You said taint.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Eric Roberts < [email protected]> wrote: > > I didn't think about that...not sure why it didn't...a guess...maybe > because > this kid didn't have legal and reasonable access to the information and it > was obtained via illegal means...which I believe would also "taint" the > evidence anyway... > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Casey Dougall [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:21 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > yes, I believe that in this case... > > Whouldn't the Whistleblower Protection Act have protected one of her > co-workers/Aids from committing the same offense? > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:317250 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
