Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Greg
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in No Honor amongst thieves! So the saying goes on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Sunday Age is reporting that a Wikipedian who defamed a certain sports journalist "can expect some interesting mail from the legal fraternity". This likely stemmed from some (implausible) objectionable additions to Mr Howard's Wikipedia entry involving sex-changes, leprosy and penile attachment surgery.
Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.
Goes to show that these guys are serious about protecting their reputation against online smear campaigns and the like.
1 year ago
in No Honor amongst thieves! So the saying goes on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
Good points. It would be hard to maintain you thought this was a lawful exchange.
I'm not sure what the law is around "finding" confidential documents, or if there's any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can't be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?
Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.
I'm not sure what the law is around "finding" confidential documents, or if there's any way a doctor or patient could have legally sold them to her. So, if they can't be found or sold then that only leaves one possibility, right?
Maybe Seven did a calculation and thought that getting the AFL off their back over the Akermanis/Braun affair was worth the risk.
1 year ago
in No Honor amongst thieves! So the saying goes on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
mens rea ("guilty mind") offence, which means that the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the mind of the accused at the time, he/she knew they were stolen. It's not enough to show that they actually were stolen.
I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed "Catherine" when she said "Oh, I found these in the gutter". Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that's less plausible than if she'd said it fell off the back of a truck.
However, I'm not sure about what "know" means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really "know" about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?
There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.
I expect Channel 7 (and its journos) would claim they believed "Catherine" when she said "Oh, I found these in the gutter". Medical records in the gutter? To my mind, that's less plausible than if she'd said it fell off the back of a truck.
However, I'm not sure about what "know" means here: reasonable suspicion, balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt? How much do you really "know" about the stuff you buy on eBay or the Trading Post?
There are no doubt other defences, such as if Channel 7 intended to hand them over to police.
1 year ago
in No Honor amongst thieves! So the saying goes on Molly's Monday Machination - An AFL Podcast
"cyberstalking" laws here in Victoria.
Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person's personal information online is up to ten years in jail?
I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I'm not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.
So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.
(The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens' personal security rather than a big corporate's brand value protection.)
Something to think about, anyway.
-Greg.
Did you know that the criminal provisions for providing a person's personal information online is up to ten years in jail?
I imagine that would cover personal mobile numbers, email addresses and other contact details. I'm not sure, but if the intent is to menace, harass or intimidate (or encourage others to do so) then it could look very bad for the suspect.
So, it seems the AFL is not alone in getting the courts to its dirty work of silencing members of the public.
(The difference here, of course, is about doing it in the name of citizens' personal security rather than a big corporate's brand value protection.)
Something to think about, anyway.
-Greg.
