3 ms·

> I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That doesn't m

> I think that calling them "private" is a bit misleading here. As far as I can see, they all seem to be about Scientology business / logistics. That doesn't make them not-private. My email is private no matter what the subject is. More to the point - you seem to be saying that it's okay to read someone's email, and then just release the parts that don't contain much personal information. That is clearly shady. Maybe you can make the case that the CoS is so evil that the normal rules for what you should/shouldn't do with someone's email account don't apply here. But you certainly can't pretend that this is anything other than leaking private information.

fjh 14y ago
Calling them private is certainly technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the term is sufficiently overloaded that I thought it would be worth pointing out that they don't seem to contain personal information (e.g. people talking about their children or their marriage trouble). I don't think that this is the result of someone reading all their emails and releasing the ones without personal information (which I don't think would be okay, I'm not sure how you got that impression), but a result of everyone using @scientology.co.at email addresses. As I said above, I do not think that the lack of personal information by itself makes releasing them okay, but I do think that the combination of the CoS being secretive and "evil" gives this particular hack some (moral, not legal) legitimacy, because it is difficult to get this information using less dodgy methods.