Victim of Hacking Into Email System Has Right to Identity of Hacker Ludlow is fo
ID: 3711360 • Letter: V
Question
Victim of Hacking Into Email System Has Right to Identity of Hacker
Ludlow is founder and CEO of Mobilisa, a wireless communication company that provides systems to customers, including the military. Confidentiality is important and the company secures its systems. Ludlow sent a personal message to a girlfriend. Six days later, a number of people, including Mobilisa’s managers, received a copy of that email with a note: Is this a company you want to work for? The message came via theanonymousemail.com, which is owned by TSB. Mobilisa sued John Doe as defendants for violating federal laws regarding electronic communications and asserting a common law claim of trespass to chattel (personal property). The company sought to subpoena the records of TSB to obtain the identity of John Doe who sent the anonymous email. The trial court granted Mobilisa’s request. TSB appealed.
as Prosecution Team i need 4 questions for Defense Team
please provide 4 questions about this case
Explanation / Answer
Answer)
So for the above scenario we have to prove as part of the prosecution that the "John Doe" who sent the anonymous email from the email id theanonymousemail.com which belongs to TSB has to be identified and is guilty for the act of intercepting illegally the email message of Ludlow, who is the founder and CEO of Mobilisa, a wireless communication company that provides systems to customers, including the military. The email message was a personal message from Ludlow to his girlfriend. Thus as per the law as the "Victim of Hacking Into Email System Has Right to Identity of Hacker", we have the right to know the identity of the hacker who intercepted the email message under the name of John Doe.
Thus some questions which we can ask the representatives of TSB are:
1) For what interest - professional or personal was the email message illegally intercepted under the name of John Doe through the theanonymousemail.com?
2) As the email message was broadcasted defaming the company Mobilisa, a wireless communication company that provides systems to customers, by targeting it's founder and CEO, don't we have the right according to the law to know the identity of the "John Doe" who intercepted the message?
3) As the company, Mobilisa, provides services to the customers and also emails may consist of other intercepted message between the company and the customers, even to the military, why shouldn't we have the identity of "John Doe" to interrogate what other messages have been intercepted which maybe harmful to the company?
4) As also, military services are involved, there is a possibility that even email communications with those sources have been intercepted, thus why shouldn't for National Security we cannot know the identity of the person who broke common law of trespassing to the personal property?
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.