Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [infoguys-list] Re: More Email Interception Arguments....

Expand Messages
  • C.I.S. Lists
    To me ...YES. I believe the entire chapter needs to be updated to specifically spell out what email is, how it is transmitted and that causing a duplicate to
    Message 1 of 52 , Aug 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To me ...YES.
      I believe the entire chapter needs to be updated to specifically spell out
      what email is, how it is transmitted and that causing a duplicate to be sent
      to another, unauthorized viewer is the same as interception. I believe
      based on what I've read, which admittedly is not the entire case, but it
      looks like the judge based her decision on the fact that AN email got sent
      to the intended recipient and only a COPY got sent to the hacker who then
      forwarded it to his clients. I believe she used the dictionary definition,
      to divert, which implies that the message did not make it to its intended
      location. Heck, quite frankly I can't make heads or tails of why she did
      what she did.

      I do believe that we need to have a more clear statute though. I know ..it
      is fairly clear to us now, but since we've seen so many misapply it in
      recent years, maybe they'll have to dumb it down even more and really take
      it 1, 2, 3 for the judges.

      I disagree with the judge and disagree with Gurley that it was a good
      decision. Having said that, I still believe the entire section could use
      some clarification.
      Brian

      _____

      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of oracleintl@...
      Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:13 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: More Email Interception Arguments....





      In a message dated 8/7/2008 2:35:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      list@... <mailto:list%40cispi.net> writes:

      Now, where
      we agree is that the definition of interception needs to be updated.
      Hi Brian,

      That confuses me.

      If you are saying that the activity was actually an interception, within the

      statutory definition, than why would the definition need to be updated?

      If you are saying that the definition is such that you cannot call the
      activity at issue an interception, then it would appear to me that you are
      in
      agreement with Rick, et al., including the judge.

      If you are saying something else, I'm confused.

      According to the definition of interception as it is currently defined by
      statute, was this activity an interception or not?

      Bill

      **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
      Read reviews on AOL Autos.
      (http://autos.
      <http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000
      017> aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/8/2008 2:43:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rmriinc@grouply.com writes: Excellent! In the meantime see if you and the experts can
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 8/8/2008 2:43:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
        rmriinc@... writes:

        Excellent! In the meantime see if you and the "experts" can reverse
        the denial of the motion for summary judgment sought by Valence
        Media....... LOL.



        Rick -

        In the very beginning I said that she found for the good guys against the
        thieves although the good guys did a no-no. However, I also stated something
        to the effect that with bad guys operating out of foreign countries and the
        like, American businesses do not stand a chance anymore if they are forced to
        abide by the laws since the bad guys don't.

        In this case Discovery was ordered. The defense said certain records didn't
        exist and that they provided everything they were ordered to do. They did
        NOT. The plaintiffs then went out and got the ordered docs themselves. They
        did exist and the court reviewed them.

        Now, had she not ruled as she did, the unlawfully obtained docs would have
        been quashed and she would not have been able to grant a 110+ MIL judgment
        along with a permanent INJUNCTION. The money is a moot issue since all defs have
        filed BK but the INJUNCTION is what they really needed. The piracy was
        costing American companies a small fortune to the detriment of the American
        economy and the good guys inuring to the benefit of the pirates.

        As I said to Branscum many years ago, sometimes the ends does justify the
        means.

        By the way, if anyone wants to review the entire case excluding only the
        "chamber sessions" they can do so at -
        _http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/cacdce/2:2006cv01093/182718/_
        (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/cacdce/2:2006cv01093/182718/)


        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency

        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564
        _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-246-3001 FAX

        "one Nation under God"

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
        a military veteran



        **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
        Read reviews on AOL Autos.
        (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.