gatt wrote:
> Spread Eagle® wrote:
>
>>> What's important in this matter is the ones that were supposedly
>>> "private" that really should have been Public.
>>> That's a no-no!
>> Nah. She had a yahoo account to share pics with family and friends,
>> decidedly NOT public business.
> If she was using it for public business, that's clearly a problem. Yahoo
> accounts are startlingly easy to hack.
> Nevertheless, the -data- from the sites that is appearing around the
> internet is not credible.
> By the way, if I was the McCain/Palin campaign I'd get some lawyers to
> start working on the possibility of major litigation against the
> websites that display the material because it's stolen intellectual
> property.
What would they get from that? An order to take the information down?
The horse is already out of that barn.
And it's not as if the "intellectual property" is worth anything. An
award of nominal damages in the sum of one dollar is 'bout the most
they'd collect - if that.
And these things have appeared on, what, hundreds of websites by now.
> They wouldn't dare post screenshots of, say, stolen Microsoft
> sourcecode, even though it exists. MS would annihilate those companies.
Perhaps, but the sourcecode has value far beyond nominal damages.
And, of course, the copyright for intellectual property created in the
course of employment belongs to the employer, not the employee.
To the extent Sarah was using her yahoo email accounts for state
business, she has no legally recognizable interests in their contents at
all - rather it would be the state of alaska which would have to bring
suit, not the McLumpy/Palin campaign.
Peace and justice,
