> I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released In that case it wouldn't make it a hack, but just a leak. > and that according

> I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released In that case it wouldn't make it a hack, but just a leak. > and that according to the law in that state became the legal property of the shop owner That's something I'm still fuzzy on. I'm not sure if it's the law in the state, or just the store's contractual policy. Also, I don't know if the laptop becoming property of the shop extends to the information contained within it. And it also didn't specify if the data on the hard drive was password protected or encrypted in any way which meant retrieval would still require hacking into it. > But once it got so high up that @Jack commented on it, and now over a week later the NY Post's account is still banned, it doesn't float. I can't speak to that. Now Twitter has a PR issue, and I'm guessing whatever choices they've made or not are based on them trying to mitigate and limit the PR damages. My guess is, the NY Post is now smearing twitter's own reputation, and possibly twitter doesn't like that, and are worried they'd use their account to further promote anti-twitter rethoric which might be why Twitter is against unblocking their account. I'm a bit confused how they unblocked the tweet about the email story but kept the account blocked, that's a bit strange. Another thing I wondered is how likely could Twitter be accountable for if Hunter were to sue them for defamation and libel? Normally it seem fair game to defame and cause libel to politicians, but would that extend to Hunter which isn't directly involved in politics? Or could that be a winning lawsuit from him if he wanted too?