Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Security (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f38-computer-security.html)
-   -   Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t307312-re-truecrypt-4-1-a.html)

Borked Pseudo Mailed 11-28-2005 04:50 PM

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 
Jeremy wrote:

> "Winged" <Winged@nofollow.com> wrote in message news:7253$438aa3c3
>>
>> Perhaps the laws on freeware software differ somewhere. If you will
>> notice the Microsoft license (big commercial company with a lot of
>> money, nice fat target) and they too put in a disclaimer...sue away...
>> No doubt you can make a case to its insecurity, and you even paid for
>> that software....
>>
>>

> One defense that is often used is to assert that the service provider (in
> this case, the authors of TrueCrypt) could not, for the price charged, be
> expected to provide a product that is fool-proof.


Irrelevant to this discussion. TrueCrypt has a proven history of providing
software of some acceptable standard WITHOUT being paid.

>
> I once sat on a jury where a woman was suing Ford because her transmission
> slipped out of "Park" while she left the engine running and dashed into a
> bakery. She came out, found her car slowly rolling backwards toward a
> wall, she got in back of her car and tried to "push" it so as to keep it
> from hitting the wall, and she sustained injuries when she found that the
> car was more powerful than were her efforts to heroically stop it!
>
> When the judge instructed us in the law he made it clear that NO product
> was expected to be free of all problems, and that there was a clear
> distinction between gross negligence and an occasional malfunction. Also,
> the plaintiff's attorney argued that the vehicle's operating manual did
> not specifically warn against leaving the vehicle unattended with the
> engine running!


Again irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about an occasional
malfunction here. Everyone is fully aware that they occur, and that
TrueCrypt took care of this one acceptably. The debate is about one person
saying that they had absolutely no obligation to even BOTHER with any
problem, and the rest of the world telling him he's wrong.

>
> We found Ford not to be at fault. The deliberations took no more than 15
> minutes.


You failed to tell us why. Can we assume that it's because Ford had no way
to know about or prevent this problem? That's fine, but the authors of
TrueCrypt obviously HAVE the ability and time to do so.


Jeremy 11-28-2005 08:18 PM

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:3a8444155fb47c20c4e9f710598701dd@pseudo.borke d.net...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>> "Winged" <Winged@nofollow.com> wrote in message news:7253$438aa3c3
>>>
>>> Perhaps the laws on freeware software differ somewhere. If you will
>>> notice the Microsoft license (big commercial company with a lot of
>>> money, nice fat target) and they too put in a disclaimer...sue away...
>>> No doubt you can make a case to its insecurity, and you even paid for
>>> that software....
>>>
>>>

>> One defense that is often used is to assert that the service provider (in
>> this case, the authors of TrueCrypt) could not, for the price charged, be
>> expected to provide a product that is fool-proof.

>
> Irrelevant to this discussion. TrueCrypt has a proven history of providing
> software of some acceptable standard WITHOUT being paid.
>
>>
>> I once sat on a jury where a woman was suing Ford because her
>> transmission
>> slipped out of "Park" while she left the engine running and dashed into a
>> bakery. She came out, found her car slowly rolling backwards toward a
>> wall, she got in back of her car and tried to "push" it so as to keep it
>> from hitting the wall, and she sustained injuries when she found that the
>> car was more powerful than were her efforts to heroically stop it!
>>
>> When the judge instructed us in the law he made it clear that NO product
>> was expected to be free of all problems, and that there was a clear
>> distinction between gross negligence and an occasional malfunction.
>> Also,
>> the plaintiff's attorney argued that the vehicle's operating manual did
>> not specifically warn against leaving the vehicle unattended with the
>> engine running!

>
> Again irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about an occasional
> malfunction here. Everyone is fully aware that they occur, and that
> TrueCrypt took care of this one acceptably. The debate is about one person
> saying that they had absolutely no obligation to even BOTHER with any
> problem, and the rest of the world telling him he's wrong.
>
>>
>> We found Ford not to be at fault. The deliberations took no more than 15
>> minutes.

>
> You failed to tell us why. Can we assume that it's because Ford had no way
> to know about or prevent this problem? That's fine, but the authors of
> TrueCrypt obviously HAVE the ability and time to do so.
>


I DID explain the reason: the judge explained to us that the law did not
require failsafe performance of a product.

Not that this is entirely relevant to TrueCrypt, but you have argued that
they may have legal liability, despite the provisions of their EULA (which
the user MUST agree to in order to have the software install itself), and
that is just nonsense.

Besides, why are we debating legal issues on a NG devoted to privacy issues?
You think they owe you something, go see if you can find an attorney that
will take your case.




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.