On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 23:58, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 agree that the price paid for the service is not an issue, and a relationship exists whether (or how much) I paid. My question was specific, to the India context, *would this fall foul of Consumer Protection laws in India*? Since the OP used the word "illegal", I was asking for assistance in ascertaining what the "crime" was. So someone who servers free food, (public school or not) is liable for its quality, but not because of defect in provision of service, but under Food Safety laws. But taking your example, what if the person providing food refuses to serve meat? Half of Indians (number pulled out of air) are non-vegetarians, would his insistence of providing veg only be "clearly illegal"? What if the school has no affiliation, but the kitchen is run by the Jain Trust, would it be "illegal" for him to refuse me onions with my food? I was in Amritsar last year and the langar there had no meat! They said it was for my own good! > 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. > *But why do we assume MSN is analogous to a "public mountain road"?* Again (beating up on the Jains), the temples on Mt Abu are a publicly accessible. The temples are open to all, and enjoyed by people like me who are not affiliates of the Jain faith. Is an insistence by the temple admins that I leave my chicken biryani outside "illegal"? What if they want all biryani left outside, because it might be chicken? Is that illegal? > As the article points out, Pirate Bay's service is also used by perfectly > honest individuals to publicize and offer their legal artistic creations. > Sure. And I read Playboy for the excellent interviews. Raj, Kishore, stop smirking! All laws have collateral damage. (This is not strictly relevant, as MSN is not citing a law but ToS which you accepted when you joined). I am not saying we should ignore that, but it exists. To take a totally fictional example (!), suppose we had a law saying women in IT jobs have to go home by 8pm. (I know, I know, what a unrealistic example, but bear with me). Now we have a VP, who needs to be in office late, to take a call. She (yes, a VP can be a she) has a driver, a car, and lives next door. But the law insists, for her own safety, that she leave. Collateral damage, no? I drive safely, yet I am forced to stop at Red Lights even when there is no one coming cross-ways! (I know, this is getting silly). True example (names changed): I am a reseller for Google Apps. On the forums, I keep seeing people who cannot sign-up for GApps. William Sam Lutter and Sons has a domain, wslutter.co.uk. Google does not allow them to sign up. Guess why? I am not debating what the right action should be, I am wondering how I cite this as illegal. Wherever there is free speech, there will be people who abuse it, like the > apocryphal Mexican discovered in Jallandhar. > That is interesting. Totally OT, but could you give me a link? This sounds interesting, please. > That does not mean that free speech itself should be ended. > Vickram, I don't think the two of us (or anyone) disagrees on that. My point is that you not letting me hold meetings in the PG room I rented from you is not _necessarily_ illegal, and may not be a free speech issue. Free speech is the right to speak freely, it cannot be my right to speak freely on your premises, or on your network. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
