10 ms·

That would likely be a case where a corporation would not protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

by mnutt 14y ago

That would likely be a case where a corporation would not protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

jasonkolb 14y ago
What if the business's purpose is to provide an open suburban hotspot?
- jerf 14y ago
  You're trying to convince a human judge, not a computer program.
  - larrys 14y ago
    But you're assuming it would even get to a trier of fact. That is a mistake that lawyers make many timese that I've seen. They will settle a case with another lawyer as if the other side will actually go through and file a lawsuit and even has the money to litigate. McDonalds regularly settles slip and fall lawsuits that are merit less. It is cheaper in certain cases to just pay off the tort lawyer with $10,000 then go to court. And certainly you've seen cases where the little guy gets sued and gives up because they don't have the money to fight even though they are clearly right (or let's assume they are..)
    - jerf 14y ago
      No, I'm implying the exact same mentality that shows how to hack computer programs isn't the one you use for the law. For all people mock the law, humans are involved, and the sort of transparent excuses that would easily fool a computer probably won't fool a judge for a second any more than it would fool a guy on the street. There are ways to hack the law, but it looks different.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Sounds like you're saying judges are corrupt and dont care if they have proof or not?
        rprospero 14y ago
        No, it comes down to a question of the letter of the law versus the spirit. By the letter of the law, jasonkolb's proposal would work. However, jasonkolb's propsal clearly violates the spirit under which corporate protection was originally developed. Now, if you argue that the judge should follow the letter of the law, and ignore the spirit, remember that the first amendment protects the freedom of "speech" and the "press". It doesn't say anything about websites. Of course, the spirit of the law was clearly anti-censorship and would obviously apply to written texts that haven't physically been through a printing press, but the letter of the law says no such thing. Alternately, you could stick to the letter of the law and simply redefine the word "speech" to include things obviously not spoken, like websites. Convincing judges that the spirit of the law does not match the letter, or that the dictionary definition of a word isn't the definition to be used in the case, are ways of hacking the law that have nothing to do with judicial corruption.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Sorry but no. Interpreting an IP address as identifying a user isn't a matter of interpreting the spirit of the law it's simply making a factual error. Should an IP address be sufficient to allow a search to be made? Certainly in a criminal case. It is similar to the case of catching a speeding car but not being able to identify the driver (except speeding isn't a tort). You can't assume the owner is guilty unless the law is drafted to make it so that a car owner is responsible for all authorised use of their vehicle. Talking about the spirit of the law is considering the law makers intentions and how they would have drafted the details in the current technological background. Even if you narrow down the guilty party to one of a small group you can't convict the whole group or even a random member of the group on that strength alone. That's not how European or USA law works (though there may be other crime, withholding evidence, harbouring a criminal and such that members of the party would be guilty of).
  - jasonkolb 14y ago
    It is not a matter of convincing anyone, it is a matter of interpreting the law. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but you have to consider this within the bounds of the legal system, not what you find to be tasteful or convincing. There are of course ways to address this via legislation--but that will never happen as it goes to the very core of the corporate personhood issue.
- larrys 14y ago
  I really like your thinking. This is exactly what you have to do when confronted with legal opinions and what lawyers are telling you. You have to challenge them ask questions and propose ideas. They aren't going to think for you and depending on their ethics they aren't going to put words in your mouth (and tell you how to lie and I'm not implying you are doing that). (Same with accountants as well.)
- antonej 14y ago
  That would probably violate the terms of the broadband ISP service contract. No doubt people do this all the time and get away with it, but that doesn't mean the big guys wouldn't go ahead and enforce it in situations where it really matters.

by mnutt 14y ago

That would likely be a case where a corporation would not protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

jasonkolb 14y ago

What if the business's purpose is to provide an open suburban hotspot?

jerf 14y ago
You're trying to convince a human judge, not a computer program.
- larrys 14y ago
  But you're assuming it would even get to a trier of fact. That is a mistake that lawyers make many timese that I've seen. They will settle a case with another lawyer as if the other side will actually go through and file a lawsuit and even has the money to litigate. McDonalds regularly settles slip and fall lawsuits that are merit less. It is cheaper in certain cases to just pay off the tort lawyer with $10,000 then go to court. And certainly you've seen cases where the little guy gets sued and gives up because they don't have the money to fight even though they are clearly right (or let's assume they are..)
  - jerf 14y ago
    No, I'm implying the exact same mentality that shows how to hack computer programs isn't the one you use for the law. For all people mock the law, humans are involved, and the sort of transparent excuses that would easily fool a computer probably won't fool a judge for a second any more than it would fool a guy on the street. There are ways to hack the law, but it looks different.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Sounds like you're saying judges are corrupt and dont care if they have proof or not?
      - rprospero 14y ago
        No, it comes down to a question of the letter of the law versus the spirit. By the letter of the law, jasonkolb's proposal would work. However, jasonkolb's propsal clearly violates the spirit under which corporate protection was originally developed. Now, if you argue that the judge should follow the letter of the law, and ignore the spirit, remember that the first amendment protects the freedom of "speech" and the "press". It doesn't say anything about websites. Of course, the spirit of the law was clearly anti-censorship and would obviously apply to written texts that haven't physically been through a printing press, but the letter of the law says no such thing. Alternately, you could stick to the letter of the law and simply redefine the word "speech" to include things obviously not spoken, like websites. Convincing judges that the spirit of the law does not match the letter, or that the dictionary definition of a word isn't the definition to be used in the case, are ways of hacking the law that have nothing to do with judicial corruption.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        Sorry but no. Interpreting an IP address as identifying a user isn't a matter of interpreting the spirit of the law it's simply making a factual error. Should an IP address be sufficient to allow a search to be made? Certainly in a criminal case. It is similar to the case of catching a speeding car but not being able to identify the driver (except speeding isn't a tort). You can't assume the owner is guilty unless the law is drafted to make it so that a car owner is responsible for all authorised use of their vehicle. Talking about the spirit of the law is considering the law makers intentions and how they would have drafted the details in the current technological background. Even if you narrow down the guilty party to one of a small group you can't convict the whole group or even a random member of the group on that strength alone. That's not how European or USA law works (though there may be other crime, withholding evidence, harbouring a criminal and such that members of the party would be guilty of).
- jasonkolb 14y ago
  It is not a matter of convincing anyone, it is a matter of interpreting the law. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but you have to consider this within the bounds of the legal system, not what you find to be tasteful or convincing. There are of course ways to address this via legislation--but that will never happen as it goes to the very core of the corporate personhood issue.
larrys 14y ago
I really like your thinking. This is exactly what you have to do when confronted with legal opinions and what lawyers are telling you. You have to challenge them ask questions and propose ideas. They aren't going to think for you and depending on their ethics they aren't going to put words in your mouth (and tell you how to lie and I'm not implying you are doing that). (Same with accountants as well.)
antonej 14y ago
That would probably violate the terms of the broadband ISP service contract. No doubt people do this all the time and get away with it, but that doesn't mean the big guys wouldn't go ahead and enforce it in situations where it really matters.