BlawgDog | 博铎法豆

四年来至少发了3000封邮件

Notification by E-mail  根据Foxmail的数字统计了一下,从2002年7月到今天的1500多天中,我的这台破电脑至少发出1800封邮件,(不包括抄送,每封都是自己写的!)平均每天1.2封左右。这些邮件总共大约有300M,平均每封约170K左右。

  上述数据还不包括通过webmail发出的、内容不值得保留被删除的、其它电脑里发的。如果加上这些的话,估计邮件总数会到3000封以上。按平均每封邮件5分钟计算,发这些邮件约需要250个小时,31.25个工作日。按照五天工作日算,大约一个月半的工作时间。如此连续不断的高负荷劳动,按照每个月2000块收入计算不算多,一个半月3000块。只有人是发不了邮件的,还需要生产资料:按5000块一台电脑(其实我的是IBM笔记本),5年的使用寿命计算,一个半月折旧为120块;都不是小邮件得用宽带,包月大概要100块,一个半月150块;发邮件要办公地点,中等城市里的写字楼至少每平米30块/月,要两平米一个半月就是90块;办公还要喝点茶水还要拉屎撒尿每天总共3块共90块。因此发这些邮件的成本至少是3450块(不包括其中的知识产权)。

HK Legislation on the Cyber Crimes

1. Laws against Hacking (Unauthorized Access, Access with Criminal Intent)
There are two offences under the laws of Hong Kong aiming at "Hacking" activities:-
    • Cap.106 S.27a – Unauthorised access to computer by telecommunication
    • Cap.200 S.161- Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent
 
  • CAP 106 TELECOMMUNICATIONS orDINANCE
    • Section 27A – Unauthorized access to computer by telecommunications – 16/06/2000
Section Num:
27A
Version Date
16/06/2000
Heading
Unauthorized access to computer by telecommunications
 
(1)     Any person who, by telecommunications, knowingly causes a
computer to perform any function to obtain unauthorized access to any
program or data held in a computer commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine of $20000. (Amended 36 of 2000 s. 28)
(2)     For the purposes of subsection (1)-
(a)     the intent of the person need not be directed at-
(i)     any particular program or data;
(ii)    a program or data of a particular kind; or
(iii)   a program or data held in a particular computer;
(b)     access of any kind by a person to any program or data held in a
computer is unauthorized if he is not entitled to control access of the
kind in question to the program or data held in the computer and-
(i)     he has not been authorized to obtain access of the kind in
question to the program or data held in the computer by any person who is
so entitled;
(ii)    he does not believe that he has been so authorized; and
(iii)   he does not believe that he would have been so authorized if
he had applied for the appropriate authority.
(3)     Subsection (1) has effect without prejudice to any law relating
to powers of inspection, search or seizure.
(4)     Notwithstanding section 26 of the Magistrates ordinance (Cap
227), proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any
time within 3 years of the commission of the offence or within 6 months of
the discovery of the offence by the prosecutor, whichever period expires
first.
(Added 23 of 1993 s. 2)
 
————–
  • CAP 200 CRIMES orDINANCE
    • Section 161 – Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent – 30/06/1997
Section Num:
161
Version Date
30/06/1997
Heading
Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent
 
 
(1)     Any person who obtains access to a computer-
(a)     with intent to commit an offence;
(b)     with a dishonest intent to deceive;
(c)     with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or
(d)     with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another,
whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future
occasion, commits an offence and is liable on conviction upon indictment
to imprisonment for 5 years.
(2)     For the purposes of subsection (1) "gain" (獲益) and "loss" (損失)
are to be construed as extending not only to gain or loss in money or
other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether
temporary or permanent; and-
(a)     "gain" (獲益) includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as
a gain by getting what one has not; and
(b)     "loss" (損失) includes a loss by not getting what one might get,
as well as a loss by parting with what one has.
(Added 23 of 1993 s. 5)
 
2. Laws against Criminal Damage
    • Section 59 – Interpretation – 30/06/1997
Section Num:
59
Version Date
30/06/1997
Heading
Interpretation
 
PART VIII
 
CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
 
(1)     In this Part, "property" (財產) means
(a)     property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal,
including money and-
(i)     including wild creatures which have been tamed or are
ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their
carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into possession which
has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into
possession; but
(ii)    not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers,
fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land; or
(b)     any program, or data, held in a computer or in a computer
storage medium, whether or not the program or data is property of a
tangible nature.
In this subsection, "mushroom" (菌類植物) includes any fungus and "plant" (植物) includes any shrub or tree. (Replaced 23 of 1993 s. 3)
(1A)    In this Part, "to destroy or damage any property" (摧毀或損壞財產) in
relation to a computer includes the misuse of a computer.
In this subsection, "misuse of a computer" (誤用電腦) means-
(a) to cause a computer to function other than as it has been established to function by or on behalf of its owner, notwithstanding that the misuse may not impair the operation of the computer or a program held in the computer or the reliability of data held in the computer;
(b) to alter or erase any program or data held in a computer or in
a computer storage medium;
(c) to add any program or data to the contents of a computer or of
a computer storage medium, and any act which contributes towards causing the misuse of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) shall be regarded as causing it. (Added 23 of 1993 s. 3)
(2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as belonging to any person-
(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an
equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an
interest); or
(c)     having a charge on it.
(3)     Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be so treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.
(4)     Property of a corporation sole shall be so treated as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.
(Added 48 of 1972 s. 3)
[cf. 1971 c. 48 s. 10 U.K.]
 
