[DAC21]

Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted? Boy wouldn’t that be sweet, the courtroom circus and all. The DBM couldn’t avoid covering it.

[gwilhelm56]

**Boy wouldn’t that be sweet, the courtroom circus and all.**

All the Info the DEFENSE would have to Demand for a proper defense..

LOL

[AnAmericanMother]

Actually, the only evidence that is barred from admission on the basis of improper acquisition is that which is taken by the State.

Most common case is vengeful about-to-be-ex-wife who turns evidence of crime over to the police. It's not a Fourth Amendment violation because the police didn't lift a finger to get it -- even if the wife used improper means to obtain it. Same is true for roommates, landlords, ex-girlfriends, etc.

So the hackers, not being government agents, didn't render this evidence inadmissible in court. Stand by for some fun and games!

[Wonder Warthog]

"Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted?"

I think that restriction only applies if law enforcement collects the info illegally. That isn't the case here, this is a private individual or group. Any lawyers here know???

[P-Marlowe]

Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted?

No, the evidence would be admissible as long as it wasn't the government that stole the evidence.

They won't be prosecuted because the Government is part of the conspiracy.

[TomGuy]

Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted?

That may not apply. Even if private corporate interests were involved, the funds were mostly through government grants and programs. Thus, the taxpayers have an explicit interest. Something like the whistle-blower protection act may have a higher priority than the act of hacking the computers.

Also, in these kinds of things, it is additional cover-ups that create more jail sentences than the initial fraud. And you can bet officials on both sides (government and private recipients) are trying to find ways to cover their involvement.

The global carbon footprint created from the document shredders and hard drive erasures is going to be massive. lol

[danielmryan]

Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted?

Yep, that's right. Even Dirty Harry couldn't get away with it.

[PreciousLiberty]

“Since the info was gotten illegally, I guess these crooks can’t be prosecuted?”

In this type of case, where much worse crimes than distribution of the information occurred, the whistleblower (I believe this was an inside job myself) is absolved, and the guilty prosecuted. At least here in the US. Besides, all of this came from a publicly funded institution, and should have been accessible under FOIA laws over there. I understand a flood of new requests were made yesterday. ;-)

We’ll see how it goes, but I’m guessing the guilty at CRU didn’t sleep too well last night.

[Renderofveils]

Yes, they can. They have violated the FOIA on numerous occassions. If this information came from an internal “whistleblower” source, then they’re up a very “muddy” creek without a paddle.