I think it is incumbent upon those who author such works to exercise care in their word selection and tone. I agree with some of Rasch's points; however, I fear that he allowed his zeal for the subject matter to morph him into a modern Chicken Little.

If the sky is really falling, Mark, please do tell me about it. But don't tell me about the reflection of the sky bouncing off the surface of the lake as though IT were the sky.

This case is about an action in tort, not a criminal proceeding. Even without your JD you should know that (and I suspect you do). It was another (private) party's legal counsel who initiated the action for trespass. It was not a district attorney or agency prosecutor. Similary. the "trespass" being claimed here is, in fact, the tort of trespass to chattels precisely because it is portable, personal property, not real property (i.e. land).

I agree with you, though, that this certainly does appear to be bad law. My impression is that the more accurate cause of action would be against the ISP for negligence. They clearly did not exercise due care to protect their customer's data.

I look forward to your next article. I just hope that it is more factual and less hysterical.

JJ

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/183/22223#22223