>"if someone does something stupid at work, they should expect
>the public to see it"
>
>to:
>
>"One time is all takes however it comes out"
>
>yes, this is true all the time for the .0001% of people this
>happens to. so yes. 100% of people should absolutely expect
>something to happen to them based on it happening to the
>.0001%
>


How many times does it have to happen before you are cautious ? Btw Sony was hacked before, but you stay with the 99.9 that you can prove because these corps always report when they are hacked.

>>Anything on a computer at work is not safe.
>
>you compared work emails between two people to posting on
>social media, and message boards. you do understand there's a
>difference, right?
>

No I explained since the public can get info from people who work at the company and discuss what is going on by posting to message boards and social media, nobody should think they have privacy at work. Your talking like its one way and one reason for this stuff to come out.

>>You should expect it if you are the VP of a corp that was
>>already hacked.
>
>that's a far cry from saying anything dumb anyone does at work
>should be expected to become public knowledge.
>

These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general public working for them.

>>Where did I say anything about heroes ?
>
>"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
>for spreading my racist work emails ?"
>
>The hackers aren't wrong? The hackers are less wrong because
>they found some racism? Yes, the heroes comment was tongue and
>cheek, but really, what are you saying?
>It's not like they hacked into Sony in search of exposing
>racist jokes of a couple of their employees. Even if they did,
>they'd still be much more in the wrong than a couple assholes
>telling bad jokes.

Less wrong ? I guess it's my turn to say huh and what. I never said anything about the hacker searching to expose employees. Are you having a conversation with somebody else ? Anyway going back to the question in 29 the difference between this and the fappening is the fact that these "personal correspondences" took place at work, and the nake pics were on personal phones and computers.

>I tried to give you
>>another chance to address the question in reply 29 so you
>>wouldn't move the goalpost and respond to things I didn't
>say
>>like " company rights" and now questions about "hacker
>>heroes"
>
>LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does
>something stupid at work, they should expect the public to see
>it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you
>keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm avoiding
>it.


I was responding to that post so it's silly for you to address my comments without considering that. My argument was the difference that Buddy asked about.

>But, sure, i'll play. as far as Buddy G's post, while there
>are some differences, it's still wrong of us to look through
>all this shit. but human nature's a bitch. It's out there, and
>i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.

Ok so you agree and disagree at the same time.