![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
rmt38: The real problem for me with the book, is that it is doesn't just admit to being based on stolen data, but that there are people who claim here and elsewhere this is okay. I do not want to have to write every email that I only send to friends and acquaintances, in lawyer speak, in case I suddenly become "politically suitable" to be a target to have my email hacked. This is not a good precedent, if Hagar gets away with it. He should be done for receiving stolen goods, as should anyone who deals in hacked emails.
Leaked emails are another matter. But to compare hacking with leaking is self-serving. Leaking is where one party who was a valid and legal recipient, gives out the data. Hacking is illegal access bypassing what prevents anyone but the legitimate owner accessing it.
Ask yourself: are you politically active, even on a blog or forum? Are you okay with any of the people who post to the blog or forum and agree with you getting hacked, because it's politically expedient? If you say that it is okay to hack someone on the right's email, then when it happens to someone on the left, you won't complain? It'll be just as valid in your eyes, right?
Twitter: ajobbins
ajobbins:rmt38: The real problem for me with the book, is that it is doesn't just admit to being based on stolen data, but that there are people who claim here and elsewhere this is okay. I do not want to have to write every email that I only send to friends and acquaintances, in lawyer speak, in case I suddenly become "politically suitable" to be a target to have my email hacked. This is not a good precedent, if Hagar gets away with it. He should be done for receiving stolen goods, as should anyone who deals in hacked emails.
Leaked emails are another matter. But to compare hacking with leaking is self-serving. Leaking is where one party who was a valid and legal recipient, gives out the data. Hacking is illegal access bypassing what prevents anyone but the legitimate owner accessing it.
Ask yourself: are you politically active, even on a blog or forum? Are you okay with any of the people who post to the blog or forum and agree with you getting hacked, because it's politically expedient? If you say that it is okay to hack someone on the right's email, then when it happens to someone on the left, you won't complain? It'll be just as valid in your eyes, right?
I can kinda see where you are coming from, however - from Hagar's point of view, he was leaked information, he didn't steal it. Does it really matter where it came from? What if the source was anonymous and he didn't know it was 'stolen'?
alasta: I'm not condoning the theft of information, or even the disclosure of leaked information, but I'm surprised at how indiscreet some people are with their email correspondence. Through clumsy forwarding, mistaken addressing, etc. emails have the potential to end up anywhere and I always write emails on that understanding.
NonprayingMantis: interesting how everyone is using the words 'stolen' and 'theft'.
I thought that if the piracy threads taught us anything, it is that copying information is not the same as stealing it.
Accessing and copying someone elses emails and facebook messages is not theft. It is a different kind of crime altogether.
NonprayingMantis: interesting how everyone is using the words 'stolen' and 'theft'.
I thought that if the piracy threads taught us anything, it is that copying information is not the same as stealing it.
Accessing and copying someone elses emails and facebook messages is not theft. It is a different kind of crime altogether.
KiwiNZ: Hager is not a professional journalist, he is a political activist.
turnin:KiwiNZ: Hager is not a professional journalist, he is a political activist.
His stories involve politics and many have been critical of Labour members, so the left wing accusations are just that
I'm guessing you havent read the book
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |