Induveca wrote:keynote wrote:AFM wrote:The govt has been reading your emails for years, so this is sort of poetic karma in a way.
"No different from the fappening" would be if hackers released nude photos of HRC. Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth...
Joke all you want. The point is that it's a crime to hack into that guy's private account, and yet we're all perusing its private contents with no guilt -- just like some people did with J Law's photos. And that's putting aside the fact that Wikileaks might well be selecting the emails that make Clinton's camp look bad, while holding back the emails that would appear to exonerate them and/or otherwise present them in a positive light.
Crime or not, the emails are now publicly available. It's also "illegal" to hack a drug lord's SMS messages but the government would seize upon the contents if leaked and indicated criminal activity.
In other words, it doesn't matter how the content was obtained. We all may disagree with hacking morally, but the law typically doesn't have "feelings". They'd prosecute the hacker *and* drug lord. Usually in reverse order.
To think otherwise would be naive. The abyss of lawyers, legal maneuvering and wide interpretation of statues would ensure they're both ****.
The key to your example of amoral law inforcement is the phrase "indicated criminal activity." Despite all of the hand-waving from the Breitbart crowd, I've yet to hear anyone credibly state that the leaks are indicative of criminal activity. Evidence of political networking? Definitely. Evidence of political in-fighting? Definitely. Evidence of politically duplicitous behavior? Perhaps/probably. But nothing criminal.
Besides: your willingness to shrug your shoulders and state that the "ends justifies the means" logic is disheartening. It *does* matter how the content was contained in this instance. Because (a) it was the result of a crime, and (b) it's been leaked by someone who can pick and choose what they want to disclose to shape the narrative they want to push.
We all agree that people will cast aside this moral dilemma and look anyway. I'm not disputing that. And I'm not going to bother trotting out that tired argument that "if the tables were turned, Side X would be screaming bloody murder," etc.
There's no need to traffic in hypotheticals; the ethics of the current situation is clear. I'm certainly entitled to find the circumstances queasy.
Always remember, my friend: the world will change again. And you may have to come back through everywhere you've been.