————
    • Section 60 – Destroying or damaging property – 30/06/1997
Section Num:
60
Version Date
30/06/1997
Heading
Destroying or damaging property
 
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another-
(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.
(Added 48 of 1972 s. 3)
[cf. 1971 c. 48 s. 1 U.K.]

Desexualization:一种反对红灯区的思路

Desexualiztion是指在法律中不考虑性行为。对性工作者的立法来说,这种思路反对设立红灯区,而是将性工作与其它行业准用相同的法律(德国采此方法)。这种思路认为红灯区会加剧歧视,加剧警察滥权——荷兰的经验表明,设立红灯区还使黑社会更容易操控性工作者。

推而广之,对其它有关立法而言,这种思路也希望法律与性行为完全分离——不是不涉及法律,而是法律不将有关行为作不必要的特别规范。



 

图片来源:
http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20061019&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11867&art_id=6420822

制度创新中的利益平衡——与内容安全有关的几个焦点法律问题

本文不适用本站创作共用约定,作者保留所有权利,如需转载,请事先取得作者许可。
报告人:
董皓,中组部、教育部“西部之光”计划访问学者,云南大学教师。
作者:
张楚(中国政法大学教授、博士生导师,知识产权研究所所长)、董皓
 
[摘要] 本文从雇员隐私与雇主利益、国家利益与社会利益、知识产品(软件)设计者的利益与软件拥有者的利益等多个方面,探讨了与内容安全相关的法律问题。本文的核心观点是:互联网上的制度创新是一项在各国既有的法律传统基础上的,兼顾各方面利益的审慎工作。在内容安全领域,各国法律传统对新制度的影响尤为突出,这是因为,内容安全与域名等问题不同,从一开始就并非技术问题,而是社会发展中新利益的平衡问题。
 
一、内容安全的概念
1、特征
(1)直接发生在信息的“内容”层次上。
(2)以数据安全为基础
(3)超越数据安全
2、内容安全的两层含义:
“内容安全技术”:以技术的形式手段解决内容的实质问题。
“内容安全制度”:以设定权利义务的实质手段确立内容的形式标准
“内容安全制度”涉及众多法律领域:知识产权、宪法、行政法、合同法、劳动法、人格权法、刑法等等
3、“内容安全”概念的法律地位——与域名概念的一个比较
n      “内容安全”是在社会发展中产生的概念
n     传统法律的规范大不到规范网络内容安全的效果,人们因此才转而谋求技术手段来弥补
n      “域名”是一个技术词汇
n      单纯技术不能解决域名争议和域名抢注,需要法律制度
n      在民法、商标法的既有框架内寻找办法
 
二、制度创新的原则
n   遵循法律的固有体系
n   照顾各方面的利益平衡
n   迅速有效Vs.制度完善
 
三、制度创新中需要平衡的几方面利益
1、雇主利益Vs.雇员隐私
雇主方面,追求的是:
保障商业秘密
降低运营成本
雇员方面,希望的是:
提高自身能力
提高劳动价格
保障自身行为的私密性
《劳动法》及其它法律为雇主的利益提供了相对充分的保障,但雇员的相对利益则缺乏保护。例如,《劳动法》只规定了“企业违反法律、法规”时的责任,而隐私权恰恰没有法律规定。相反,《劳动法》中规定“用人单位应当依法建立和完善规章制度,保障劳动者享有劳动权利和履行劳动义务。”“严重违反劳动纪律或者用人单位规章制度的”可以解雇。这样,雇主就可以在规章制度中规定严厉的隐私检查政策,最大化地保障自己的利益。
《关于禁止侵犯商业秘密行为的若干规定》进一步强化了这种对雇主利益的保护:“权利人的职工违反合同约定或者违反权利人保守商业秘密的要求,披露、使用或者允许他人使用其所掌握的权利人的商业秘密。”就可能遭到雇主解雇、请求赔偿的法律后果。而“权利人保守商业秘密的要求”则实际上把规则的制订权力交给了雇主。
2、国家利益Vs.社会利益
国家(政府)利益
社会(个人)利益
保障政治稳定
维护国家秘密
促进精神文明
最大化获取信息
满足个人精神和物质需求
提高生活质量,降低竞争成本
现有法律:较多偏重国家利益。全国人大《关于维护互联网安全的决定》、《电子公告
3、网络软件的 设计者利益 Vs. 拥有者利益
设计者利益
拥有者利益
保护绝对的知识产权
取得最大化的衍生收益
完全控制所购买的产品
获得稳定的产品效能
法律的趋势:不保护设计者利益à绝对保护设计者利益à 平衡保护
 
