Re: Actions in law

[Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <bugtraq () planetcobalt net>]

On 2006-04-07 Craig Wright wrote:
> Spend some time and actually read something.

Funny thing to say for someone barely capable of reading (much less
responding to) what I have written.

> You have stated, "I'd like to see a person charged for "trespassing"
> e.g. a shop during business hours."
>
> I have pointed this out again and again. See the case.
>
> Harrison v. Carswell (Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200)
>
> See previous posts for a summary of this. The claimant was the owner.
> The respondent was expelled and charged. The rights of the mall owners
> where considered by the court to supersede the rights of the
> respondent.

In this case an implicit permission (entering the mall) was EXPLICITLY
REVOKED. It is undisputed that the owner has the right to grant or deny
access to his property.

I repeat: I'd like to see a person (regular customer, walking through a
shop, not expelled by the owner) charged for "trespassing" said shop
during business hours.

[...]
> What is so difficult that makes you fail to understand "Not
> authorised". This means that you have expressly been authorised or you
> are NOT authorised. I always though it a simple concept. I am sorry
> that I fail to see your troubles with understanding this.

That's because you fail to understand that there are things like
implicit authorization. Contrary to your belief authorization does NOT
always have to be given expressly (e.g. you are implicitly authorized to
enter a shop during its business hours, the owner of the shop doesn't
need to expressly invite you). I have been trying to explain this to you
during the whole past week, but I'm finally getting tired of it.

> Illegal, or unlawful, describes that which is either prohibited or not
> authorised by law.
>
> You have this idea that if it is not codified than you can do it. This
> is wrong. 

Prove it. The above case sure isn't proof, because there IS a law
stating that the owner has the right to grant or deny anyone access to
his properties (in german law this is § 903 BGB), so the expellation is
based on a law. Freedom of speech is codified in a law as well. The
judge had to evaluate which of these laws had the greater importance in
that case. It is by no means an example of how something would be
illegal without a law.

> I have sent the Maxim of property to you.

I am very well aware of that. However, you don't seem to understand that
a) it *has* limitations and b) we were talking about a case where the
owner had IMPLICITLY GRANTED ACCESS. Even though he did that he is STILL
owner of his property, and he can STILL revoke that implicitly granted
privilege.

> You keep forgetting that ALL judges are lawyers.

No. You just keep assuming that you're smarter and more educated than
anyone else. But you aren't.

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
-- 
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EARN A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION ASSURANCE - ONLINE
The Norwich University program offers unparalleled Infosec management 
education and the case study affords you unmatched consulting experience. 
Tailor your education to your own professional goals with degree 
customizations including Emergency Management, Business Continuity Planning, 
Computer Emergency Response Teams, and Digital Investigations. 

http://www.msia.norwich.edu/secfocus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------