- Re: Truecrypt 4.1
- Posted by Jeremy on November 28th, 2005
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:3a8444155fb47c20c4e9f710598701dd@pseudo.borke d.net...
I DID explain the reason: the judge explained to us that the law did not
require failsafe performance of a product.
Not that this is entirely relevant to TrueCrypt, but you have argued that
they may have legal liability, despite the provisions of their EULA (which
the user MUST agree to in order to have the software install itself), and
that is just nonsense.
Besides, why are we debating legal issues on a NG devoted to privacy issues?
You think they owe you something, go see if you can find an attorney that
will take your case.
Similar Posts
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (Computer Security) by Borked Pseudo Mailed
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (Computer Security) by nemo_outis
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (Computer Security) by nemo_outis
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (Computer Security) by Borked Pseudo Mailed
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1 (Computer Security) by Nomen Nescio

