Post #248,004
3/15/06 1:35:01 PM
8/21/07 6:37:28 AM
|
Bye bye first amendment.
[link|http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14084455.htm|http://www.philly.co...illy/14084455.htm]
n an unusual and little-known case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has seized four computer hard drives from a Lancaster newspaper as part of a statewide grand-jury investigation into leaks to reporters.
The dispute pits the government's desire to solve an alleged felony - computer hacking - against the news media's fear that taking the computers circumvents the First Amendment and the state Shield Law.
The state Supreme Court declined last week to take the case, allowing agents to begin analyzing the data.
"This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this."
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #248,013
3/15/06 4:26:53 PM
|
Nope. Have to disagree
If there was evidence, which there apparently was, that reporters were violating the law by accessing this website...then their computers are fair game to be seized. This is not "protecting sources". They are trying to use the sheild law to cover up a crime.
Even if they were given the password, accessing and publishing this information isn't legal..or if it is, marginally so and they don't deserve protection from prosecution.
The "Duh, I didn't know" defense doesn't hold up here.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #248,016
3/15/06 5:15:23 PM
8/21/07 6:37:42 AM
|
Could have a chilling effect on whistle blowers
I can't tell if that's the case here or not (I'm guessing probably not).
It seems that the real culprit is the one who compromised the website (the coroner?).
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #248,018
3/15/06 5:31:18 PM
|
Have to agree re: coroner
If he compromised the site, as reported, he deserves the brunt of punishment(loss of position at minimum). But, don't want to have all responsibility removed from the reporters who should have known better. Its one thing to have someone "sneak" you a report copy..another to take active part in the sneaking...knowing full well that it was a no no.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #248,043
3/15/06 8:50:38 PM
|
Oh come on.
Computer hacking is the supposed crime. Where is the hacking?
-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
|
Post #248,049
3/15/06 8:58:01 PM
|
People accessing govt systems without authorization
If the coronor really gave out his password that makes it an inside job, but still unauthorized. If the bank manager gives you his key and the combination to the safe, does that make it not robbery?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #248,068
3/15/06 10:40:18 PM
|
No, but...
...if he gives you the key to his desk and tells you it's OK to rifle through his files, it's not misappropration, or tampering, or trespass, or burgulary, or robbery, or....
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #248,083
3/16/06 6:13:14 AM
|
It certainly is misappropriation
and its also not the same...unless you add tamper seals to the drawer which the person knowingly broke.
These people KNEW what they were doing was, at best, marginal legally...and they want to hide the evidence by invoking this priveledge.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #248,085
3/16/06 8:07:57 AM
|
you are making a bad assumption
If someone in authority gave me a password to a site I am not normally, legally allowed access to the last place I would access such a site is on a computer that can be tied to me in any way. I might send product of my site search to my work but initial entry? Nope.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #248,086
3/16/06 8:39:33 AM
|
That's because you're devious
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #248,093
3/16/06 10:16:13 AM
|
And because he has knowledge that its likely not legal.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
