Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Borked Pseudo Mailed
November 28, 2005, 4:50 pm
rate this thread
Irrelevant to this discussion. TrueCrypt has a proven history of providing
software of some acceptable standard WITHOUT being paid.
Again irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about an occasional
malfunction here. Everyone is fully aware that they occur, and that
TrueCrypt took care of this one acceptably. The debate is about one person
saying that they had absolutely no obligation to even BOTHER with any
problem, and the rest of the world telling him he's wrong.
You failed to tell us why. Can we assume that it's because Ford had no way
to know about or prevent this problem? That's fine, but the authors of
TrueCrypt obviously HAVE the ability and time to do so.
Re: Truecrypt 4.1
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.