what the heck do i do now?

Fri Feb 2 01:00:03 UTC 2007

At 11:19 PM -0500 1/31/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>As an, ahem, lawyer, I think what you do and how you do it matter a lot here.  And it would be prudent to talk to someone who understood your facts and situation before doing some of the things discussed in this thread.  (I won't be more specific for fear of sounding like I'm giving legal advice, YMMV, probably not admitted where you live, if this were advice it would trigger a bill, see generally disclaimers at http://www.law.tm/disclaimers.html .)
>
>Pulling a plug after reasonable/lots of warnings (did you miss anyone? how do you know for sure?) is on the safer end of the legal spectrum.
>
>Trying something that has the noble intention of directing cluebat to cranial density... well, that's different.  It has the ability to be spun as malicious.  Will the judge and jury get it?  Who will pay for the lawyer who will explain it to them?  What if it was a government computer that got hosed?  Will this be civil or criminal liability?
>
>Bottom line is that in the absence of a promise -- explicit or implicit (!) -- to the contrary, you can usually turn off your gear and get on with your life (but would you want to if it was a hospital that got hosed? how would you feel in the morning?).  The more your actions deviate from that, the more likely you are taking on some level of risk.  In some scenarios it's an acceptable level, but it all depends.

That would seem to apply to the original decision to stop the service in 1999, water under the bridge.  The current "users of the service" haven't gotten service since then.  Does that change the promise any?

>It is impossible to know with any confidence without knowing more details, but from the face of it, it is far from obvious to me that Mark Foster's lawyer got this wrong.
>
>(Meanwhile, this will make a great exam question some day.)
>
>
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Chris Owen wrote:
>
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Jan 31, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
>>
>>>>list... I talked to my lawyer. And while I am not a lawyer, I can tell you that my lawyer pointed out several interesting legal theories under which I could have some serious liability, and so I don't do that any more. (As an example, consider what happens *to you* if a hospital stops getting emailed results back from their outside laboratory service because their "email firewall" is checking your server, and someone dies as a result of the delay)
>>>>
>>>>So while I think you'd be justified in doing it, I think you'd find that 1) lots of people wouldn't change their configs at all, and 2) you might find that your liability insurance doesn't cover deliberate acts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Uhm.  I don't follow?
>>
>>I my experience, people who tell stories like this really just need to get a better lawyer.  I've had several lawyers contact us on things about this lame and have found that that the one sentence reply letter is often the most effective:
>>
>>Dear Sir:
>>
>>Kiss my what?
>>
>>Never hear from them again.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
>>
>>iD8DBQFFwV6ZElUlCLUT2d0RArP9AKC4JaEP5QJiB70SfrCWGkI9eTdxBwCcC+wA
>>+DFKKXKMUqluFDF1DNCBJ0o=
>>=sndk
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's warm here.<--

-- 
Ken Eddings, Hostmaster, IS&T,   eddingsk at apple.com,   eddingsk at mac.com
   Work:+1 408 974-4286, Cell: +1 408 425-3639, Fax: +1 408 974-3103
  Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, M/S 60-MS Cupertino, CA 95014
The Prudent Mariner never relies solely on any single aid to navigation.