I am also NAL. (Just to retroactively disqualify all previous statements as being possible legal counsel.)
Based on the other commentators' perceived legal knowledge, I didn't want to get into the more granular types of theft. The first thing someone thinks about when they hear "embezzlement" is the taking of money, so I opted to use "conversion" in a criminal law aspect as a more graspable definition despite its roots in civil law. But I thank you for making that distinction where I was too lazy (and, I admit, rather rushed) to. I'm out of car analogies for the day, I guess.
The point still stands, whether you approach it as civil tort or criminal (it's both), the "finder" (as the sugarcoat brigade would put it) wronged Apple through the unlawful taking of property. The wrongs committed include conversion on the civil side and, depending on how the situation actually played out, theft/embezzlement on the criminal side. (See my previous comments regarding why it could qualify as embezzlement, i.e. the Apple employee knew that someone else would find it.)
I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)
I seriously can't believe you just made that comparison. Your employment of reductionism to the absurd proves that you have no better arguments to present, so obviously I must have been effective in debunking jedidiah's shady legal claims.
How the hell would you possibly think that a car is real property, but an $800 electronic device (possibly more expensive because it was an engineering sample) isn't? You can hold it and touch it and own it. It is real property. Same with the french fries. You can own french fries.
The difference is in subject-matter jurisdiction. No DA in his right mind, and no court in its right mind(s) would pursue criminal charges over theft of $.99 french fries. An $800 electronic device that was illegally trafficked for $5000 is a different story. It's illegal all the same but subject-matter jurisdiction also has elements of common sense.
Land is different. Land is not treated as a physical good in all senses of the law - it's a combination of a good and a right. For instance, when you buy a house you're paying the previous owner for the right to use that land freely (within the limits of any encumberances of course, like HOA regulations).
Government seizure of land? I assume you mean eminent domain. Eminent domain requires that the government pay a fair and reasonable compensation for all land seized for government use. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
I highly doubt you're educated in any form of law, but luckily I am, so let me break it down for you.
"Unlawful taking" is actually a crime and is exactly what it sounds like - taking something that you don't own, with the intention of making it yours. And it stands quite well legally that his intent to sell the device constituted him making it his own property. Therefore, the selling of the unlawfully taken phone to a third party (a crime in and of itself) signifies the lack of intent to return the device to its owner.
Oh, by the way, even if you're going to assume that the Apple employee left it there specifically so someone would find it, the fact that somebody did pick it up and take it as their own property to sell counts as Conversion, the legal definition of which is taking sole possession of something you have been given control over with no intent to return it. It's like embezzlement, but without money.
The courts DO have rules. They're called laws. And everything I just explained to you IS the law.
Leaving something in a location does not mean it's no longer your property. Even if he did trust it to the hands of a "tech junky", it's still Apple's property. By selling the device, the "finder" illegally converted the phone to HIS sole possession and control. Why? Because you can't sell something that's not yours, so obviously he took the phone to be his own property.
When you maintain control over something that is not your property and you make it your property with no intent to return it to the owner, that is a crime, and it's called "conversion". It's like embezzlement, but without money - you've been trusted with something and you misappropriated it. The fact that he then SOLD the goods that were unlawfully converted constitutes a second crime, the sale of stolen property.
Nice attempt at spinning it into a harmless "finders-keepers" bit, but you failed miserably. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.
You need to do some reading. The Westboro Baptist Church isn't a church. It's a collective of lawyers (Yes, they're all lawyers oddly enough) who protest funerals hoping to elicit very violent emotional responses. They picket funerals of soldiers, firefighters, influential people in the community and so on to try to poke and prod the mourners into stepping up to defend their fallen heroes. There's no rhyme or reason to who they'll picket, as long as the person was influential in some way and gained the respect of others in their community.
Once they get someone mad enough to legally constitute assault, they sue the police force for not protecting them and the angry crowds for assaulting them. Next time you throw a punch at a Westboro member, you're only putting money in their pocket to further their cause.
They're not worshiping any religion's God. They're worshiping money. (Which I guess constitutes a religion in some locales.)
