consumer protection: October 2007 Archives
The judgment of the Federal Court in Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 6) [2007] FCA 1608 is good for a few laughs, but the website of the purported 'Principality of Camside' is even better. It's right up there with the last batch of quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo and insanity that I blogged about.
Their declarations of war are particularly good... Oh, and they claim that by virtue of the fact that the Commonwealth failed to send in the army when they declared war back in March 2003, they won by default and now own Australia (with the exception of the Hutt River Province, of course):
Their declarations of war are particularly good... Oh, and they claim that by virtue of the fact that the Commonwealth failed to send in the army when they declared war back in March 2003, they won by default and now own Australia (with the exception of the Hutt River Province, of course):
The law relating to the Declaration of War, state, that if the country on which war has been declared (Australia), fails to turn up to battle, the country that declared war (Principality of Camside), is declared the winner. For this legal reason, the "spoils of war," namely the Australian National Estate, Crown Land, roads and freeways, are now the property and responsibility of the Principality of Camside.Nuttier than a case full of squirrels.
These property spoils of war, however, exclude the sovereign lands already declared as the sovereign independent lands of Hutt River Province.
The Principality of Camside is now be legally referred to as Her Majesty's Government of Camside, as another of the consequences of the Principality of Camside having won by default, the war that they declared on the now defunct, abdicated and defeated Commonwealth of Australia.
Regular readers will remember some earlier dramas when accounting software vendor 2Clix Australia Pty Ltd sued whirlpool.net.au owner Simon Wright for injurious falsehood, and then shortly thereafter announced they would abandon the lawsuit.
Several news websites (including ITwire and idm.net.au) are now reporting that 2Clix has or is about to go into voluntary administration, although the ASIC website doesn't yet reflect this.
You didn't have to be Nostradogbert to see this one coming -- 2Clix's reputation would have been utterly shot as a result of the lawsuit. At the time, I said:
Several news websites (including ITwire and idm.net.au) are now reporting that 2Clix has or is about to go into voluntary administration, although the ASIC website doesn't yet reflect this.
You didn't have to be Nostradogbert to see this one coming -- 2Clix's reputation would have been utterly shot as a result of the lawsuit. At the time, I said:
"Lawsuits are a short-sighted and self-destructive way of dealing with criticism," said EFA Chairperson Dale Clapperton. "As McDonalds and many other companies have learned, suing your critics will cause much more damage and bad publicity than the criticism itself ever would."Here we have the result. An own goal indeed.
For an article I'm currently writing, I need some information on iPhones, especially what functionality they have or don't have if they're not 'activated'. If any readers have one and can help me out, please email me.
After a seminar today run by Peter Black on the use of 'Web 2.0' in teaching, Peter and Jessica Coates tried to convince me that Facebook is not, in fact, crap, and is substantially better than Myspace; which is presumably, impliedly, crap. Unless you're a ditzy teenager whose life ambition is to be on Paris Hilton's friends list and thereby gain some kind of incredibly lame validation. But I digress...
Earlier in the seminar, I'd voiced my objection to the possibility that students might be compelled to become members of some of these 'Web 2.0' services to do mandatory assessment items in some subjects. This would, of course, require those students to enter into a contractual relationship with those service providers, with associated legal liability and privacy risks. It might also constitute third line forcing, which is per-se illegal in Australia, but that's a different issue.
The concerns I raised were largely dismissed as paranoia. So, I got to thinking, exactly what is in the applicable contracts for a service like Facebook? In this posting, I dissect the Facebook 'Terms of Use'... You know, that massively long (over 6000 words), complicated, contractual document that nobody ever reads when they sign up.
Earlier in the seminar, I'd voiced my objection to the possibility that students might be compelled to become members of some of these 'Web 2.0' services to do mandatory assessment items in some subjects. This would, of course, require those students to enter into a contractual relationship with those service providers, with associated legal liability and privacy risks. It might also constitute third line forcing, which is per-se illegal in Australia, but that's a different issue.
The concerns I raised were largely dismissed as paranoia. So, I got to thinking, exactly what is in the applicable contracts for a service like Facebook? In this posting, I dissect the Facebook 'Terms of Use'... You know, that massively long (over 6000 words), complicated, contractual document that nobody ever reads when they sign up.
Continue reading Dissecting the Facebook 'Terms of Use'.
