On Mar 29, 2012 2:40 PM, "Sanjeev Gupta" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:42, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Still (for those who may have missed the point) an office network is not a service to the public at large. And there lies the difference. It might be a case for the consumer courts, though, and it would be interesting to see one take it up. >> > > Vickram, > > I am not in India, but would there be a "consumer" relationship for this "service"? Especially as the Terms of Service allow MS to do this? > > For example, I send email via GMail, and Gmail delivers it to you (also in Gmail) with a "This might be a phishing scam". Would that be something I could go to a Consumer Court over? Could you? >
I think we are losing sight of what constitutes a service, and the relationship between supplier and consumer. It is entirely true that the service is free, but its users are still consumers. Do you think that someone who serves free food at a public school is not liable for the quality? I am frankly puzzled by the analogy (while I am not an apologist for Google): somebody advising me about possible danger is a different kettle of fish from somebody who blocks everyone from using a public mountain road because rocks sometimes fall. As the article points out, Pirate Bay's service is also used by perfectly honest individuals to publicize and offer their legal artistic creations. Wherever there is free speech, there will be people who abuse it, like the apocryphal Mexican discovered in Jallandhar. That does not mean that free speech itself should be ended. > > -- > Sanjeev Gupta > +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane > > > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
