50 ms·

There is a question as to whether it is legal or not, it is unequivocally unethical.

dmix 7y ago
Especially when it’s a gov prosecutor sending it to the opposing defence attorneys, when the organization sending it has a known capability to exploit those computers for intelligence gathering. The privacy rights between attorneys and clients is particularly sensitive. Not to mention a government agent sending it to journalists with the freedom of the press rights.
torstenvl 7y ago
If you're going to make an inflammatory claim like that, you should articulate your basis. What ethics rule are you claiming was violated?
- chuckgreenman 7y ago
  The prosecutors embedded a tracking image in an email that they sent to journalists and the defense. It's not just for tracking to see if the recipients have opened the email, but it could help them identify who the email is forwarded to. In this case, the journalists have confidential sources, they may forward that email to them, which would leak the source's IP, which could reveal the identity of the source. A free and strong press is how we keep powerful institutions in check. It is not an inflammatory statement to say that a reprisal by a government institution that has been accused of doing something unethical is unethical. It's just common sense.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    I understand why you don't like it. I asked why you think it's an ethical violation. In case you decide to answer that question eventually, the model ethics rules are here: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... I would really be interested in knowing which one you're alleging was violated.
    - wgj 7y ago
      For the layperson, ethics is generally something we know when we see it. That's not in bad faith. IANAL, but clause (a) looks potentially applicable. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_4_respect_for_rights_of_third_persons/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... > or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person I don't expect to see this prosecutor disbarred, but one can still call out the unethical behavior.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - torstenvl 7y ago
        Okay, but that raises the question: what legal right do you think is being violated? I am not aware of a legal right not to receive e-mail with remote-loading images.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - theaustinseven 7y ago
      They did answer the question, and did so in good faith. This comment however is fairly confusing. There's a reason that our government institutions can't perform espionage on anyone they feel like without at least passing through some check(warrant). The same seems valid here, people have a fundamental right to privacy, and this seems aimed at violating that right, not only of the first recipient, but of another person as well. Given that this is being done without some sort of additional check, or through channels that our branches of government have approved, that certainly doesn't seem ethical to me. Simply not liking someone's argument doesn't mean they didn't answer your question or are arguing in bad faith. To automatically assume that would imply that you are the one arguing in bad faith.
- shstalwart 7y ago
  Not everybody believes ethics is a set of rules set forth by some committee.
yeahitslikethat 7y ago
Unless you are any commercial mass email marketer available today?
- chuckgreenman 7y ago
  I'd argue that isn't ethical either. Commonplace and unethical are unfortunately not mutually exclusive.

dmix 7y ago

Especially when it’s a gov prosecutor sending it to the opposing defence attorneys, when the organization sending it has a known capability to exploit those computers for intelligence gathering. The privacy rights between attorneys and clients is particularly sensitive. Not to mention a government agent sending it to journalists with the freedom of the press rights.

torstenvl 7y ago

If you're going to make an inflammatory claim like that, you should articulate your basis. What ethics rule are you claiming was violated?

chuckgreenman 7y ago
The prosecutors embedded a tracking image in an email that they sent to journalists and the defense. It's not just for tracking to see if the recipients have opened the email, but it could help them identify who the email is forwarded to. In this case, the journalists have confidential sources, they may forward that email to them, which would leak the source's IP, which could reveal the identity of the source. A free and strong press is how we keep powerful institutions in check. It is not an inflammatory statement to say that a reprisal by a government institution that has been accused of doing something unethical is unethical. It's just common sense.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 7y ago
  I understand why you don't like it. I asked why you think it's an ethical violation. In case you decide to answer that question eventually, the model ethics rules are here: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... I would really be interested in knowing which one you're alleging was violated.
  - wgj 7y ago
    For the layperson, ethics is generally something we know when we see it. That's not in bad faith. IANAL, but clause (a) looks potentially applicable. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_4_respect_for_rights_of_third_persons/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... > or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person I don't expect to see this prosecutor disbarred, but one can still call out the unethical behavior.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      Okay, but that raises the question: what legal right do you think is being violated? I am not aware of a legal right not to receive e-mail with remote-loading images.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - theaustinseven 7y ago
    They did answer the question, and did so in good faith. This comment however is fairly confusing. There's a reason that our government institutions can't perform espionage on anyone they feel like without at least passing through some check(warrant). The same seems valid here, people have a fundamental right to privacy, and this seems aimed at violating that right, not only of the first recipient, but of another person as well. Given that this is being done without some sort of additional check, or through channels that our branches of government have approved, that certainly doesn't seem ethical to me. Simply not liking someone's argument doesn't mean they didn't answer your question or are arguing in bad faith. To automatically assume that would imply that you are the one arguing in bad faith.
shstalwart 7y ago
Not everybody believes ethics is a set of rules set forth by some committee.

yeahitslikethat 7y ago

Unless you are any commercial mass email marketer available today?

chuckgreenman 7y ago
I'd argue that isn't ethical either. Commonplace and unethical are unfortunately not mutually exclusive.