4 ms·
Not only that, but such any "evidence" acquired by this route would surely be inadmissible. You aren't allowed to break the law just because you think someone e
by Y_Y 9y ago
Not only that, but such any "evidence" acquired by this route would surely be inadmissible. You aren't allowed to break the law just because you think someone else might have done it first.
- rbf 9y agoFYI there are only some countries where evidence is inadmissible solely because it is aquired illegaly (eg in the United States, but not most of Europe AFAIK). Not that I in any way condone what this company have done.
- skissane 9y agoEven in the US, the exclusionary rule only protects you against illegal evidence acquisition by the government. If a private party illegally gathers evidence against you (without any government prompting), that is admissible. See for instance Burdeau v. McDowell [1]. Another interesting case on this topic is Sackler v. Sackler [2], where the New York State Court of Appeals held that evidence illegally gathered by private investigators (working for one of the divorcing spouses) was admissible in divorce proceedings. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10755134066232305233&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107551340662323... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=641943334909742610&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=641943334909742...
- letsgetphysITal 9y agoThat's true. However, using credentials harvested in this way is almost certainly going to constitute unauthorised access of a computer system and a breach of the Computer Misuse Act.