From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 7 01:08:15 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF9916A4D4 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 01:08:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55AF43DA6 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 01:08:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D9F041C000A5 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 03:08:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B91351C000A4 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 03:08:14 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050507010814758.B91351C000A4@mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 03:08:14 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1047713602.20050507030814@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20050507010013.GF3564@Alex.lan> References: <20050506103934.10FA34BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <20050506105433.GA84877@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> <2410174336.20050506130648@wanadoo.fr> <73834c0c2b28ff7e6a7cb7542d1e453e@chrononomicon.com> <1345420086.20050506204229@wanadoo.fr> <20050507010013.GF3564@Alex.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 01:08:16 -0000 Alex de Kruijff writes: > In my country forcing you way in to a computer system is a criminal act. > It can be compared to breaking in to a house. It is in most countries. However, persons prosecuted for such crimes have mounted successful defenses based on the fact that they were never explicitly told that the systems they penetrated were legally accessible only to authorized users. Thus, careful sysadmins today explicitly display a message at login telling the user that only authorized users are permitted to access the system. Many operating systems even make special provisions for this. > Here there are even rules about recording on the street. The (security) > camera's can't be pointed to a house in sucha way that it would single > out anyone inside. Also anyone recorded on the street have rigth that > they can use to prevent them being on TV. It not used very much, but it > exist. Those are image rights, as opposed to photography rights. In many jurisdictions, there are no restrictions on photography in public, but you may still need property or model releases before actually using the images taken in public for certain purposes. -- Anthony