I'm sorry - that last sentence shoud read "The popular assumption that the MD4Bush from October of last year is the same MD4Bush who posted a few days ago is dubious and unproven."
I agree that it is not proven, but I don't think that the "assumption" is dubious.
Viewing the posts and freepmails of MD4Bush in their totality, the October MD4Bush was goading people and trying to entrap them. Specifically, he was trying to get them to them into make irresponsible statements.
More recently MD4Bush simply posted the FReepmails on an unrelated thread at the same time as the WP was printing much of them. That is consistent with his prior conduct as he apparently was trying to make it look like the WP might have gotten the private freepmail off the public posting by him.
Therefore, I respectfully ask why you think that it is dubious to believe the same person was MD4Bush and was posting and freepmailing in insidious ways to damage FR and Ehrlich on both occasions.
Having said all that, which of the following do you think would be violative of the ECPA?
(1) Person, without authorization, accesses another's computer when the person goes to lunch. Prints off FReepmails and gives them to the WP.(2) Person buys another's used computer, finds FReepmail stored on it's hard drive and reveals the FReepmails.
(3) Person buys another's used computer, finds that FR is in his favorites, goes to FR which automatically logs him in as MD4Bush (using the stored cookie), prints the FReepmails accessed from FR servers, and gives the copies to the WP.