buying stolen emails..

[Thund3rb1rd]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204948.html

Does anyone else see this the same as buying stolen (physical) property??
Which is illegal, knowingly or not.

I don't understand why, unless the judge is biased, this lady would rule that way.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Thund3rb1rd
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204948.html
A lawsuit filed last year by TorrentSpy--a BitTorrent search engine--that accused the movie studios' trade group of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court last week.

But while a U.S. District judge found that the Motion Picture Association of America had not violated the federal Wiretap Act, as TorrentSpy's attorneys had argued, the MPAA acknowledged in court records that it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives.

=================================================
Does anyone else see this the same as buying stolen (physical) property??
Which is illegal, knowingly or not.

I don't understand why, unless the judge is biased, this lady would rule that way.

I see you are new here T-Bird, welcome to P&N.

In answer to your question.

You should know that the U.S. Government along with the courts have been bought by Corporations such as the MPAA/RIAA etc therefore they own everything.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Thund3rb1rd
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204948.html
A lawsuit filed last year by TorrentSpy--a BitTorrent search engine--that accused the movie studios' trade group of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court last week.

But while a U.S. District judge found that the Motion Picture Association of America had not violated the federal Wiretap Act, as TorrentSpy's attorneys had argued, the MPAA acknowledged in court records that it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives.

=================================================
Does anyone else see this the same as buying stolen (physical) property??
Which is illegal, knowingly or not.

I don't understand why, unless the judge is biased, this lady would rule that way.

I see you are new here T-Bird, welcome to P&N.

In answer to your question.

You should know that the U.S. Government along with the courts have been bought by Corporations such as the MPAA/RIAA etc therefore they own everything.

Welcome Thunderbird. This is Dave McOwen, you will soon realize he is the resident troll disguised as an Elite Member. Just learn to ignore his tin-foil hat rhetoric and you will be good to go. :thumbsup:

This post has nothing to do with the topic at hand and can only be considered a personal attack. Next time use PM and you'll save yourself a warning.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Thund3rb1rd
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204948.html

Does anyone else see this the same as buying stolen (physical) property??
Which is illegal, knowingly or not.

I don't understand why, unless the judge is biased, this lady would rule that way.

I think its wrong.

However the MPAA owns Congress which in turns provides the Courts the rules to operate within

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thund3rb1rd

Does anyone else see this the same as buying stolen (physical) property??
Which is illegal, knowingly or not.

Yes, and I wonder if it can't somehow be seen as violation of Constitutional rights? (I suppose not or they would have sued for that).

The case is going to be appealed, hopefully they'll get it right the next time.

And why is the hacker that stole the emails not in big trouble?

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: nick1985

Welcome Thunderbird. This is Dave McOwen, you will soon realize he is the resident troll disguised as an Elite Member. Just learn to ignore his tin-foil hat rhetoric and you will be good to go. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Shivetya

the MPAA owns Congress which in turns provides the Courts the rules to operate within
=================================================
Hey, how bout equal opportunity tin foil rhetoric and resident trolling for members from your side.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Welcome Thunderbird. This is Dave McOwen, you will soon realize he is the resident troll disguised as an Elite Member. Just learn to ignore his tin-foil hat rhetoric and you will be good to go. :thumbsup:

He is pretty much spot on about the MPAA. What would people say about you to first time posters? Not too sure this call out really necessary. Welcome OP.

 

[Czar]

that just means someone has to abuse this so bad that it will be overturned

 

[EagleKeeper]

In the criminal court system, evidence that is obtained illegally prevents the use of any other evidence obtain from the initial evidence.

The civilian court system may operate under a different set of rules.

If so, then it should be changed.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Welcome Thunderbird. This is Dave McOwen, you will soon realize he is the resident troll disguised as an Elite Member. Just learn to ignore his tin-foil hat rhetoric and you will be good to go. :thumbsup:

Actually, on just this topic, Dave is usually spot on with his comments.

The MPAA/RIAA does, in fact, seem to own congress... especially the "new and improved" Democrat-run version of Congress.

 

[Lemon law]

I think totally wrong trees are being barked up. The problem is not who owns congress, its more a question of nominated the judge who ruled in the way he did. But even then deeper analysis shows the real core problem. Congress has been totally asleep while technology changed radically. Now we have copyright questions regarding the downloading of songs&movies and legal question about the privacy expectations of emails that have not really been addressed at all by congress.

And when we have no clear law, we may be offended by the unethical sleezies, but unless we can get shut them down with a jail sentence or by prohibitive monetary damages, we can expect more in the future.

And besides, these e-mails are only second hand stolen, the US government has already read and screened them for terrorist content.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In the criminal court system, evidence that is obtained illegally prevents the use of any other evidence obtain from the initial evidence.

The civilian court system may operate under a different set of rules.

If so, then it should be changed.

If you're referring to evidence obtained by the government in a manner that violates the 4th Amendment, I agree. But how would that apply here?

Fern

 

[Thund3rb1rd]

Originally posted by: Fern
If you're referring to evidence obtained by the government in a manner that violates the 4th Amendment, I agree. But how would that apply here?

I would say that a lack of a verifiable chain of possession means that the information could have been altered at any point before it is presented as evidence, so there is good reason why it should not be allowed

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In the criminal court system, evidence that is obtained illegally prevents the use of any other evidence obtain from the initial evidence.

The civilian court system may operate under a different set of rules.

If so, then it should be changed.

If you're referring to evidence obtained by the government in a manner that violates the 4th Amendment, I agree. But how would that apply here?

Fern

If the e-mails were stolen, then anything related to them and/or obtained from them should be null & void

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In the criminal court system, evidence that is obtained illegally prevents the use of any other evidence obtain from the initial evidence.

The civilian court system may operate under a different set of rules.

If so, then it should be changed.

If you're referring to evidence obtained by the government in a manner that violates the 4th Amendment, I agree. But how would that apply here?

Fern

If the e-mails were stolen, then anything related to them and/or obtained from them should be null & void

It seem like you're saying the stolen property can't be used to convict the thief, or the *fence*, or the person who "purchased" it etc.? That doesn't sound right to me.

Fern

 

[piasabird]

What is a stolen E-mail? Once you send an Email and it has gone out over the Internet, it is in the public domain and belongs to the person receiving it.

 

[Thund3rb1rd]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What is a stolen E-mail?

If you hacked into a privately paid for email server and hacked it to send you a CC of every sent and received email.

I believe any judicial system would classify that as stealing it.

had they intercepted the information before or after it left the server, it would have fallen into the realm of the Wiretap Act (part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

 

[Lemon law]

The judge is a mere US district court judge. The question is then---will an appeal be tried to a higher court. Clearly the emails resulted from computer hacking, which may have been a clearly illegal act. And disclaimer or not, the MPAA is buying and receiving stolen property which can be a felony.

The other question is---given email addresses can be spoofed, what proof exists that these are indeed actual bit torrent emails. Technically anyone could create juicy but totally bogus emails, and then sell them on the open market.