Re: Security/Privacy Awareness click through

[Harry Hoffman <hhoffman () IP-SOLUTIONS NET>]

Right, I think (or thought) that's the point I was trying to make.

Those click-throughs are in place as a policy reminder/enforcement vehicle.

Internal, private organization policies are very different then legal,
binding contracts.

Cheers,
Harry

On 03/11/2013 11:32 PM, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:26:27 -0400, Harry Hoffman said:
> > The obvious, IANAL statement first.
> >
> > Can you really hold your users "legally" liable for activity under their
> > name/identity?
>
> Actually, those login disclaimers don't do what you think they do. :)
>
> In general, you're not going to enforce the full extent of the law on
> "innocent miscreants" - you're going to give them a warning and remind
> them what the AUP says and tell them you don't want to see them in your
> office ever again.  Because everybody *knows* that nobody ever reads the
> "You agree to the EULA/APU to continue", they just click through to get their
> goal accomplished.  So unless you add a "enter the animal name from line 4
> and the arithmetic sum from line 6" question, they won't read it.
>
> (The only case law I'm familiar with in that area is all stuff you
> really *don't* want to attach yourself to - it may win a legal battle
> but you'll lose the PR war.  See the Aaron Swartz and Lori Drew debacles
> for examples why).
>
> If they're bound and determined to do something egregious and nefarious,
> they're going to do it anyhow.  And if they're one of your users, they'll
> claim they didn't actually read what it said.
>
> What it *does* do is protect you from the indignant tenured professor who is
> *very* upset that you were snooping through his activity without permission
> while you were trying to find somebody *else*.