I'm going to be modded into hell for this, but oh well, my excellent karma can take it.
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
Storing steam for future use requires a continuous heat source, or else when you go to harness your leftover steam, you find a puddle. Electricity is easier to route and control, and definitely easier to store. Also, whereas you'd need a big hollow pipe to transfer steam to the drivetrain, electric motors make do with wires. It's lighter, easier to control and more efficient to store.
Are you familiar with steam-powered cars in the early 1900's? Whereas today you'd turn a key and engage the starter and have instant power, with steam-powered cars you had to light your heat source and let the steam reservoir heat up sufficiently for anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. With an all-steam drivetrain, people would die of boredom, and maybe even literally die if you have to warm up the ambulance for a few minutes before you can start rolling. In an all-electric drivetrain with a sufficient battery reserve, there's no wait. Turn the car on, shift to drive, press on the pedal, get moving. In this situation, while you're running off of the battery, the thorium-powered generator is providing heat to the water to create steam to replenish the battery.
I think the idea here is that we can enhance existing electric car offerings by including a thorium-based generation system to eliminate the need to plug into the local grid at night. Assuming you don't lose any steam and have to refill the water tank every once in a while, it would enable electric cars to travel for hundreds of thousands of miles without stopping (theoretically), and in doing so would break our reliance on fossil fuels in a way that plug-in electric cars never can.
You know, a lot of startups get a bad rap right off the bat here on/. because their ideas are far-fetched or justt plain illogical. If this startup can prove what they're saying, even if these guys don't stick a 227kg thorium engine in a car, they've still got a damn good idea for power generation that other power-critical applications (hospitals, data centers) would definitely benefit from. I'll be rooting for them.
I do have modpoints, but unfortunately there is no "-1, Wrong" rating. And unlike other people, I will not substitute Troll, Overrated or Flamebait.
But anyway, back to the topic at hand... uh, where the hell do you work? I work in a very Windows-heavy environment, and every time we add any Windows boxen to the domain, the domain admins get automatic admin rights. There's nothing we can do to stop it. This is a 10,000+ workstation university, though, so at least they're distant and maybe (only maybe) competent enough to not abuse it.
In my department, "let's play" happens at the System Engineer/Helpdesk level. A vast majority of our new tech/process implementations stemmed from wanting to solve existing administration and support problems... We get the brand new stuff, we configure it the way it should be, we make it interface with existing systems.
I'm a firm believer that upper management should never make the fine-grained decisions (which hardware to buy, which software package to implement). Those decisions should only be made based on the recommendation of the technical-level employees and supervisors - in other words, the people supporting the product are the ones who can recommend what we should use and how we should use it. Think of it as eating your own dog food... Upper management doesn't have to support 300 users who all want their Lotus Notes calendars to sync to their iOS devices. The helpdesk jockies are the ones who shoulder that weight.
My background is in MIS. Believe me, I've slogged my way through many a stuffy case study and decoded plenty of buzzwords. But if you're a CIO, and you didn't already know that mobile devices are quickly wedging their way into our infrastructures, you are a fraud and shouldn't be where you are now. There's a point where you need to put down that free-for-every-CIO magazine and say "Okay, what the hell are we going to do about this? How can we integrate these into our existing systems in a safe and reliable way? How can we enforce policies to keep business data under control and segmented from personal data?"
That's when you step out of your office, walk down the stairs (no more elevator, stairs = exercise!), approach your tech team and pick their brains for ideas. They're your front lines, they deserve a say.
I imagine you're a very un-fun person to associate with at parties. Why? Because you have a personal vendetta to correct everybody who tells any sort of joke or exercises any brand of humor.
Know how I know that? It's four pages long, yet doesn't say anything.
"As perceptive CIOs seek to transform their rigid, legacy ridden infrastructures into agile, efficient, service-driven delivery mechanisms, they must adopt a pragmatic approach to managing the risks of consumer IT while embracing the benefits.
It appears the comment stream got merged with the article that discussed Mozilla's use of SeaMicro servers. Oddly enough, the Mozilla article now has no comments...
In a scientific experiment you don't ignore the data that doesn't support your conclusion.
