3 ms·

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 r

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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]