UPDATE: Well, what do you know, at some point some comments in that thread have been disappeared (including one of mine). How lucky then that I grabbed a snapshot of the page before this happened, and so the exchange is preserved for posterity below…
The original post, expurgated here for brevity:
1.Did Thunderf00t hack into the FTB listserv?
No. According to Ed Brayton of FTB, he did not. He was able to log back onto the mailing list because he was never removed from the list. …
2.Is an e-mail disclaimer legally binding?
No. Go Google it.
3.Did Thunderf00t ‘steal’ information?
4.Is Thunderf00t doc-dropping?
No. Thunderf00t already had access to FTBsprivate e-mails when he was a blogger at FTB. He already was privy to personal information when he was there. …
No. If it were, he would already be in jail.
7.Was it ethical of Thunderf00t to do this?
As it is personal ethics we are discussing, we cannot then say that what Thunderf00t did was unethical. It depends what Thunderf00t sees as his personal ethic.
Stick to the issues, and don’t get distracted by the tantrums.
And now the comment thread, starting with my reply and including responses to me from the happy couple:
1. Yes he did, since he *was* deleted from the list but exploited a non-expiring invitation to put himself back on the list. A simple enough hack, but still a hack.
2. Probably not, but morally, ethically, it probably should be respected by any reasonable person.
3. He covertly obtained private communications not intended to be seen by him, knowing full well that he was not supposed to be seeing them. If there is such a thing as information theft, this would qualify.
4. Not yet, he is merely enjoying the fact that he has documents he is not supposed to have and can use them to hurt FtB at any time at his discretion. Having been enough of a jerk to come this far, it is not unreasonable for people affected to be concerned about where those messages could end up.
5. Probably not, but see point 4
6. I don’t think the internet police are that fast, and it would at least take a criminal complaint to get any sort of action started. Let’s just say what he’s done is illegal. How comfortable would you be in an FtB blogger’s shoes, knowing just how pissed of TF is, about the idea of trying to get him prosecuted over this?
I see that logic has left the building in your case.
1. wrong asshole. an ‘exploit’, by definition, is used to make a piece of software do something unintended. so….
3. he was on the mailing list, so jack all was ‘covert’. thanks for your bullshit legal opinion, but since tf has not been arrested, there has been no information theft. btw, are you this good at being wrong b/c you practice, or is it all natural talent for stupidity?
4.as ye reap….
5. who gives a fuck about a bunch of privileged, mostly white radfems?
6.don’t talk out your ass, there’s nothing illegal here. it’s been a month or so, even cops as stupid as you would have arrested him by now.
7.ok, now you’re just making word salad. get therapy. quickly.
Hey there bafflingly angry guy or girl,
1. “exploited a non-expiring invitation to put himself back on the list.” < ;- This is still true, even if your narrow definition was accurate. Unless you think it is intended that someone who is deleted from a list is allowed to invite themselves back on to it.
2. word salad…?
3. he was on the mailing list having put himself back on it without the knowledge of the admins. He accessed the messages without the knowledge of the admins. This perfectly fits the definition of “covert”, and it’s not a bullshit legal definition, you can look it up in the dictionary.
4. Your response implies that TF actions mirror FtB, but to my knowledge they have not been covertly accessing private communications.
5. Apparently not you. Not sure how this relates to Thunderfoot’s actions here.
6. In order for cops to act there must be a complaint made to them. Look up the Mabus/Markuze debacle to see just how hard it can be to get a criminal investigation rolling into an online issue.
7. I’m sorry I upset you so much by using my words. Please forgive me.
1. you admit you’re wrong, but you’re still trying, kudos 4 persistence.
2. yes, word salad: a symptom of head trauma and some mental disorders.
3. re: covert: what you mean, is not what lawyers mean, so you’re wrong there too.
4. no mirror here, ftb’s actions are far worse: conspiring to get someone fired from their job for no reason other than disagreeing with them is a tad bit more morally reprehensible than reading emails on an email list you’re actually on.
5. simple, simon: you expressed concern for ftb’ers who tf might “hurt”
6.that’s not true at all
My dearest Angry Baghead,
1. You seem to have misread me, I ‘admit’ no such thing, and stand by my original point. I doubt that Thunderf00t himself would disagree– you should ask him yourself next time you take his balls out of your mouth.
3. What do lawyers mean when they refer to an action as “covert”? As a layman I would have naively assumed that it meant what dictionaries tend to define it as: “not openly acknowledged or displayed”
4. Since he was on the list because he added himself back on to it without the knowledge or permission of the members, you should rephrase that as “more morally reprehensible than covertly reading emails not intended for you”
5. So you are saying it is ok to covertly eavesdrop on people when you don’t like them?
6. I was also unaware that the internet police force generally act to investigate breaches of privacy and trust without complaints being filed. Thanks for correcting me!
7. It’s my great loss.
1. ” < ;- This is still true, even if your narrow definition was accurate." ...haven't heard the term 'mutually exclusive', have you?
2. the fact that you’re obtuse implies nothing about my sexuality. maybe you should email TF and find out if your characterization of his actions is accurate, but in the meantime, feel free to FAIL some more. oh, and thanks for the gratuitous misandry – it clarifies a great deal.
3. there’s a reason ppl go to law school, moron, and for the record,the word you want is ‘stupidly’, not ‘naively’.
4. still not getting it.
5. strawman. try again. i only wish you could do it on video.
6. what the fuck is an ‘internet police force’? oh, and by the way, jackass, police forces of any kind investigate crimes, therefore, your acknowledgement that the ‘internet police force’ (whatever in the fuck that is) would not investigate a supposed ‘breach of privacy and trust’ merely underscores the fact that no crime was committed here. could you have someone throw a cream pie in your face? just asking.
7. for once in this tired thread, you’re right.
BONUS: 8. is that a ‘no’ on the cream pie? how about re-enacting a three stooges skit? no, really, i’m sure you have friends.