The marksman will always be far more accurate and precise than the guy wielding the shotgun. Sure, the shotgun will hit the target, but when you put 24 projectiles in the air and only one of them hits, I'd hardly call that a success when a marksman can hit the target with far greater accuracy and less projectiles. It would be downright deceitful to conveniently ignore the 23 misses when you calculate the accuracy of the shotgun compared to the rifle.
I guess what I'm getting at is 499 failures and 1 success isn't very remarkable compared to 4 failures and 1 success. If Apple put out a low-end iOS-powered phone, people would be all over it and that market share argument would be even more invalid than it is now.
I'd classify devices like the HTC Evo, Motorola Droid, Samsung Infuse and Apple iPhone as "high-end" smartphones. What I'd really like to see when we compare market share is only the high-end smartphones vs. each other.
It's hard to not gain a huge market share when you take the "buckshot" approach to your product line and release a new Android-powered device every single day.
Do you want quality, or do you want quantity? A single shotgun can put a dozen holes in a target in one shot, but an accomplished marksman with a rifle has the accuracy and precision that a doofus with a scattergun lacks.
Suits will be suits. Backblaze proudly boasts that they're a great offsite backup solution, but they will quickly tell you that they are not a "cloud storage" provider. Their only business is offsite replication. They don't hide the fact that if you upload 500GB of data and then delete it off your computer, it will be removed from their systems as well.
You didn't read the article. You know how I know that? They explicitly state that they don't have any costs for replacement hard drives over 3 years, because they're *all under warranty* for 3 years. When a drive fails, they get a new one from the manufacturer, no questions asked. And yes, actually, they do include bandwidth in the cost. They disclose it within the same paragraph.
And on the topic of cooling, cooling is a cost that can't be directly assigned to one particular server because it's irresponsibly expensive to monitor the heat output of every individual server. The cost of cooling is an indirect cost and is always factored into operational overhead, and from there the operational overhead is allocated evenly across systems. I suspect that they're just giving the direct costs of storing X amount of data, which would also explain why the Amazon S3 price is ridiculously high - they don't have access to only the direct prices, so they're forced to use the list price which already includes all costs and profits associated with the service.
All four remaining developers are considering switching to Android... oh, wait, if they're at all mindful of the future they're probably cross-compiling and porting everything anyway.
Sorry, I'm not well-versed enough in the agenda of the anti-News Corp hate machine to know all about why News Corp is so evil and Rupert Murdoch eats babies. Hence, [citation needed].
P.S. Anti-Fox News speak always sounds so much more entertaining when you picture it being spouted by an arrogant Frenchman smoking a cigarette.
I never said what they did was okay, it's just that the actual definition of "hacking" is completely different from what the submitter thinks it is. And as an aside, ALL tabloids (grimy little nosy bastards, all of them) pay people for information. Let's not act like this is some special case, especially considering that in the UK, tabloids love "hacking" voicemails to get info for their largely made-up stories.
Before the typical string of "OMG FAUX NEWS" posts pop up (somehow always modded Insightful?), let's lay down some basic fundamentals of the story:
A News Corp subsidiary that happens to be a tabloid (which as we all know don't count as real journalism) hired a private investigator to complete his own investigation on the murder of a girl. The private investigator, acting as a lone agent, "hacked in" (Is it hacking when you guess the passcode? 1-2-3-4?) to her voicemail and used a message on it to add to his investigation.
Rupert Murdoch didn't personally hold anybody at gunpoint demanding a passcode. News Corp didn't send Nazi Zombies after her family demanding information. But I can already tell from the headline that some people will just go there right off the bat.
I'm all for charging the PI with obstruction of justice, but unless News Corp explicitly told him what to do, their involvement in this is tangential at best.
Slashdot Mirror
I am also NAL. (Just to retroactively disqualify all previous statements as being possible legal counsel.)
Based on the other commentators' perceived legal knowledge, I didn't want to get into the more granular types of theft. The first thing someone thinks about when they hear "embezzlement" is the taking of money, so I opted to use "conversion" in a criminal law aspect as a more graspable definition despite its roots in civil law. But I thank you for making that distinction where I was too lazy (and, I admit, rather rushed) to. I'm out of car analogies for the day, I guess.
