As more and more Russian pieces become exposed, it looks like Digital Dirt is going to hit the fan when this is all done. But DailyPUMA wonders, is Digital Dirt protected under the law?
For instance, if it is proven that Trump, or his campaign, or friends of his campaign were indeed hunting for and paying for "digital dirt" on the DNC and Hillary Clinton, DailyPUMA wonders if it matters whether or not the digital dirt was simply exposing digital dirt that had already been created by the DNC or Hillary Clinton, versus actually creating new or false digital dirt.
Does the exposing of truthful digital dirt mean illegality? Certainly creating fraudulent digital dirt would be illegal, but what about truthful digital dirt? Does one's right to secrecy end when one digitizes the dirt themselves? If so, then is it possible that at the end of a very long investigation, the wiggle room the Trump team will use to get out of their very big mess is to simply state, "We did everything we were accused of, but it was all done in search of digital dirt, dirt that already existed and that had been created by the very people now claiming they were hurt by their own digital dirt being exposed to the world".
If defining the right to use Digital Dirt is the end game, what are the parameters that need to be considered? If Person A says says to Person B in the privacy of their own residence that they think person C smells bad, drinks too much, and needs to take more showers, and person A and B never mention the conversation ever again, then it can never be uncovered by the digital dirt diggers.
But if Person A digitally sends that same message to just one other person, perhaps even encrypted, and then Russian hackers figure out how to un encrypt that message, just what law has been broken? Sure hacking into anyone's email system would obviously be bad, but if the digital information culled by the hackers is authentic, perhaps that does not rise to the level of actual theft of a digital document since the original digital document remains in place. Think of it as using a powerful microphone outside of a building that can pick up conversations within the building. Or think of it as rummaging through someone's garbage, which is legal. A digital document can simply be copied, leaving the original as is. If a Hacker in anyone altered existing digital content, or deleted anything, then that action is certainly illegal.
DailyPUMA thinks it is possible that as long as Team Trump never encouraged anyone or paid anyone to create false digital dirt, but only to search for authentic digital dirt that came from the DNC or Hillary Clinton, that Team Trump has not actually committed an act of treason or significant crime.
If damaging intel only existed on paper, and the intel was only presented at an in person meeting, then breaking into the physical facility and stealing or copying those documents WOULD be an act of treason. But copying and not altering digital dirt is just not the same thing as actually stealing or altering the original since no person is actually invading another's persons real space.
The simple rule is this, from your mind to your fingertips to your pen, pencil, or typewriter, to your own piece of paper, you own that intellectual property and any copying of that data by another without the writer's permission is breaking the law. But the moment that same data is then transmitted via email or cell phone, (not sure about fax or using a copy machine), the hacking of that intel is not treason.
However, this all dovetails into another issue. By hiding his own income tax filings, Donald Trump may be hiding his business relationships with free speech groups such as The Globe, National Enquirer, or The New York Post. It is possible that Donald Trump or his team may have used the hacked material they solicited for to create false or misleading news innuendo, and that should be considered treasonous and not protected by free speech rights. Using hacked material to create fake news to damage the DNC and Hillary Clinton is probably a treasonous offense, but no one is looking at the Weekly Mags that trashed Hillary Clinton with all kinds of innuendo because they presume its a free speech issue.
Free speech should end when the causation of the free speech has come from hacked material inspired by meetings with a political operative, otherwise free speech media becomes a great motivator for hacking, and also rewards hacking. Well why hack then if the hacked material cannot be used by news organizations? Hacking still gives insight into the opposition's motives, but when the hacking is used to politically benefit the initiators of the hacking by publicly exposing the hacked material, that most likely is once again crossing the treason line if the hacking was inspired by the Trump team.
Put another way, hacked material that was inspired by political operatives to he hacked and distributed to the media is treason, hacked material for internal use only is probably not treason, hacked material by a third party who never had an interaction with anyone else probably is not treason.
Put another way, hacked material that was inspired by political operatives to he hacked and distributed to the media is treason, hacked material for internal use only is probably not treason, hacked material by a third party who never had an interaction with anyone else probably is not treason.
