Monday, December 7, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

We all know about the Climategate scandal. We have all talked about the e-mails, data manipulation, shoddy science, etc.

The question this week is what do you think about the fact that the e-mails were hacked? They belonged to someone else and were stolen from them.

It is hard to argue that this is not theft.

The question is, is it justified? When is hacking justified? Is it okay to do it for the greater good?

So, is the person that did this a whistleblower or hacker?

10 comments:

Randy said...

If the person were a whistleblower, he (or she) would have been an insider and probably privvy to the emails to begin with.

By definition, if the emails were hacked, that's a crime. Doesn't change the aspect of the initial crime, doesn't excuse it, only explains this particular action. The criminal involved needs to face jail time (as do the criminals who covered up evidence in the first place).

Two wrongs don't make a righ.

DaBlade said...

Two wrongs may not make a righ, but an extra consanant does. This is so ridiculous to even compare the two. I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy Pelosi called on authorities to arrest TV weather people for broadcasting when it snows.

Always On Watch said...

I say that the hacking was justified because, in effect, a fraud was uncovered.

Greywolfe said...

I'm going to come down on the slap on the wrist with a wink side of the argument.

One of my favorite sayings is "Extremism in defense of a righteous cause is not a vice, its a duty".

In 1773, a group of men dumped a load of tea into the Boston harbor in protest. Clearly a crime, as the tea did not belong to them. But celebrated as the first act of the Revolutionary War.

My biggest complaint about the conservatives in America is that they aren't willing to get dirty in order to stop the march to socialism (which is the main purpose of the "global warming" movement).

This hacker has done more to stop that march than all the bloggers (me included) on the internet.

Miss T.C. Shore said...

It seems the "hacker" knew what he was looking for. He was either tipped by an insider, or was an insider, himself. This seems to be a case of "whisleblowing" as much as hacking.

Let's assume the worst. It was a malicious hacker who stumbled on a conspiracy. Okay. Fine. Find the hacker and treat him as any other hacker. What would happen? A fine, maybe? Probation? Possibly. His crime was relatively small.

Then let's go after the major racketeers who have colluded to alter the economies of every nation in the world in order to garner money, power and influence in the name of environmentalism. These guys have committed crimes against humanity.

Brooke said...

Whistleblower.

It's just like the officer saying he shouldn't be accountable for following an immoral order; it just doesn't hold up.

MK said...

Actually like Miss TC said, the emails were leaked. I even heard that the BBC was informed of it a few weeks before them but wasn't interested. So the insider out of frustration leaked them to some 'hacker'.

Even if they were hacked, i couldn't care less, the left didn't give a crap when Palin's emails were hacked and when they smeared her children and newborn. Screw them, they can choke down their own medicine.

Chuck said...

Interesting converstaion all.

I have to agree with a lot of what is said here.

From Randy's two wrongs don't make a right to AOW's contention that it is okay because the greater good was served. I know this sounds wishy-washy but I don't have an easy answer to this.

It is an old dilemmna, should laws be followed that may protect an immoral act?

Brooke put it best. As did Greywolfe with his Boston Tea Party analogy.

Finally, TC and MK brought up a good point in that it appeared to be an inside job which would make it a whistleblower.

DaBlade, it is funny that the libs that get nostalgic about civil disobediance scream about leaked e-mails that hurt their cause.

Always On Watch said...

I don't exactly contend that two wrongs make a right.

In effect, global warming is a fraud which leads to the Nanny State, which leads to violation of our Constitution.

Traditionally, however government scandals are uncovered doesn't really matter as long as the scandals are uncovered.

Randy said...

Greywolfe mentioned the Tea party, which as I recall from Mary Poppins made the tea undrinkable (sorry, couldn't resist).

So, how is this hacking different than what Greenpeace does? Is civil disobedience ok if it meets your needs? After all the ends justifies the means, right?

In the US, the emails could have been retrieved based on the Freedom of Information Act. Certainly, the perpetrators could have deleted them, but then spoliation comes into play (one of my favorite legal terms).