge of receiving couldn’t apply because of the Dixon case, as computer files aren’t property
Would this just apply to Nicky Hagar, or to everyone who's bought, read or been told of the contents of Dirty Politics.
-
Interestingly, the Supreme Court just reinstated the High Court's decision that data on a computer system is 'property': https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/front-page/cases/jonathan-dixon-v-r-1
-
Polity: Forty, in reply to Amy Gale,
But a course will also require that “infrastructure’, and if you don’t have that background, you might pass the course, and you might get a good idea what programmers do, but you won’t be a productive programmer, or ever get out of being a “junior”. (The industry is full of such people).
One can of course learn numeracy and comprehension of systems (I'm not sure if one can learn a habit of accuracy, if, as an adult, one's never thought it as of value before). Programming might be a way of improving ones general skills in this area, but maybe not at the level of imminent professional entry.
-
gaining consents is Job Number One if you’re trying to stage an outdoor music festival
A top tip is that not all councils require consents, depending on how many days you want to go on for.
Taupo didn't, at least until a few years ago, and were very helpful to Kiwiburn when it started. You needed 15 Charles Bronson clones with their pet Doberweilers to keep the gang kids out, though. Actually, a Siberian Tiger might have been better.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Alfie,
I would settle for no less than a pterodactyl.