On 09/18/2015 10:27 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 9/18/2015 10:10 AM, Chris Markiewicz wrote: >> This is such a bizarre interpretation of "Third-party". A password >> should be considered a secret between two parties: client and server. >> But again, conceded that this is a problem. > > It's not a bizarre interpretation. It's case law. If you store your mail > (for example) on my server then you have voluntarily given your > information to me. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy > regarding that information. A password is no different. > > If you think my privacy policy protects you then think again. It only > stipulates that I won't give (or sell) your information to /other/ third > parties. It offers you no protection within my organization.
I think you misinterpreted. I didn't say that you and your organization don't have access to information I voluntarily provide you, but that considering the person or machine I directly give information to as a "third party" and therefore public enough for government search and seizure without a warrant is bizarre. I recognize that it's case law, hence why I conceded the problem. That is in no way an argument against bizarreness. I'm not sure why people think asserting facts not in dispute is ever a relevant response to aesthetic judgments. Chris _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
