33 replies to this topic

[enderwigginau]

The commas are not placed correctly, nor are they used consistently as I demonstrated above. You don't need to do a course to learn that, just remember what they taught you in grade 5 grammar.

The commas are placed correctly and only provide ONE interpretation. Note the verbs highlighted below - this is what substitutes when you remove the comma delineated section. Grammatically, the only thing I would change would be to swap the position of "interferes with" and "copies" but the former is the most important so it has been placed first.

(1) A person who:
a) dishonestly interferes with, or copies, a unique identifier,

[wot179]

[enderwigginau]

[Tyre biter]

The commas are not placed correctly, nor are they used consistently as I demonstrated above. You don't need to do a course to learn that, just remember what they taught you in grade 5 grammar.

The commas are placed correctly and only provide ONE interpretation. Note the verbs highlighted below - this is what substitutes when you remove the comma delineated section. Grammatically, the only thing I would change would be to swap the position of "interferes with" and "copies" but the former is the most important so it has been placed first.

(1) A person who:
a) dishonestly interferes with, or copies, a unique identifier,

I'm not sure - only because of the second comma.
If it were to be taken as an offence to either;
a. dishonestly interfere with a unique identifier, or
b. merely to copy an identifier
Then why the second comma? It ought to read: "dishonestly interferes with, or copies a unique identifier" if the intent of the law maker is to make in an offence to dishonestly interfere with or to copy an identifier.

And I think this the meaning of the section. I submit the second comma reflects the lawmaker's intent to make it an offence to either dishonestly interfere with an identifier, or to dishonestly copy an identifier - hence the preface of it all with the term dishonestly. Thoughts from others - do I have the wrong end of the stick or am I somewhere near the mark???

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 05 June 2011 - 09:06 PM.

[Toranamat69]

"dishonestly interferes with, or copies a unique identifier"

That is how that sentance should have been to be gramatically correct - that second comma is just plain wrong and doesn't add anything - but still does not remove the ambiguity in the statement if you ignore it. I never said this statement was clear.

The remaining uses of the commas in the clause are not ambiguous but are used in the opposite way to how Enders is trying to tell us this one should be interpretted - that is the point I am making, and I would actually bet my money that it is meant to mean you can copy them just not dishonestly.

Irrespective, if you had nothing better to do than take it to a court to determine the intent, they would no doubt agree it is ambiguous, how they would actually rule - probaly depends how much you paid your lawyer.

I doubt anyone would bother as most in court for doing this would be for doing it dishonestly anyhow so there would be no contest. If you were doing it honestly, you would probabyl ring up and ask, then you can report back and let us all sleep at night :-)

If that guy here in QLD is still doing the new tags, I doubt it is illegal or he would have been shut down by now and would probably be in the monkey house.

[S pack]

"dishonestly interferes with, or copies a unique identifier"

That is how that sentance should have been to be gramatically correct - that second comma is just plain wrong and doesn't add anything - but still does not remove the ambiguity in the statement if you ignore it. I never said this statement was clear.

The remaining uses of the commas in the clause are not ambiguous but are used in the opposite way to how Enders is trying to tell us this one should be interpretted - that is the point I am making, and I would actually bet my money that it is meant to mean you can copy them just not dishonestly.

To remove all ambiguity it should have been written: "dishonestly interferes with, or dishonestly copies".

Maybe the purpose of the NSW legislation is that a Unique Identifier is just that 'Unique'. So there can only ever be one made for each individual vehicle.

If that guy here in QLD is still doing the new tags, I doubt it is illegal or he would have been shut down by now and would probably be in the monkey house.

It would seem, from what I found and posted about the Qld Transport act 1995, it isn't illegal in Qld to remove, copy or change a Unique Identifier so long as you seek and obtain written permission from the Commissioner.

Cheers
Dave.

Edited by S pack, 06 June 2011 - 12:54 AM.

[enderwigginau]

If that guy here in QLD is still doing the new tags, I doubt it is illegal or he would have been shut down by now and would probably be in the monkey house.

It would seem, from what I found and posted about the Qld Transport act 1995, it isn't illegal in Qld to remove, copy or change a Unique Identifier so long as you seek and obtain written permission from the Commissioner.

Cheers
Dave.

That guy is currently in court as i am aware. Also the people who were doing them for him. If that's not the case, I'm sure someone will pop up and threaten to sue me.
The authorities generally have the ability to approve anything even that which appears to be specifically mentioned.
Hence why QLD legislation mentions express permission from the commissioner. Trust me when I say that should you request permission in QLD, you better have a bloody good reason for it to be approved.

Grant..