NatakuARN 0 Posted September 4, 2002 I read the article I can't believe they try to defend the hackers. ;( Share this post Link to post
CUViper 0 Posted September 4, 2002 I think it's very cool that the FBI was able to trick them like that, but as was said in the article, it also does present a question of the legal precedence being set here. If I go to a library (or some other public place) and check my email, I don't think it is right for the FBI to sniff my password and start accessing my email without ever getting a warrant! Sure, supposedly they waited for the warrant before opening any of those files, but come on! They obviously didn't download everything, so they must have been snooping around in there for the particular files they were looking for. That would be like them making a copy of my house key, entering my home, and maybe they see my cd wallet with over 100 burnt music cd's. Then they use that as evidence to get a warrant? Then it turns out, those copied cd's are legitimate backups of cd's I own! It just isn't right... Share this post Link to post
JP- 0 Posted September 4, 2002 How are your fingers after typing all that And its pretty cool that they can do things like that Share this post Link to post
CUViper 0 Posted September 4, 2002 Holy cow, you had more tangents in there than my old trigonometry book! Anyway, you almost made my exact point right here: Quote: See, if you as a U.S. Citizen start to give up on our fundamental root laws & concepts the unwritten AND written ones... and allow little laws that blow off our fundamentals being passed slowly over time, you head us into roped down control no less than dictatorship. This is exactly how I see what happened here. The FBI bent the rules (and perhaps outright broke them) in order to catch these guys. But I'll grant you, they did what had to be done to bring these guys to justice. The problem is, by allowing this to happen, they are setting a precedence for future scenarios, which is effectively making a new "little law" as you put it. So where do you draw the line? Our government is remarkable in how the checks and balances are set up. And while it's not perfect, it does work pretty damn well. But if we start making exceptions for certain groups, even law enforcement, then who will have the power to decide when they've stepped out of bounds? Share this post Link to post
