Re: Isn't Email Hacking Illegal? Palin

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:52:22 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:54:34 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:58:54 -0700, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:16:06 -0400, nobody
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which doesn't really support the idea of an "admission of
using
>>>>>>personal email for official state business" in my mind but
thank you
>>>>>>for supporting your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess it depends on  their view of "Appropriate" is.  
I'd say there
>>>>> was no real harm done this go-around, and hopefully this knocks
sense
>>>>> into her to not use personal email accounts for any business.  If
it
>>>>> happened again down the road, then maybe I would pursue it, but
it's
>>>>> not worth the tax payers money to deal with this now.
>>>>
>>>>There's plenty of proof one way or the other: Yahoo, like all large
>>>>businesses, should have backup tapes (made in case of a computer
>>>>failure) and can provide all of Palin's email once served with a
>>>>subpoena or search warrant.
>>>
>>> I meant enough proof to get the warrant in the first place.  i agree
>>> there would be backups, which is why it's a terrible idea to use this
>>> type of account for official gov bus, but a judge may disagree that
>>> there is enough proof that any laws have been broken in order to issue
>>> the warrant.
>>
>>What judge?  See <http://community.adn.com/node/131117>. Legislatures
>>can issue subpoenas to get people to testify at a hearing (which is
>>not a criminal or civil trial).
>
>That's a good point.
>
>>>>
>>>>What "nobody" is refusing to admit is all the press reports
stating
>>>>that Palin did in fact use a Yahoo personal email for state
>>>>business. That's dumb but not necessarily illegal if the open-records
>>>>laws are followed.  I doubt if they would be followed consistently
>>>>due to human error even if one intended to follow them, which is just
>>>>one of the reasons I think Palin showed poor judgement (security is
>>>>the other reason).
>>>
>>> Well, it's kind of hard to deny she used it for official business as
>>> her spokespeople admit she did.  They just disagree that she broke
>>> laws when she did it, but they do agree she did.
>>>
>>> And from a network security standpoint, I agree it was very bad
>>> judgement.
>>
>>And even funnier, "nobody" is still denying what her own spokespeople
>>said!
>
>There's such a thing as driving with blinders on;  I guess it's easier
>for him to pretend this never happened than to discuss whether or not
>anything ilegal did or didn't occur from her admitted actions.

You are confused.  I have not said it never happened.  What I *have*
said is that there is no credible evidence that it has happened and
the claim that Palin admitted to using a private email account for
official state business is not accurate.  That claim remains
unsupported beyond trying to make the term "political activities"
equal "official state business".
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]