GOP Questions Newspaper's Role With 'MD4Bush'

WBAL TV ^ | 11/02/05 | Staff

[nunya bidness]

Newspaper Reveals Logging Into Internet User's Account

BALTIMORE -- The identity of an Internet user connected to the firing of a former gubernatorial aide remains a mystery. However, new disclosures from The Washington Post may shed light on how to solve the mystery.

The editor said that information came from someone associated with MD4Bush and that the reporter used it to log into MD4Bush's account several times before the story was published.

[GOPJ]

Does anyone remember the days when this was a sleepy little website, way off the beaten track?

[p23185]

From the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act - 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications 2702. Disclosure of contents

Nothing there - under construction.

[HAL9000]

this shouldn't apply to the Post unless they accessed the account without MD4BUSH's permission.

According to the Washington Post - "Brenner said The Post does not know the identity of MD4BUSH, which the newspaper also has reported."

If they didn't know his identity, how could they receive his permission? How could they know if the intermediary was authorized to act on the unidentified person's behalf?

If I approached you claiming to represent an unidentified third party and provided you the password to his private email account, would you believe that constituted permission for you to use the password to access the account? Wouldn't you want to confirm the identity of the person and obtain direct authorization before using the password?

Does the ECPA have an exemption that allows Washington Post reporters to use passwords to hack into an unidentified person's private e-mails without proper authorization - then publish them in the newspaper? Hell no it doesn't!

[HAL9000]

Wow - the usiia.org domain name registration expired on Oct. 26th and Network Solutions grabbed it back this morning. Someone forgot to pay the bill.

[kevkrom]

Points conceded, though I maintain that the Post's story about only working through an anonymous intermediary is laughable.

[LibWrangler]

Where is that information displayed to users?

[HAL9000]

I just called the "US Internet Industry Association" - a major industry organization, and informed them that their domain name had expired and their web site is down. They were not aware.

[Grampa Dave]

I hope that you get all over this story as you have done other news in the past.

Please add me to your ping list as you post the real news.

Thanks

[tobyhill]

I'm not sure if posting this is FR legal but it was interesting.

Quote from MD4Bush on FreeRepublic;
"what we need to win are trojan horses, like Bush."

[Grampa Dave]

Good catch with that search.

[Anti-Bubba182]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/register

[Danae]

OH YEA!!! Get 'em! get 'em!

Oh that would just be so very very sweet! I will donate double to help pay for legal fees!!!!!

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks, I saved the page so I will have a record when the Google catch expires.

[Danae]

Quote from MD4Bush on FreeRepublic; "what we need to win are trojan horses, like Bush."

Oh now that isn't at all ironic!

[tobyhill]

To me it was just kind of interesting.

[Grampa Dave]

Good move. That is Grampa Dave's #1 reminder to Freepers when we started uncovering the dirt on the dark siders.

Store/save the full data on FR, on another server or on your own hard disk, not the link. The left erases the data sometimes as fast as we post it.

Thanks for reposting the rules of FR.

After re reading them, it appears that the Compost has violated Jim Robs copyrights as stated.

[LibWrangler]

Thanks!

We shouldn't forget this post from MD4Bush, slying saying "Rove does it and it works, so "we" are doing it too!". The left can't believe that the right isn't lying and cheating to win (like them). The tactics used are despicable by the operatives involved, and the paper seems guilty at least of involving itself in the story.

Posted by MD4Bush to NCPAC On News/Activism 10/14/2004 1:15:13 PM PDT · 100 of 102

There was a great article in the atlantic (lib mag my wife reads) about Rove. The writer whines all about Rove’s tricks, but they work and he is a genius. He got a rumor started about this dem judge who gave a lot of money to a charity for kids, so they took those pictures of the judge with the kids and said he was a gay pedophile. It worked.Check it out: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

[HAL9000]

Excerpts from the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act -

§ 2701. Unlawful Access to Stored Communications

(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever?

(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided;  or

(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.  

(b) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is? 

(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain--
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph;  and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph;  and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case.

(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized? 

(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;
 
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user;  or
 
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.
 

 
 

§ 2702. Disclosure of Contents
 

(a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)--
 
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service;  and
 
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means  of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;  and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and



(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

(b) Exceptions.--A person or entity may divulge the contents of a communication?
 

(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
 
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or 2703 of this title;
 
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service;
 
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;
 
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;  or
 
(6) to a law enforcement agency--
(A) if the contents--
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or

(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C.A. S 13032].

(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.

(c) Exceptions for disclosure of customer records. A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--

(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Bump for a later read.