I stopped posting because I wasn't really getting anywhere. Eric and Dana both seemed (note... SEEMED) to be saying that Palin deserved it because she didn't go further in protecting herself from hackery and skullduggery.
I think that as long as the victim didn't specifically invite said crime (ie: an open letter saying "Please hack my email") then it doesn't matter how negligent the victim is in regards to security. It's still a crime to hack her email. Thought exercise: If someone tattoo's their email password onto their forehead is it still a crime to log into that persons email? P.S. It does ne' matter whether that person should expect to get hacked. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we should start over: > > I'm pretty sure they both said it was Palin's fault she was hacked or > at least she deserved it. > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This I may be guilty of. If I misperceived any of your or Dana's > > comments to that affect, I apologize. To me it seemed like you guys > > were saying that since the guy found some potentially shady stuff, it > > was OK that he hacked into her account. It was not until later in the > > thread that both of you posted something that clarified your position > > on this. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317425 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
