Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeaBiscuit; All
Unlawful Access to Stored Communications 18 U.S.C. 2701.

"§ 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. "

Registration and User Agreement

"User Account Confidentiality: User agrees to protect user's account and password and not to disclose account information to any third party."

The WP did exceed an authorization to access FR by using anothers password(Forbidden under the Users Agreement which govern the access of users) to access FRmails and did not make any attempt to determine the rules of access to FR or presumably they would not have improperly used anothers password. They flat did violate section 2b of 18 U.S.C. 2701 in that they did not view, or observe the rules if they did view them. If the reporter was unaware of 2b of 18 U.S.C. 2701 it won't help. A professional at a large newspaper should know or should have asked.

102 posted on 11/05/2005 5:47:11 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: Anti-Bubba182

Excellent, thanks for your time.


115 posted on 11/05/2005 5:57:28 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and Friends, the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: Anti-Bubba182

YOu know, it's going to be funny as all get out when FR is the first one to bust a Liberal media outlet for violating a law Congress passed to protect their friends in Hollywood!


123 posted on 11/05/2005 6:04:54 PM PST by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: Anti-Bubba182
Claiming "ignorance of the law" they may have actually violated is not a legally acceptable defense.
179 posted on 11/05/2005 7:21:51 PM PST by VRWCTexan (History has a long memory - but still repeats itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson