Unless the spammers know that he knows that he only gave the address to one company, so they only used one of the many addresses they harvested to spam him, casting suspicion on that company so he wont think to check his own PC, allowing them to collect a nice list of other email addresses from people he is affiliated with. That way, they get 100 addresses from 100 people, instead of 100 addresses from one guy with his own domain.
I think, but am not certain, that you are being sarcastic. But just in case, spammers do not go to that kind of effort. They do not have time to go to that kind of effort.
An please note that there are other ways of compromising email addresses; e.g. using them in plaintext on a compromised access point or a mail server between you and the company but outside their control. If you want to proove this you have to be absolutely sure about the security of the address and check that every connection is (at least) encrypted.
This is not correct. Spammers and scammers always take the easy approach. It is simply too hard for them to compromise addresses at these intermediate points for it to be worth the effort to these people. It is much, much easier for them to compromise the holder of a large list of addresses, either directly, or via social engineering. To say there is another way that it could have happened is not to disprove the most likely case. A person who fell backwards into a volcano could have just lost their balance, but the person with the smoking gun standing 10 feet away is still going to prison. I have seen one case in Australia where one federal agency (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission - which is fairly universally known within the legal profession as the single most incompetent government agency by far in the country) compromised its entire database. A spammer was spamming for his fraudulent "university" and "charity", which was subsequently shut down by, it seems, Victorian education authorities. The spammer got hold of one of ASIC's databases of contact details, including email addresses. There were several complaints from users who did what the submitter did - had unique addresses for each organisation they deal with - and all received the spams at only the ASIC address and at none of their other (sometimes hundreds of) addresses. ASIC continue to deny that to this day and run the same bogus excuse you are attempting here. Some of the addresses were even obscure. ASIC actually likes to think it's qualified to advise on security too - it's a joke.
Teaching children religion at all is child abuse. Why, I hear you ask. There are many religions, and with the exception of omnitheistic religions, they all believe all the others are wrong. At the absolute best, only one can be right. But statistically speaking, a person taught a particular religion as a child is much more likely to adhere to that religion throughout life, to the exclusion of any other. That means the choice was made for them by their parents, rather than by rational and reasoned thought. And in most if not all cases that choice is wrong. That makes the teaching of religion to a child a form of indoctrination or brainwashing, done before the person has a chance to rationally form their own view, with the result that they may never be able to do so. No person ever has the right to do that to another, not even a parent. Especially not a parent. They are in a position of trust and responsibility, and grossly misuse that when they teach their children a particular religion.
What happens when they have IP data or licensed data that is being hosted by a cloud provider, or company to company lawsuit. Court case starts
IP in the cloud is worse to deal with than you can possibly imagine. For starters, when somebody grants you a license to use IP, as often as not (and especially in the case of IP licensed to big companies) the licence is restricted to a particular country. This is in part because your IP is a different thing in each country, governed by different rules. If you go storing licensed IP in the cloud, you don't know where it is going to end up - you have a very good chance of breaching your licence. If you think "that's OK, I'm not storing somebody's licensed IP", think again - unless you are wrote it (or are simply using somebody else's IP without a licence, in which case you have the problem anyway), then you are.
Then you have the problem that you likely haven't got the first inkling as to how intellectual property works in the, most likely third world country (if not now, then eventually), where the data is going to be stored.
If you're dealing with confidential information, can you be sure some minimum wage flunky you have never even met is not going to be prepared to sell it for enough money to keep them and their family in comfort for years to come? Can you be sure the law in the country where it happened even cares? The criminal element that wants to sell your private data isn't so much sitting behind a keyboard in their mother's basement writing viruses or using skripts to break into your systems - they're getting jobs at places like Google in their data centres, possibly with a fake resume with their buddies giving fake references.
Then you have the "cloud provider goes out of business or discontinues the service" issues (which are worse if the data is in a proprietary format).
The biggest problems with the cloud are not technical issues (although there are technical issues any time you keep your data "there" rather than "here"). The big problems are the law and people issues. From that perspective, the cloud is a huge risk. If you are capable of safely storing your data and maintaining your systems without the cloud, then you should do so. Leave the cloud for people who cannot look after themselves.
We know the snake could talk - but there's no requirement for morals, at least not like humans.
For years we have assumed the forbidden fruit was apples. Now we find it it was magic mushrooms.
Lying by omission is NOT lying... If someone intentionally leaves out parts that may alter your impressions and choices regarding it with intent to do so, that's part of persuasion, but it's still not lying.
(I am not a lawyer)
try doing that in a trial; both the judge and the other side's lawyers will/should take issue with it. The judge would represent some standard of neutrality/fairness, the other lawyers would represent an opposite bias. Both are ways to deal with bias.
I am a lawyer. Where most people talk about lying, we lawyers tend to use the terms "fraud" and "deception". Intentionally leaving something out to give a false impression is just as much fraud and deception as saying something that is flat-out false. Lawyers that are party to such conduct can lose their right to practice law.
The only exception to that is giving an answer to a direct question that does not seek the additional information - if the question has a "yes" or "no" answer, you can give that answer without further clarification. Of course you cannot normally ask such direct ("leading") questions of your own witness.
Sorry, if you intentionally leave out material information, it is deliberate deception and thus morally equivalent to lying.
Good to see another lawyer here. Of course we normally use the term "fraud".
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.