Investigation in Liverpool's 'hacking' of our computer systems

What's with all the blue on blue on here. It's simple what has happened regardless of whether or not City were lax in their security and that is another debate although irrelevant in this case. Liverpool hacked into the system and more than likely stole information that they have used over a sustained period of time. It wasn't a one off thing someone did as a dare. This person / people haven't been sacked by their new club but rewarded with a promotion. It's illegal and should result in a large fine, imprisonment and a demotion, but we all know it won't happen.
 
Nobody is saying that. Just because we're discussing how City allowed the data breach doesn't reduce the level of the crime of data theft that was committed. Data breaches are subject to regulatory investigations and fines in some industries, especially so after GDPR, so while the culprit may be subject to 100% guilt for their crime, the victim organisation can also be punished and guilty of not taking proper steps to prevent it. Two different crimes, if you like, caused by one offence.
Why do you remain convinced that they were guilty of log-in sharing as most of your posts seem to be based around this premise?
 
No it doesn't. If it has been abandoned it is not property belonging to another.
smevchenko appears to believe that the concept of 'finders keepers' has some actual basis in English law
Actually it does, but only where the property in question has been abandoned by its previous owner.
[emphasis added]

I respectfully disagree. Just because proerty has been found, doesn't mean it's been abandoned; it may have been lost.
 
[emphasis added]

I respectfully disagree. Just because proerty has been found, doesn't mean it's been abandoned; it may have been lost.

It may, in which case 'theft by finding' might be committed by anyone who then appropriates someone else's lost property. But that doesn't arise if you are talking about property that has been abandoned, rather than lost. I didn't say 'finders keepers' applies to all property found, just that which has been abandoned.
 
It may, in which case 'theft by finding' might be committed by anyone who then appropriates someone else's lost property. But that doesn't arise if you are talking about property that has been abandoned, rather than lost. I didn't say 'finders keepers' applies to all property found, just that which has been abandoned.
Whatevs
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.