curiosityscat
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 275
- Reaction score
- 40
(SNIP-SNIP)On the "hacking" note-I did look up the referenced case of Jenna Van Gelderen-(SNIP-SNIP)
"From the interview episode 105 with Jennas father, Jennas father speaking.
(SNIP-SNIP)
Because I had access to her phone, T-Mobile was able to let me ghost a new phone with her phonenumber. And my son whos technology savvy was able to change all her passwords and get into all her Google and G-mail account, everything, and we turned all that information over to the police(SNIP-SNIP) There was a trove of information. And when we gave it to the police they said well you got it illegally, we cant look at it, your daughter might sue you over this.(SNIP-SNIP)..and we had that information and gave it to the police. As recently -as a couple offweek ago- they were still questioning whether I owned the account, although we gave them all the information.
=== HACKING vs NOT HACKING ===
In this case NOT LIKE BERNSTEIN as I understand it, BECAUSE, in Blazes case,(immo, and going by a few presumptions from how things worked when I attended college), Blaze still met legal minor dependent status.
In the referenced case discussed here, as I understand it..
She was a 25 year old ADULT, who had reached the age of majority (18yrs old), and who by the age criteria 25yrs old, even if she were still in college...Ive no clue if she was, but unlike Blaze, she was beyond the 24yr old MAX Age Limit, so again, FULL BLOWN Independent ADULT...
Just checked the MAX AGE DEPENDENT limit for IRS = it is 18yrs old, OR Must be younger than You, and a student who is less than 24yrs old at the end of the calendar year...(except permanent total disabled, that have to met other criteria)..
https://www.irs.gov/faqs/filing-req...dependents-exemptions/dependents-exemptions-2
So, in this case, UNLIKE BLAZEs...
This person is an INDEPENDENT ADULT, so it would be:
An ADULT (Parent) without the persons permission or knowledge..(potential victim)...accessing another Independent ADULT (Their grown Adult, even if child/potential victim) persons personal equipment/property...which is the SAME, as if a completely unknown 3rd Party, were to access the victims equipment/property without their permission or knowledge...
= HACKING, Illegal
This last case (scenario) example, is relevant from the perspective that current laws have failed to keep up with Societys current level of technology, and while I see the beauty of the legal argument & its general historical precedent of personal property/ownership, (imho) the law needs to be revised with an exception for when the individual may be missing or potentially in danger and/or is suspected of facing eminent harm or may already be a victim of physical harm. (Jmoo)...and in Blazes case (imoo) it is just lucky that he still met the minor dependent criteria..so it wouldnt be a question even if raised.
All of the above is just my own humble opinion, views, thoughts, theories, and Big Fish Tales; unless, otherwise,indicated with a Website URL and/or my referencing a specific source...Thanks!