Indeed.. but if grades were actually changed, I think the IT Director of Security at BC (mentioned in the warrant) would've stated or advised that they were changed. Yet, he only advises and assists the detective with regard to the subject of mass emailing. And even this I question- it appears as if they don't understand the point of a mailing-list... like they don't understand the reasoning behind email propagation to a list- duh, this is how it happens. That's the purpose of a mailing list- so that those that are subscribed receive the content therein (content to be argued about separately) What's shady is that given this is a warrant application, a number is not even approximated at for the amount of emails supposedly sent - they only use the term "mass email" and in some cases they use the singular version, "the email" referring to originate from his machine. All they prove is that they can trace an email- big whoop, nothing a log file can't show them.
LOL - saw your edit; how dare he want to actually own his property! :) I'd argue that the governing body that wishes to achieve the goal of nothing else (where a crime was not committed) but scanning his computer, is conducting an illegal act!
Comments
Indeed.. but if grades were actually changed, I think the IT Director of Security at BC (mentioned in the warrant) would've stated or advised that they were changed. Yet, he only advises and assists the detective with regard to the subject of mass emailing. And even this I question- it appears as if they don't understand the point of a mailing-list... like they don't understand the reasoning behind email propagation to a list- duh, this is how it happens. That's the purpose of a mailing list- so that those that are subscribed receive the content therein (content to be argued about separately) What's shady is that given this is a warrant application, a number is not even approximated at for the amount of emails supposedly sent - they only use the term "mass email" and in some cases they use the singular version, "the email" referring to originate from his machine. All they prove is that they can trace an email- big whoop, nothing a log file can't show them.
LOL - saw your edit; how dare he want to actually own his property! :) I'd argue that the governing body that wishes to achieve the goal of nothing else (where a crime was not committed) but scanning his computer, is conducting an illegal act!