四、结论
n   内容安全问题是:
“社会问题===> 法律失效===> 技术方案===> 回归法律” 的过程
n   平衡利益是回归法律的关键
n   对一些问题,现有法律不是不能解决,而是解决成本过高
n   需要制度创新
本文不适用本站创作共用约定,作者保留所有权利,如需转载,请事先取得作者许可。

翻译:《比例原则:一个更有效率的工具》

[说明]
1、本文不适用本站创作共用约定,译者保留所有权利,如需转载,请事先取得译者许可。
3、这里只发布译文第一、二部分、最后一部分及全部注释,欲阅读全文请与我联系
 
第68条  比例原则:一个更有效率的工具*
作者:克雷格 P. 丹尼斯
(加拿大Sugden, McFee & Roos律师行温哥华法律继续教育办公室)
2005年9月29日
译者:董皓
 
  
1.绪论
2. 比例原则:以多大代价获得公正?
3. 英国的经验
3.1 沃尔夫勋爵对民事诉讼规则的检讨
3.2 英国《1998年民事诉讼规则》
4.第68条是如何实现比例原则的
5.未来的道路:驶入快车道
5.1 你能否离开?欢迎来到加州旅店
5.2 多重的诉讼和多重的诉讼请求:今夜的心痛
5.3 诉讼文书——修正和文件详叙:学会坚持
5.4 专家证据:结束吧
5.5 证据开示:放轻松
5.6责任认定与赔偿数额二分的诉讼:浪费时间
5.7 诉讼费用:失去控制
6.结论
[译者注:上述第5部分各小标题的副标题均为著名的“老鹰乐队”的经典歌曲名称。]

想到香港上大学?

以下是香港各大学面向内地招收本科学校的网站:

香港大学中国事务处(内有招生细则)
http://www.hku.hk/cao/

香港中文大学内地本科生招生网站(全中文,很详细)
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/adm/mainland/main_intro.htm

香港理工大学内地本科生招生网站(全中文,很详细)
http://www.polyu.edu.hk/~aeco/public/enon.htm

“出租权”概念辨析

——根据TRIPS第十一条的规定,对于计算机程序和电影作品,WTO成员“应授权其作者或作者之合法继承人许可或禁止将其享有版权的作品原件或复制件向公众进行商业性出租”。这意味着,即使计算机程序和电影作品的载体所有权发生了移转,载体所有人也不能根据物权优于债权的原则来主张其对物的支配权,而只能听命于著作权人的指令。值得注意的是,我国现行著作权法上的出租权的规定很奇怪,表面上看似乎是在执行TRIPS的条约义务,但仔细一看却不尽然:

  “出租权,即有偿许可他人临时使用电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品、计算机软件的权利,计算机软件不是出租的主要标的的除外。”

  有人认为出租权是对作品的出租而非对作品载体的出租,这在我国著作权法的文义基础上是有道理的,但不符合TRIPS文本,因为TRIPS文本中,显然说的是许可或者禁止“原件”或“复制件”,同样的,在《欧共体出租权指令》中,同样明确将出租权定义为出租作品的载体而非出租作品。我国的

真正的“出租作品”其实等于著作权的概括许可使用合同。

论中国著作权法上的信息网络传播权

[声明:本文目前为未完成作品,不适用本站创作共用条款,发布于此仅为了征求意见。作者禁止任何形式的复制、转载,但欢迎在文后留言批评。另,由于本文可能作出大幅更改,为了您的方便,如需引用也请待定稿之后。]
 
  引言
 
  2001年10月27日修订的《中华人民共和国著作权法》(以下简称《著作权法》)增添了信息网络传播权的规定。其法条表述为:“以有线或者无线方式向公众提供作品,使公众可以在其个人选定的时间和地点获得作品的权利。”[注]五年以来,学者们对这一权利进行了较多的研究,[注 较有代表性的有,乔生:《信息网络传播权研究》;……]立法方面,《著作权法实施条例(2002)》、《互联网著作权行政保护办法》、《信息网络传播权保护条例》等行政法规和部门规章中,对这一权利的内容、救济方式、合理使用和法定许可的范围等作出了规定。
  但是,作为中国著作权制度的一项创新,“信息网络传播权”仍然有许多值得我们深入探讨的余地。
 
  ……

Halloween in HK

  Midnight, 31 Oct. 2006, Central, Hong Kong. Thousands of people paraded with millions of masks, bloody coats and exciting screams. Great, I love it.

  

Click here to see more pictures.