4 ms·

Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL. That being said, I realize Dropbox(or Corporate entities in general) is not government and/or legal s

Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL. That being said, I realize Dropbox(or Corporate entities in general) is not government and/or legal system and it is not required of them to follow laws, which are applicable for governments. However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 15y ago
* However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.* Not really. We give the government the obligation of proving things because we also give the government such extensive powers -- the government can lock you up or confiscate your property, so it damn well has an obligation to prove things before it does so. We private citizens, though, don't have such extensive powers over one another, so we're absolved of having to prove anything. The worst I can legally do to someone off my own bat is to refuse to deal with them, and that's not that big a problem. We don't have to prove anything in order to "punish" one another by refusing to deal with one another. If a dude comes into my bar looking drunk and rowdy then I can refuse him service; I don't have to prove that he's going to cause trouble, I can just kick him out on spec. If a guy asks a girl out, she doesn't have to prove that she'd have a lousy time in order to reject him. And if Dropbox suspects that you're gonna use their service for piracy then they're allowed to dump you as a client if they feel like it.
true_religion 15y ago
Not every law has a universal jurisdiction and applies to every possible party. For example, the government has no right to privacy whilst we as individuals do.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
"Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL." Not only are you not a lawyer, but you are also struggling with some basic concepts regarding the implementation of laws. Laws, implemented as statutes, have no association with, or bearing on, morals which are purely a cultural phenomena. I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability, however the violated no laws by their actions.
- random42 15y ago
  > I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability. I absolutely do not disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves. What I disagree with is, trying to claim a tool or technology can be anti-law, rather than its usage. All pieces of technology, from Atom energy to Internet, can be used for both wonderfully good or evil. What I am trying to say is, Laws are (should be) applied how a technology is used, not what technology is used. That being said, I am not trying to defend or endorse dropship's reverse-engineering of Dropbox's proprietary code, and hence infringing the ToS. It certainly looks illegal. > however the violated no laws by their actions. Never disagreed.
- edw 15y ago
  Are laws purely a cultural phenomenon? Do laws have no association with morals? Your sentiments sound more like the product of an ideology and less like conclusions based on an anthropological, historical, philosophical, or any sort of open-minded inquiry into culture, societies, and human nature. Additionally, you're conflating society, which is comprised of a group of people, with culture, which is a product of a group of people that aren't necessarily members of the same society.
  - ChuckMcM 15y ago
    I wasn't conflating society and culture. American society, the group of people who are citizens of the United States of America, is a superset of the Christian culture. Christian culture defines a moral code by which they measure themselves. That culture is present in many societies and can influence (or not) the societal debate on governance (witness the current California constitutional ban on Gay Marriage as an example). That leads to people who are culturally opposed to laws enacted by the society in which they happen to live. Laws are enacted by the constituents of a nation-state as a means of defining roles, rights, and remedies. The process by which they are proposed, debated, and enacted is internally consistent but varies between governing bodies.
law 15y ago
I'll just chime in to post another point that was missed here. Arguably the most important (and controversial) principle in American jurisprudence is the freedom to enter into contracts. Dropbox has terms of service to which you manifest assent either directly (by clicking "I agree") or by your actions (that is, just by using the service). I'd venture to guess that in their terms of service is some provision that gives them the basis to remove accounts at any time, for any reason. Courts have upheld these terms of service/use agreements in many cases; just googling ProCD v. Zeidenberg will give you more information, if you're interested.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 15y ago

* However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.* Not really. We give the government the obligation of proving things because we also give the government such extensive powers -- the government can lock you up or confiscate your property, so it damn well has an obligation to prove things before it does so. We private citizens, though, don't have such extensive powers over one another, so we're absolved of having to prove anything. The worst I can legally do to someone off my own bat is to refuse to deal with them, and that's not that big a problem. We don't have to prove anything in order to "punish" one another by refusing to deal with one another. If a dude comes into my bar looking drunk and rowdy then I can refuse him service; I don't have to prove that he's going to cause trouble, I can just kick him out on spec. If a guy asks a girl out, she doesn't have to prove that she'd have a lousy time in order to reject him. And if Dropbox suspects that you're gonna use their service for piracy then they're allowed to dump you as a client if they feel like it.

true_religion 15y ago

Not every law has a universal jurisdiction and applies to every possible party. For example, the government has no right to privacy whilst we as individuals do.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

"Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL." Not only are you not a lawyer, but you are also struggling with some basic concepts regarding the implementation of laws. Laws, implemented as statutes, have no association with, or bearing on, morals which are purely a cultural phenomena. I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability, however the violated no laws by their actions.

random42 15y ago
> I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability. I absolutely do not disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves. What I disagree with is, trying to claim a tool or technology can be anti-law, rather than its usage. All pieces of technology, from Atom energy to Internet, can be used for both wonderfully good or evil. What I am trying to say is, Laws are (should be) applied how a technology is used, not what technology is used. That being said, I am not trying to defend or endorse dropship's reverse-engineering of Dropbox's proprietary code, and hence infringing the ToS. It certainly looks illegal. > however the violated no laws by their actions. Never disagreed.
edw 15y ago
Are laws purely a cultural phenomenon? Do laws have no association with morals? Your sentiments sound more like the product of an ideology and less like conclusions based on an anthropological, historical, philosophical, or any sort of open-minded inquiry into culture, societies, and human nature. Additionally, you're conflating society, which is comprised of a group of people, with culture, which is a product of a group of people that aren't necessarily members of the same society.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  I wasn't conflating society and culture. American society, the group of people who are citizens of the United States of America, is a superset of the Christian culture. Christian culture defines a moral code by which they measure themselves. That culture is present in many societies and can influence (or not) the societal debate on governance (witness the current California constitutional ban on Gay Marriage as an example). That leads to people who are culturally opposed to laws enacted by the society in which they happen to live. Laws are enacted by the constituents of a nation-state as a means of defining roles, rights, and remedies. The process by which they are proposed, debated, and enacted is internally consistent but varies between governing bodies.

law 15y ago

I'll just chime in to post another point that was missed here. Arguably the most important (and controversial) principle in American jurisprudence is the freedom to enter into contracts. Dropbox has terms of service to which you manifest assent either directly (by clicking "I agree") or by your actions (that is, just by using the service). I'd venture to guess that in their terms of service is some provision that gives them the basis to remove accounts at any time, for any reason. Courts have upheld these terms of service/use agreements in many cases; just googling ProCD v. Zeidenberg will give you more information, if you're interested.