Comments on: Twitter User Served Writ…By Tweet! http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/01/twitter-user-served-writ-by-tweet/ The Neat Side of the Web Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:42:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Home Solar Energy http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/01/twitter-user-served-writ-by-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-1865063 Home Solar Energy Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:17:20 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/?p=26600#comment-1865063 It`s probably more scare tactics than anything else. It`s a UK court and would have little or no power over somebody outside the country. The C&D order might not be legal as the method does not approach a person, just a computer. It`s probably more scare tactics than anything else. It`s a UK court and would have little or no power over somebody outside the country.

The C&D order might not be legal as the method does not approach a person, just a computer.

]]> By: dj_nme http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/01/twitter-user-served-writ-by-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-1865009 dj_nme Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:26:45 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/?p=26600#comment-1865009 Considering that the impostor being "served" in this way seems to be up to mischief, so I would be absolutely stunned if they admitted who they were. It reminds me of the "camouflage training" skit from Monty Python's Flying Circus: please stand up so that we can get you. Considering that the impostor being “served” in this way seems to be up to mischief, so I would be absolutely stunned if they admitted who they were.
It reminds me of the “camouflage training” skit from Monty Python’s Flying Circus: please stand up so that we can get you.

]]> By: dwaynex http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/01/twitter-user-served-writ-by-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-1864967 dwaynex Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:54:45 +0000 http://www.neatorama.com/?p=26600#comment-1864967 "...identify themselves to the High Court via a web link form" So if I'm being served, what makes me believe that this is the real thing and not a phishing scam? Sounds like a fair defense to me: "I had reasonable belief that the court order was a spam/phishing scam, I would have responded otherwise. Therefore I was not duly served". “…identify themselves to the High Court via a web link form”

So if I’m being served, what makes me believe that this is the real thing and not a phishing scam? Sounds like a fair defense to me: “I had reasonable belief that the court order was a spam/phishing scam, I would have responded otherwise. Therefore I was not duly served”.

]]>