I think the main way I could foresee is that although the record goes away from official sources after the 3 to 5 years there's no guarantee that a note of your ticket that someone else has made within that period is destroyed at the same time. It needn't be your insurance company, it just needs to be someone that the insurer brings in to check on you.
Yeah, they just forgot to use the word "hacking" when they were writing the anti-hacking legislation.
To be fair, if I was saying that a piece of writing was very much about something the lack of the authors using the word I thought it was about would make me somewhat less confident in my analysis.
I'd imagine one that was working before the other people did stuff to it. It's the same standard used elsewhere ("he was in sound health before you pushed him down the stairs").
Do you technically or legally have to do anything else than fill up someone's inbox to deny them email service? They're not getting any mail because you've filled up their inbox.
Re:
I think the main way I could foresee is that although the record goes away from official sources after the 3 to 5 years there's no guarantee that a note of your ticket that someone else has made within that period is destroyed at the same time. It needn't be your insurance company, it just needs to be someone that the insurer brings in to check on you.
Re: Re: Please don't lie about the law.
Yeah, they just forgot to use the word "hacking" when they were writing the anti-hacking legislation.
To be fair, if I was saying that a piece of writing was very much about something the lack of the authors using the word I thought it was about would make me somewhat less confident in my analysis.
Re:
I'd imagine one that was working before the other people did stuff to it. It's the same standard used elsewhere ("he was in sound health before you pushed him down the stairs").
Re: Re: Yes, it's hacking
I think we're eventually going to have to say that the word "hacker" has been warped by common usage.
Re: Re:
This whole subthread is a fairly major case of focusing on minutiae. Is how Exchange filters spam relevant to this?
Re: Re:
Do you technically or legally have to do anything else than fill up someone's inbox to deny them email service? They're not getting any mail because you've filled up their inbox.
Re: judgement was sound
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre has nothing do with autodiallers.