It does seem from reading the article that the vice president's son had his emails and hard drive hacked, and the exploitative information was being shared on Twitter. So it may have technically violated laws about distributing hacked material, but it's also a news story involving corruption, and the public deserves to know about it I think.
If by "hacked" you mean lawfully obtained by a repair place by abandoning his property there and refusing to pick it up, I guess that is a form of hacking, in the way that an automobile is a form of banana. Right?
He left the laptop at the store for over 90 days and never paid for the repair. Delaware law made the laptop and everything on it the property of the computer store.
"So it may have technically violated laws about distributing hacked material."
The NYT published a very detailed story about Trump's tax returns. If someone at the IRS leaked them, that is a major crime. The NYT ran the story, and the Tech Oligarchs in Silicon Valley profited from that crime as Twitter erupted.
The NY Post should be afforded the same deference.
I don't know the details of how this material was obtained, but Twitter cannot wait to see whether charges are filed. If it appears to be hacked, then it's reasonable to not publish it. Otherwise, they might be liable when it turns out to be illegal. If the NYT says that it's not classified and it's legal under whistleblower laws, Twitter should consider that, but ultimately they are responsible for removing what appear to be violations of the law. If it turns out to not be the case, they will republish it, and there is an appeals process. I would rather they error on the side of protection against defamation, harassment, incitement, spreading illegal material, etc., at least until they can assess it.
NYT claimed that it was not violating the law by publishing classified information because of whistleblower protection. Whether the materials falls under that classification or not is difficult to determine by looking at it, which is why we have lawsuits and criminal cases to determine whether material is legally obtained and distributed. In this case, the material appears to be legally obtained, but Twitter cannot know that immediately, and they should error on the side of flagging what appears to be exploitative material before they publish it to millions of people.
It does seem from reading the article that the vice president's son had his emails and hard drive hacked, and the exploitative information was being shared on Twitter. So it may have technically violated laws about distributing hacked material, but it's also a news story involving corruption, and the public deserves to know about it I think.
If by "hacked" you mean lawfully obtained by a repair place by abandoning his property there and refusing to pick it up, I guess that is a form of hacking, in the way that an automobile is a form of banana. Right?
He left the laptop at the store for over 90 days and never paid for the repair. Delaware law made the laptop and everything on it the property of the computer store.
"So it may have technically violated laws about distributing hacked material."
The NYT published a very detailed story about Trump's tax returns. If someone at the IRS leaked them, that is a major crime. The NYT ran the story, and the Tech Oligarchs in Silicon Valley profited from that crime as Twitter erupted.
The NY Post should be afforded the same deference.
I don't know the details of how this material was obtained, but Twitter cannot wait to see whether charges are filed. If it appears to be hacked, then it's reasonable to not publish it. Otherwise, they might be liable when it turns out to be illegal. If the NYT says that it's not classified and it's legal under whistleblower laws, Twitter should consider that, but ultimately they are responsible for removing what appear to be violations of the law. If it turns out to not be the case, they will republish it, and there is an appeals process. I would rather they error on the side of protection against defamation, harassment, incitement, spreading illegal material, etc., at least until they can assess it.
NYT claimed that it was not violating the law by publishing classified information because of whistleblower protection. Whether the materials falls under that classification or not is difficult to determine by looking at it, which is why we have lawsuits and criminal cases to determine whether material is legally obtained and distributed. In this case, the material appears to be legally obtained, but Twitter cannot know that immediately, and they should error on the side of flagging what appears to be exploitative material before they publish it to millions of people.
It wasn't hacked. Crackhead Hunter left the computer with his repairman and forgot about it...because he's a crackhead.
When's the repairman going to turn over the crack whore to Giuliani? She's probably a bit parched by now.