The point still stands, whether you approach it as civil tort or criminal (it's both), the "finder" (as the sugarcoat brigade would put it) wronged Apple through the unlawful taking of property. The wrongs committed include conversion on the civil side and, depending on how the situation actually played out, theft/embezzlement on the criminal side. (See my previous comments regarding why it could qualify as embezzlement, i.e. the Apple employee knew that someone else would find it.)
I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)
I seriously can't believe you just made that comparison. Your employment of reductionism to the absurd proves that you have no better arguments to present, so obviously I must have been effective in debunking jedidiah's shady legal claims.
How the hell would you possibly think that a car is real property, but an $800 electronic device (possibly more expensive because it was an engineering sample) isn't? You can hold it and touch it and own it. It is real property. Same with the french fries. You can own french fries.
The difference is in subject-matter jurisdiction. No DA in his right mind, and no court in its right mind(s) would pursue criminal charges over theft of $.99 french fries. An $800 electronic device that was illegally trafficked for $5000 is a different story. It's illegal all the same but subject-matter jurisdiction also has elements of common sense.
Land is different. Land is not treated as a physical good in all senses of the law - it's a combination of a good and a right. For instance, when you buy a house you're paying the previous owner for the right to use that land freely (within the limits of any encumberances of course, like HOA regulations).
Government seizure of land? I assume you mean eminent domain. Eminent domain requires that the government pay a fair and reasonable compensation for all land seized for government use. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
I highly doubt you're educated in any form of law, but luckily I am, so let me break it down for you.
"Unlawful taking" is actually a crime and is exactly what it sounds like - taking something that you don't own, with the intention of making it yours. And it stands quite well legally that his intent to sell the device constituted him making it his own property. Therefore, the selling of the unlawfully taken phone to a third party (a crime in and of itself) signifies the lack of intent to return the device to its owner.
Oh, by the way, even if you're going to assume that the Apple employee left it there specifically so someone would find it, the fact that somebody did pick it up and take it as their own property to sell counts as Conversion, the legal definition of which is taking sole possession of something you have been given control over with no intent to return it. It's like embezzlement, but without money.
The courts DO have rules. They're called laws. And everything I just explained to you IS the law.
This is legally false.
Leaving something in a location does not mean it's no longer your property. Even if he did trust it to the hands of a "tech junky", it's still Apple's property. By selling the device, the "finder" illegally converted the phone to HIS sole possession and control. Why? Because you can't sell something that's not yours, so obviously he took the phone to be his own property.
When you maintain control over something that is not your property and you make it your property with no intent to return it to the owner, that is a crime, and it's called "conversion". It's like embezzlement, but without money - you've been trusted with something and you misappropriated it. The fact that he then SOLD the goods that were unlawfully converted constitutes a second crime, the sale of stolen property.
Nice attempt at spinning it into a harmless "finders-keepers" bit, but you failed miserably. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.
Your own ignorance does not grant you license to be a smartass. Google FERPA and see what the law says about protecting students' information.
This is OT but here we go...
You need to do some reading. The Westboro Baptist Church isn't a church. It's a collective of lawyers (Yes, they're all lawyers oddly enough) who protest funerals hoping to elicit very violent emotional responses. They picket funerals of soldiers, firefighters, influential people in the community and so on to try to poke and prod the mourners into stepping up to defend their fallen heroes. There's no rhyme or reason to who they'll picket, as long as the person was influential in some way and gained the respect of others in their community.
Once they get someone mad enough to legally constitute assault, they sue the police force for not protecting them and the angry crowds for assaulting them. Next time you throw a punch at a Westboro member, you're only putting money in their pocket to further their cause.
They're not worshiping any religion's God. They're worshiping money. (Which I guess constitutes a religion in some locales.)
It took ten years because the Nobel Prize Committee just finished reading timothy's summary.
I'm going to be modded into hell for this, but oh well, my excellent karma can take it.
