It does nto matter what she was doing with the account or how it was secured, as you admitted, her account was hacked. And that is a crime.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > For a non-conservative you sure think like a conservative. She bears the > blame because, not only did she fail in her responsibility to properly > secure her account, she also conducted government business illegally on that > account and thus failed to keep government business properly secured. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:55 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! > > > Please explain to me how stating that a victim 'bears some of the > blame' in any way fits into the liberal way of thinking? Oh, wait, I > know. The victim was a conservative. > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You have reading problems Scott? (Another argument against homeschooling > I >> guess)... I though I made it quite clear, as did Dana, that we never said >> it was ok. Yes she does bear some of the blame as she was negligent in >> making sure her account was secured...which is her responsibility. If >> someone in your company uses poor password encryption and vital data gets >> hacked because of it, how long is that person going to keep being employed >> there? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:24 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >> >> >> Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did >> not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might >> indicate illegal activity on Palin's part that it is OK that he did >> this and that Palin herself bears some blame for being hacked. >> >> Does that sound right? >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> there are several slipperey slope fallacies there... >>> >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> You will need to forgive me for misinterpretting this: >>>> >>>> 'But again, if you don't secure thing and you leave it wide open, >>>> don't be surprised when someone >>>> comes it. Not leaving it secured is akin to putting a neon sign over >>>> it and saying come on in...especially if you are a public figure.' >>>> >>>> As you saying 'she deserved it'...it seems like a logical conclusion >>>> to me. To me, saying a victim 'deserved' what happened to them, is the >>>> same as defending those who perpetrated the crime. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Roberts >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't recall seeing anything defending anyone coming from me...so >> either I >>>>> was typing in my sleep or you're toking on some good stuff over there >>>>> Scott... My point was that if you dont use proper security, then > dont >> act >>>>> all surprised when someone does hack you. That is common sense. Other >> than >>>>> mailboxes in apartments and other multi-family dwellings, I haven't, > but >>>>> that doesn't meant hey don't exist obviously. When most people think >>>>> mailbox, however, they are thinking of your standard, non paranoid, >> single >>>>> owner type. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:29 AM >>>>> To: cf-community >>>>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I cannot believe that you guys are actually trying to defend the >>>>> invasion of someone's privacy. Is this Bizaro World? What's next? Sam >>>>> touting the benefits of Obama-care? >>>>> >>>>> BTW - I have seen mailboxes that have an opening to put mail into, but >>>>> also a door, with a lock, to get it out. Still, lock or not, it is >>>>> illegal, and I believe a felony, to open someone else's mail. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eric Roberts >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's even a bad analogy. The mail box isn't locked and cant be (or >> how >>>>>> else does mail get in), while your email is supposed to be secured. > If >>>>> you >>>>>> want to stick to the snail mail analogy, then maybe a PO box and you >> leave >>>>>> your key hanging on the box at the post office. But again, if you >> don't >>>>>> secure thing and you leave it wide open, don't be surprised when >> someone >>>>>> comes it. Not leaving it secured is akin to putting a neon sign over >> it >>>>> and >>>>>> saying come on in...especially if you are a public figure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Medic [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:54 AM >>>>>> To: cf-community >>>>>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't really think comparing it to breaking into a house is a very >> good >>>>>> analogy. I think it's probably more accurate to equate it to taking >> mail >>>>> out >>>>>> of someone's mail box. I believe this is a felony. And if someone did >> it >>>>> you >>>>>> would blame the victim by saying "well the mailbox wasn't even > locked." >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it sucks that some kid who guesses a password gets time, but >> it's >>>>> a >>>>>> crime and a massive, premeditated invasion of privacy. We need to >> protect >>>>>> that privacy, especially now as we're losing more and more of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317242 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
