[funsec] The Legality of Publishing Hacked E-Mails
Paul M Moriarty
pmm at igtc.com
Thu Dec 17 20:21:09 CST 2009
In the case of The Pentagon Papers, the NYT did nothing illegal related to the acquisition of the Stuff that was published. Is eastanglaimails.com complicit? Maybe. Are all the other media outlets that picked it up once eastangliamails.com published it complicit? No.
- Paul -
On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> 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
> larry_seltzer at ziffdavis.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul M Moriarty [mailto:pmm at igtc.com]
> 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
>> publishing them.
>> Larry Seltzer
>> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
>> larry_seltzer at ziffdavis.com
>> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
>> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
More information about the funsec