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
Storing steam for future use requires a continuous heat source, or else when you go to harness your leftover steam, you find a puddle. Electricity is easier to route and control, and definitely easier to store. Also, whereas you'd need a big hollow pipe to transfer steam to the drivetrain, electric motors make do with wires. It's lighter, easier to control and more efficient to store.
/. because their ideas are far-fetched or justt plain illogical. If this startup can prove what they're saying, even if these guys don't stick a 227kg thorium engine in a car, they've still got a damn good idea for power generation that other power-critical applications (hospitals, data centers) would definitely benefit from. I'll be rooting for them.
Are you familiar with steam-powered cars in the early 1900's? Whereas today you'd turn a key and engage the starter and have instant power, with steam-powered cars you had to light your heat source and let the steam reservoir heat up sufficiently for anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes. With an all-steam drivetrain, people would die of boredom, and maybe even literally die if you have to warm up the ambulance for a few minutes before you can start rolling. In an all-electric drivetrain with a sufficient battery reserve, there's no wait. Turn the car on, shift to drive, press on the pedal, get moving. In this situation, while you're running off of the battery, the thorium-powered generator is providing heat to the water to create steam to replenish the battery.
I think the idea here is that we can enhance existing electric car offerings by including a thorium-based generation system to eliminate the need to plug into the local grid at night. Assuming you don't lose any steam and have to refill the water tank every once in a while, it would enable electric cars to travel for hundreds of thousands of miles without stopping (theoretically), and in doing so would break our reliance on fossil fuels in a way that plug-in electric cars never can.
You know, a lot of startups get a bad rap right off the bat here on
I have modpoints, but I can't find the "-1, Woosh" rating.
I do have modpoints, but unfortunately there is no "-1, Wrong" rating. And unlike other people, I will not substitute Troll, Overrated or Flamebait.
But anyway, back to the topic at hand... uh, where the hell do you work? I work in a very Windows-heavy environment, and every time we add any Windows boxen to the domain, the domain admins get automatic admin rights. There's nothing we can do to stop it. This is a 10,000+ workstation university, though, so at least they're distant and maybe (only maybe) competent enough to not abuse it.
Yeah, because THOSE are the markets that are really going to propel Google to greatness.
In my department, "let's play" happens at the System Engineer/Helpdesk level. A vast majority of our new tech/process implementations stemmed from wanting to solve existing administration and support problems... We get the brand new stuff, we configure it the way it should be, we make it interface with existing systems.
I'm a firm believer that upper management should never make the fine-grained decisions (which hardware to buy, which software package to implement). Those decisions should only be made based on the recommendation of the technical-level employees and supervisors - in other words, the people supporting the product are the ones who can recommend what we should use and how we should use it. Think of it as eating your own dog food... Upper management doesn't have to support 300 users who all want their Lotus Notes calendars to sync to their iOS devices. The helpdesk jockies are the ones who shoulder that weight.
My background is in MIS. Believe me, I've slogged my way through many a stuffy case study and decoded plenty of buzzwords. But if you're a CIO, and you didn't already know that mobile devices are quickly wedging their way into our infrastructures, you are a fraud and shouldn't be where you are now. There's a point where you need to put down that free-for-every-CIO magazine and say "Okay, what the hell are we going to do about this? How can we integrate these into our existing systems in a safe and reliable way? How can we enforce policies to keep business data under control and segmented from personal data?"
That's when you step out of your office, walk down the stairs (no more elevator, stairs = exercise!), approach your tech team and pick their brains for ideas. They're your front lines, they deserve a say.
I imagine you're a very un-fun person to associate with at parties. Why? Because you have a personal vendetta to correct everybody who tells any sort of joke or exercises any brand of humor.
It's the internet. Get off your high horse.
"As perceptive CIOs seek to transform their rigid, legacy ridden infrastructures into agile, efficient, service-driven delivery mechanisms, they must adopt a pragmatic approach to managing the risks of consumer IT while embracing the benefits.
I stopped reading right there.
It appears the comment stream got merged with the article that discussed Mozilla's use of SeaMicro servers. Oddly enough, the Mozilla article now has no comments...
