gatt wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
-snip-
> It's amazing what subpoenas can accomplish. Hammer one and see what
> happens. It is not my opinion that information that is gained by
> intrusion or theft should be protected from severe legal retribution if
> it's published on the internet. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those
> websites go down in flames over it.
>> Perhaps, but the sourcecode has value far beyond nominal damages.
> So does official Alaska state business.
Nonsense. What would YOU pay for a copy of such email?
>> And, of course, the copyright for intellectual property created in the
>> course of employment belongs to the employer, not the employee.
> If I hacked your e-mail account and published your private e-mails on
> the internet, what would you do? Is nothing safe?
I'd rather go "ho hum".
There's nothing in my emails I'd get the vapors about were they
distributed on the net. Though I can't imagine why anyone 'cept the
original addressee would find them interesting.
> So maybe the state will go after them rather than the campaign. That
> would be even better.
The state ain't going after anyone for hacking Palin's private yahoo
account.
The state rather supplies her with a secure -state- email system. That
being hacked might cause them to take action but not a hacking of
Palin's yahoo account. 'Specially as she ain't supposed to be using
that for state business.
> In any case, if America tolerates intrusion into personal e-mail
> accounts AND excuses bloggers who say that as long as somebody ELSE
> committed the crime it ought to be protected free speech, things are
> going to get nasty.
Isn't that more or less what the dubya claims he has the right to do
under his "unitary executive" doctrine?
I'd be a lot more concerned about the gubmint intruding into private
emails than some pimply faced college sophomore hacker.
> Consider: What's wrong with hiring a company who hijacks mailservers or
> infects computers with malware to send out hundreds of millions of
> pieces of junkmail with forged headers and bogus reply-to messages (so
> third parties get flooded with mailer-daemon messages they can't
> explain")? There's MONEY in hiring megaspammers to distribute Cialis
> and penis enlargement or porn spam? According to the government circa
> 1999, it's "free speech."
I shouldn't think so - I haven't receieved an offer to enlarge my male
member in, oh, over a year. Ditto fake Rolex watches and pleas to help
launder the ill-gotten gains of deposed Nigerian finance ministers.
Either my junk mail filter is working better than I dreamed or folks
have largely given up on that practice.
Peace and justice
