Vakil, I think this is precisely the point that we can debate, clarify and have it enforced by Government. If your argument stands, it would mean that no government information can be declared as "protected", when it is on a proprietary platform. So inside the legal dragnet, the official who gave "consent" would also fall. (Judges are also getting sensible these days, the corrupt are increasingly being shown the door.) We do have a very strong case for litigation here, if some lawyers that I consulted are to be believed. And I think, if the Government doesn't budge with regard to its earlier stand on computerising local bodies and revenue departments, our move should be made, pretty quickly - we don't have that many jails around. Perhaps Joseph can argue with TECOM for an attached jail within Smart City premises - as a lesson for those who go astray. CK Raju Thrissur
other material without the consent of the person concerned
discloses such material
See?? `` ... WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ...''
By accepting the EULA, you consent to their accessing your information.
And that is why proprietary software vendors want licenses to be bilateral `contracts', while true Free licenses insist on their being unlateral grants of permissions by the copyright holders.