Ryan Reynolds wrote:
> Perhaps a bit more clarity would be in order here, as common sense
> doesn't seem to be prevailing here.
>
> I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I believe there are rules of
> evidence. In *most* cases, evidence that is obtained illegally is not
> admissable in court. So, not only would you get charged (and most
> likely convicted) for said "hack", the person posting these fabled mp3's
> would get off scott free.
Nope. The rules of evidence only apply to things that the police (or
similar) do. Evidence collected by a private citizen is admissable in
court. HOWEVER, you can (and probably will) be charged for any crimes
you commit while gathering this evidence. You might get off, you might not.
Mind you, I am not a Lawyer either, but that's how it's supposed to
work. The premise is that the police already have plenty of power, and
they're intended to be incorruptible (we all know how that goes, but
never mind.) If you make it so that they are not above the law, it makes
it harder for them to commit crimes, plant evidence, et cetera.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
