Is there some evidence that eastangliaemails.com was involved with the hack? If not, I don't see the relevance, and I certainly don't see why the New York Times of all places, the defendant in the Pentagon Papers case, should feel they can't publish them
Larry Seltzer Contributing Editor, PC Magazine [email protected] http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:41 PM To: Larry Seltzer Cc: Gadi Evron; funsec Subject: Re: [funsec] The Legality of Publishing Hacked E-Mails The difference, as the BBC article points out, is whether the journalist either encouraged or participated in the illegal act. Not so for the Pentagon Papers, seemingly so for the Lookout Services incident. - Paul - On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Larry Seltzer wrote: >> From the point of view of the newspaper this is *exactly* like the > Pentagon Papers case. Those papers were illegally leaked, but the > Supreme Court held that the government could not enjoin newspapers from > publishing them. > > Larry Seltzer > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > [email protected] > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