In a scientific experiment you don't ignore the data that doesn't support your conclusion.
The marksman will always be far more accurate and precise than the guy wielding the shotgun. Sure, the shotgun will hit the target, but when you put 24 projectiles in the air and only one of them hits, I'd hardly call that a success when a marksman can hit the target with far greater accuracy and less projectiles. It would be downright deceitful to conveniently ignore the 23 misses when you calculate the accuracy of the shotgun compared to the rifle.
I guess what I'm getting at is 499 failures and 1 success isn't very remarkable compared to 4 failures and 1 success. If Apple put out a low-end iOS-powered phone, people would be all over it and that market share argument would be even more invalid than it is now.
I'd classify devices like the HTC Evo, Motorola Droid, Samsung Infuse and Apple iPhone as "high-end" smartphones. What I'd really like to see when we compare market share is only the high-end smartphones vs. each other.
It's hard to not gain a huge market share when you take the "buckshot" approach to your product line and release a new Android-powered device every single day.
Do you want quality, or do you want quantity? A single shotgun can put a dozen holes in a target in one shot, but an accomplished marksman with a rifle has the accuracy and precision that a doofus with a scattergun lacks.
Suits will be suits. Backblaze proudly boasts that they're a great offsite backup solution, but they will quickly tell you that they are not a "cloud storage" provider. Their only business is offsite replication. They don't hide the fact that if you upload 500GB of data and then delete it off your computer, it will be removed from their systems as well.
You didn't read the article. You know how I know that? They explicitly state that they don't have any costs for replacement hard drives over 3 years, because they're *all under warranty* for 3 years. When a drive fails, they get a new one from the manufacturer, no questions asked. And yes, actually, they do include bandwidth in the cost. They disclose it within the same paragraph.
And on the topic of cooling, cooling is a cost that can't be directly assigned to one particular server because it's irresponsibly expensive to monitor the heat output of every individual server. The cost of cooling is an indirect cost and is always factored into operational overhead, and from there the operational overhead is allocated evenly across systems. I suspect that they're just giving the direct costs of storing X amount of data, which would also explain why the Amazon S3 price is ridiculously high - they don't have access to only the direct prices, so they're forced to use the list price which already includes all costs and profits associated with the service.
All four remaining developers are considering switching to Android... oh, wait, if they're at all mindful of the future they're probably cross-compiling and porting everything anyway.
Sorry, I'm not well-versed enough in the agenda of the anti-News Corp hate machine to know all about why News Corp is so evil and Rupert Murdoch eats babies. Hence, [citation needed].
P.S. Anti-Fox News speak always sounds so much more entertaining when you picture it being spouted by an arrogant Frenchman smoking a cigarette.
I never said what they did was okay, it's just that the actual definition of "hacking" is completely different from what the submitter thinks it is. And as an aside, ALL tabloids (grimy little nosy bastards, all of them) pay people for information. Let's not act like this is some special case, especially considering that in the UK, tabloids love "hacking" voicemails to get info for their largely made-up stories.
Before the typical string of "OMG FAUX NEWS" posts pop up (somehow always modded Insightful?), let's lay down some basic fundamentals of the story:
A News Corp subsidiary that happens to be a tabloid (which as we all know don't count as real journalism) hired a private investigator to complete his own investigation on the murder of a girl. The private investigator, acting as a lone agent, "hacked in" (Is it hacking when you guess the passcode? 1-2-3-4?) to her voicemail and used a message on it to add to his investigation.
Rupert Murdoch didn't personally hold anybody at gunpoint demanding a passcode. News Corp didn't send Nazi Zombies after her family demanding information. But I can already tell from the headline that some people will just go there right off the bat.
I'm all for charging the PI with obstruction of justice, but unless News Corp explicitly told him what to do, their involvement in this is tangential at best.
Dear submitters,
If you don't know what a specific word or figure of speech means, OR how it's spelled, DON'T use it. I beg of you.
To loosely quote Stewie, "Anyone caught using the terms 'irregardless,' 'a whole nother,' or 'all of the sudden' will be put in work camps.”