Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft

[Keith Bawden <isdj@example.com>]

stephen@example.com wrote:
>  > After all isn't the meta data also the property of the person who
>  > owns the data it is related to?
> 
> No.  If you have access to an American passport, look at the first
> page.  It is not the bearer's property, it is the property of the
> U.S. government.  I'm sure this is similarly true for most other
> countries and it is also true for credit cards and ATM cards issued in
> the U.S. (ie, they're property of the issuer).  You will definitely
> get busted if you try to access the bank's metainformation about your
> account.

Wouldn't that be that the actual document, bank card et cetera be the
property in question, as opposed to the actual information contained in
the passport. Name, address, the names of countries you have been too
and so on.

> Also, look up "Westlaw index".  The law in the U.S. is public domain.
> The Westlaw indexing numbers (which are required for citation in some
> cases) are proprietary.

The data is public domain but in the Westlaw Index case isn't it the
mechanism used to present and store the information that is proprietary.
Like words in a dictionary are free but the actual dictionary is not.

In Australia information that a government department holds on a person
is accessible under the freedom of information act. I have actually used
this act to retrieve copies of my military record, including work
reviews and so on. In this case the work reviews was not data that I
created but it was information pertaining directly to me and only me.

In the case of the bitkeeper metadata isn't that data unique to what was
put in their by the users?

>  > If it is then should one be allowed ready access to this?
> 
> If it were already your property, then when it comes out of the telnet
> program it would still be your property, and there is no problem.
> There are precedents for *not* having ready access to personal
> information (eg, the blind trusts that US officials put their wealth
> into, at least at the cabinet secretary level), but these are
> obviously special.
> 
>  > Especially if the mechanisms are already made available to do so
>  > via using something as simple as telnet?
> 
> Shoplifting is a simple mechanism for satisfying various needs, and
> typically things like candy bars and cans of beer are left lying loose
> on store shelves, yet it is widely considered unethical to pick them
> up and leave the store without paying for them.
> 

By providing access to certain functionality and a providing help
documentation wouldn't that imply consent to use the functionality as
provided? Sort of like how you are not trespassing when you walk onto
someone's property to knock on their door. If they withdraw the implied
consent by saying "get off my land" you would then be trespassing. As
for shoplifting their is no consent - implied or otherwise - to steal.

So maybe if the help stated something like these "whilst these functions
exists you are not allowed to use them"... At best for me at least as a
mere mortal :-) the issue is very grey.

Regards, Keith