Rangers Supporters Trust 'suspend spokesman over improper conduct'

[SteveC 150]

MD is a lot of things but I must admit I find the notion of him 'hacking' other people unlikely.

 

In any event, this is now supposedly a police investigation so I'd suggest people think about what they post in relation to this.

 

Mmmmmmmm. yes = Rangers fan, helpful fellow, good poster - just like yourself

[plgsarmy 111]

To be fair it could be related to any number of things: emails, websites, pm's or whatever. As such speculation, while understandable, is pretty much a waste of time.

 

It is interesting though, that an email from Paul Murray to other fans was published elsewhere. Where did that come from?

 

Frankie, this is also in the hands of the police so not much can be said. You don't have to be a genius to work it out.

[Zappa 0]

It is interesting though, that an email from Paul Murray to other fans was published elsewhere. Where did that come from?

 

Realistically, that email from Paul Murray must have come from one of the recipients. Those who published it refused to publish the full list of recipients, which is suspicious.

[bossy 0]

Realistically, that email from Paul Murray must have come from one of the recipients. Those who published it refused to publish the full list of recipients, which is suspicious.

 

I have always worked on the principal that once an email has been sent then it is in the public domain. There is a big difference in forwarding on an email you have received and hacking into somebody's computer files.

[amms 0]

I have always worked on the principal that once an email has been sent then it is in the public domain. There is a big difference in forwarding on an email you have received and hacking into somebody's computer files.

 

You'd be wrong then. You can't publish it without the author's permission. If you do then you are in breach of copyright and depending how you came about obtaining the email possibly more.

Whether the fiscal would deem it serious enough to press charges is another matter, but you can't 'publish' something you didn't write without the author's permission.

[bossy 0]

You'd be wrong then. You can't publish it without the author's permission. If you do then you are in breach of copyright and depending how you came about obtaining the email possibly more.

Whether the fiscal would deem it serious enough to press charges is another matter, but you can't 'publish' something you didn't write without the author's permission.

 

Breach of copyright is generally a civil and not a criminal matter. If you have received an email legally then there is unlikely to be any criminal consequence.

 

But, the point is, in terms of confidentiality, once an email is out there, it is effectively public knowledge.

[SteveC 150]

I have always worked on the principal that once an email has been sent then it is in the public domain. There is a big difference in forwarding on an email you have received and hacking into somebody's computer files.

 

eh? How could private e-mails be in the public domain? Business e-mails, e-mails to one's wife and (many) mistresses (sorry, thinking of politicians who lecture us on "family values") etc. etc. Would you say the same re snail mail letters, telephone calls, faxes?

[bossy 0]

eh? How could private e-mails be in the public domain? Business e-mails, e-mails to one's wife and (many) mistresses (sorry, thinking of politicians who lecture us on "family values") etc. etc. Would you say the same re snail mail letters, telephone calls, faxes?

 

Forget the legal side of it. Once you have sent an email you have no idea where it will show up or who will read it. So, effectively, it is "out there". The same can be true of snail mail but email is much easier and faster to copy and send on.

 

For that reason, I am very very careful about what I post online or send out in emails.

[amms 0]

Breach of copyright is generally a civil and not a criminal matter. If you have received an email legally then there is unlikely to be any criminal consequence.

 

But, the point is, in terms of confidentiality, once an email is out there, it is effectively public knowledge.

 

You may think that but that doesn't mean it is the case. An email remains private between the sender and the recipient until the author consents otherwise. There is a world of difference between reading an email you were sent and then publishing that said email without the author's consent.

[Frankie 8,652]

I think bossy makes a fair point. In an ideal world, an email between people should be private but you're not only reliant on the recipients keeping it that way but their security as well.

 

No matter, unless you have everyone's permission to release information within it, it's morally inappropriate to do so.