- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
PT Lawyers, I Have a Question
Posted on 7/13/18 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 7/13/18 at 12:48 pm
I am aware of "receiving stolen property" statutes on the books. If a dude down the street steals a stereo and sells it to me, I can be prosecuted even if I didn't steal it.
However, does the same go for "information?" If someone steals some documents and lets me view them, am I liable? Or how about if someone hacks e-mails and lets me view them?
Follow-up: If the answer is "no" then why is information treated differently than, say, a Rolex watch or a stereo?
(I am asking, obviously, about the Russia investigation).
However, does the same go for "information?" If someone steals some documents and lets me view them, am I liable? Or how about if someone hacks e-mails and lets me view them?
Follow-up: If the answer is "no" then why is information treated differently than, say, a Rolex watch or a stereo?
(I am asking, obviously, about the Russia investigation).
9
Posted on 7/13/18 at 12:51 pm to AUstar
Be honest with yourself. You're not mad that it happened, you're just mad it happened to your side.
Posted on 7/13/18 at 1:17 pm to AUstar
Because "information" is a abstract thing, not a physical good? Because such a law would be near impossible to enforce? Because the First Amendment?
Posted on 7/13/18 at 1:19 pm to AUstar
The law may have changed BUT it used to be illegal to steal the information BUT not illegal to buy the stolen information, as long as you didn't hire the person to steal it.
The example I'd use is phone records.
The example I'd use is phone records.
Posted on 7/13/18 at 1:28 pm to AUstar
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 9:57 am
Posted on 7/13/18 at 1:47 pm to AUstar
Accessory if you knew it was stolen and did nothing.
Principal if it was stolen for you.
Principal if it was stolen for you.
Posted on 7/13/18 at 1:49 pm to AUstar
quote:Actually, you can't be prosecuted just for buying it. You have to actually know it was stolen too.
I am aware of "receiving stolen property" statutes on the books. If a dude down the street steals a stereo and sells it to me, I can be prosecuted even if I didn't steal it.
quote:If it does, then like 90% of the press is going to jail.
However, does the same go for "information?" If someone steals some documents and lets me view them, am I liable? Or how about if someone hacks e-mails and lets me view them?
Posted on 7/13/18 at 2:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If it does, then like 90% of the press is going to jail.
Yep. So what exactly is Mueller investigating?
We know that receiving e-mails is not illegal, only conspiring to steal them is. So, how does he plan to prove Trump conspired to steal documents? It's almost impossible to prove and any proof would be solely based on testimony from others. It's highly unlikely there's wiretaps or tapes, etc. (we'd know it by now). So it seems there's only two possibilities for proof:
1) A Russian GRU/FSB agent comes forward and claims Trump helped. In that scenario, are we suddenly supposed to trust Russians who the Dems say are conducting espionage against us? How do we know it's not just another attempt to sow discord in our politics?
2) One of Trump's close associates talks. Let's say Manafort, after months of torture, cries "uncle." Trump's defense attorneys will tear Mueller's case to shreds. They will claim (convincingly) that Manafort's testimony was coerced.
Posted on 7/13/18 at 2:24 pm to AUstar
quote:
I can be prosecuted even if I didn't steal it.
Not necessarily. If you bought the stereo in good faith, not knowing it was stolen, you may be good. If you know it's stolen, you may be in a bit of trouble.
Posted on 7/13/18 at 3:58 pm to AUstar
Information is generally not defined as property, unless it is intellectual property and then its value has to be defined. Property is defined as anything of value belonging to another. How do you value information?
Posted on 7/13/18 at 4:09 pm to AUstar
quote:
2) One of Trump's close associates talks. Let's say Manafort, after months of torture, cries "uncle." Trump's defense attorneys will tear Mueller's case to shreds. They will claim (convincingly) that Manafort's testimony was coerced.
Maybe they'll start the torture at Alexandria, but the Feds have him on tape making phone calls from Northern Neck claiming to have been treated like a VIP. Had good access to counsel, not required to wear standard issue prison garb, private bathroom access. That being said, Paul's used to wine tours at fine Chalets on Lake Como, so maybe that's still torture to him.
ETA: BTW, here's a good piece from last summer on some legal concepts in using the aiding and abetting statute with CFAA.
Lawfare
This post was edited on 7/13/18 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 7/13/18 at 4:11 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
TigerDoc
You have such a weird obsession with Manafort
Like flies on shite whenever a thread is started about the guy
Posted on 7/13/18 at 4:14 pm to AUstar
quote:
If a dude down the street steals a stereo and sells it to me, I can be prosecuted even if I didn't steal it.
What if the person who stole it knew that he was stealing but did not have the intent to steal?
Then, could we just forget about the whole thing no matter how badly the actual stereo owner got fricked over?
I mean ... at that point, what difference does it make?
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News