|
The individual pictured above is Kim Jong-un The Supreme Leader of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, (North Korea) and as Sony Pictures has learned, he is not a person to be taken lightly. In an incident that is troubling on many levels, it is purported that in retaliation for the production, release and distribution of the film, The Interview, a comedy which incorporates a plot twist about planning for Mr. Jong-un's assination, North Korea has hacked into Sony Pictures computer system and gained access to their most sensitive data.
 | | The Interview Official Trailer #2 (2014) - James Franco, Seth Rogen Comedy HD |
Since this data breach, The Supreme Leader has been selectively releasing the more embarasing and salcitous bits of this stolen information. This would be amusing if it was not so serious the information obtained by the hackers is commercially and individually sensitive and the damage may be such that Sony Pictures never recovers.
Sony Pictures has responded with increasing desperation. Mr. Jong-Un, is beyond their reach so Sony Pictures has attempted to combat distribution of this material by threatening to sue those third parties who reprint, repost or otherwise disseminate the information being leaked by North Korea.
The legal issue that arises from this scenario is wether the law protects Sony Pictures or any individual when their data is stolen or compromised, from distribution by third parties not complicit in the theft?
Under current law in most circumstances it does not. A person is generally unable to recover damages incurred when compromised data is published by third parties who weren't involved in the initial theft of the materials.
Two cases have looked at this circumstance; in Bartnicki v. Vopper , a radio personality received a tape recording of illegally taped conversation. Vopper was not involved in the illegal interception of the conversation but played portions of the communication. The Supreme Court ruled that this was speech protected under the First Amendment. Although the interception was illegal the dissemination if unconnected to the illegal act that gave rise to the interception then the further communication is protected free speech.
The second case is Pearson v. Dodd . In Pearson disgruntled current and former employees of Senator Dodd illegally took documents from the Senators Office copied them and mailed them to the various members of the media. When the documents where published Senator Dodd sued members of the media who where involved in their publication. He lost. You can expect more litigation on this issue in the near future.
For more information on this and other legal subjects of interests contact me at
Thank you!
| 
