It would make no sense to hold mfgrs of ... Microcassette records with voice activation. Wireless microphones. Pinhole cameras. Security cameras.... responsible. That it was done on a computer makes no difference.
Advertisements in general.. I really can't think of a single advertisement that prompted me to purchase a product. Quit the reverse actually. Some adverts were quite repellent and gave me a negative impression; 'Is that really how seller thinks of the buying public?, Nope don't want anything to do with that.'
Political contributions are a matter of public record. Ditto for voter registrations. And here in Florida, if you gave your phone number when registering, it's public too. A complete listing of all registered voters in FL, on a CD, will cost you just $5.00 from Tallahassee. As for how well, or poorly, Gawker redacted in their news article.. The Zip-plus 4 column, which they didn't blackout, will get you CLOSE. http://gawker.com/contrary-to-dnc-claim-hacked-data-contains-a-ton-of-pe-1782132678
And a First Amendment issue as well. That is writing software, publishing code, teaching and discussing circumvention techniques. See DeCSS Jon as an example of what can happen to someone writes software or shares their knowledge.
It used to be sage-advice not to give out your real-name on the Internet. An old Interneter here as well. SLIP, Trumpet Winsock. One of my first experiences with the Internet was on Delphi (GVC) in Oct 25th 1992. See, A Brief History of The Internet at http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html
With reference to Walt's and Delphi's involvement.
Arrested.. Which means, mugs shot, finger prints, probably handcuffs and a holding cell.
Now that the State's Attorney has decided not to press charges there isn't anyway to undo the humiliating experience that Mr Mellott had to go through. His mugs shot can't be un-published. Fingerprints cant be un-taken. The arrest can't be made to of never of happened.
"The State’s Attorney’s Office is declining to file charges against (Bryton) Mellott as the act of burning a flag is protected free speech according to the US Supreme Court decision, Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989).
We have considered 720 ILCS 5/49-1, Flag Desecration, an Illinois statute currently in effect. This statute was the basis for the decision by Urbana Police officers to arrest Mellott. While that statute remains in effect, it is contradictory to the US Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson. We will be discussing this issue with our local legislators and asking that they consider reviewing this statute given the constitutional issues it presents."
LOL at asking the IL legislators to review the law because they surely knew that when they voted for the law (in 2013) it was a ridiculous law. Until the law is removed from the books in IL it can be wielded against any future flag-burner.
These types of re-mailers offered multiple layers of obfuscation. This technique could be quite instructive to anyone seeking to take up where Lavabit left off. But next time with even better security.