Re: Double Encryption!!!
- From: George Orwell <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:14:58 +0200 (CEST)
"Skywise" <into@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:9Qfdk.1610$Zm1.1303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Orwell <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
Another terribly foolish statement. One is ALWAYS subject to
the laws of the land in which they are at the moment. If you
do something that is illegal in the country you commited the
act in, it matters not if the servers are elsewhere.
Actually, what I what was referring to is not the USERS,
but the OWNERS of the sites. If someone in China uses their
proxies, the OWNERS of the anonymity service are NOT SUBJECT
to prosecution in China, if a suscriber, while in China uses their
service to bypass governmetn censorship.
Just like if someone uses that proxy to surf prohibited sites
from work, the OWNERS of the servers, which are hosted at
a server farm in Holland, are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution
in the United States, if an American worker just happens
to use their site to bypass company firewalls. While the
USER can be held liable, under U.S. laws, the OWNER of the
site is NOT SUBJECT to ANY legal action in America, becuase
the servers are in HOLLAND, hence the OWNERS of this
anonymity service are ONLY subject to the laws of
HOLLAND.
That is what I was trying to say, that the OWNERS
of this anonymity service are NOT SUBJECT to
prosection ANYHWRES outside of Holland.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
.
- Prev by Date: Re: blocking incoming udp packets
- Next by Date: Suggestions for a outbound firewall?
- Previous by thread: Re: Double Encryption!!!
- Next by thread: Suggestions for a outbound firewall?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
