A few thoughts:
1. The Wired article does contain "hacked materials" as defined by Twitter's policy.
2. The reporter did "solicit" the hacked materials, by the plain English definition of the term.
3. Twitter had other options to deal with this.. but chose the nuclear option. Seems overly harsh.. "people acting for or on behalf of such hackers" (quoted directly from Twitter's policy) doesn't really fit for this reporter.
4. Legally, aside from criminal charges, the hacker is probably in the most legal jeopardy for libel, as he posted false and defamatory statements.
1. The Wired article does contain "hacked materials" as defined by Twitter's policy.
2. The reporter did "solicit" the hacked materials, by the plain English definition of the term.
3. Twitter had other options to deal with this.. but chose the nuclear option. Seems overly harsh.. "people acting for or on behalf of such hackers" (quoted directly from Twitter's policy) doesn't really fit for this reporter.
4. Legally, aside from criminal charges, the hacker is probably in the most legal jeopardy for libel, as he posted false and defamatory statements.
Upvote
-47
(5
/
-52)