3 ms·
I think the diference is that the source of this case is a person that choose to colaborate. In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phone
by diegoholiveira 7y ago
I think the diference is that the source of this case is a person that choose to colaborate.
In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phones (not those provided by the government as corporate phone).
I don't think the same principle can be applied here.
- sangnoir 7y agoThe Times, by publishing classified information, were themselves potentially violating the Espionage Act (according to the government's assertion) - so the principle applies in more ways than by proxy. Which is why it was vital that the courts ruling affirmed the importance of a free press, despite laws that might be used to gag it.
- diegoholiveira 7y agoClassified information is public information (belongs to the government and have a deadline to be disclosed), so makes sense to apply the same principle of New York Times v United States (1971). But hacking private phones sounds like a new question to me.