Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Their DMV Data 500 Times (arstechnica.com) 140
A Slashdot reader shares a story from Ars Technica about what happened after Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources sent a privacy notification to a police officer in 2013:
An employee had abused his access to a government driver's license database and snooped on thousands of people in the state, mostly women. Krekelberg learned that she was one of them. When Krekelberg asked for an audit of accesses to her Department of Motor Vehicles records, as allowed by Minnesota state law, she learned that her information -- which would include things like her address, weight, height, and driver's license pictures -- had been viewed nearly 1,000 times since 2003, even though she was never under investigation by law enforcement... She later learned that over 500 of those lookups were conducted by dozens of other cops. Even more eerie, many officers had searched for her in the middle of the night.
Krekelberg eventually sued the city of Minneapolis, as well as two individual officers, for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which governs the disclosure of personal information collected by state Departments of Motor Vehicles. Earlier this week, she won. On Wednesday, a jury awarded Krekelberg $585,000, including $300,000 in punitive damages from the two defendants, who looked up Krekelberg's information after she allegedly rejected their romantic advances, according to court documents...
More lawmakers have started advocating for data privacy regulations at the state and federal level, but those conversations have mostly focused on reining in big tech companies, rather than information that public employees can access.
Minneapolis's city attorney responded that the police department has changed its policies -- which had previously encouraged officers learning how to use the database to "go back to work and look up some of [their] friends and family members."
Krekelberg eventually sued the city of Minneapolis, as well as two individual officers, for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which governs the disclosure of personal information collected by state Departments of Motor Vehicles. Earlier this week, she won. On Wednesday, a jury awarded Krekelberg $585,000, including $300,000 in punitive damages from the two defendants, who looked up Krekelberg's information after she allegedly rejected their romantic advances, according to court documents...
More lawmakers have started advocating for data privacy regulations at the state and federal level, but those conversations have mostly focused on reining in big tech companies, rather than information that public employees can access.
Minneapolis's city attorney responded that the police department has changed its policies -- which had previously encouraged officers learning how to use the database to "go back to work and look up some of [their] friends and family members."
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsupervised data access will be abused.
Hope I don't give away a state secret...
Re: (Score:3)
> - Mass databasing of everything about everyone is a terribly profitable idea.
If I may say, I fixed that for you. Many other truisms such as you mentioned also become more true when expanded slightly. I'd suggest that it helps identify the _real_ underlying problem, rather than focusing on a particular and too targeted concern. For example:
> - Extremists are exploitative, hysterical, and vindictive/
> - Most people have contempt for the law when it comes to their own personal behavior.
I removed the
But "Nothing to hide !..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsupervised data access will be abused.
Hey, where is the "If you have nothing to hide..." crowd when you need an explanation about why this is actually a good thing?
There. Fixed that for you. (Score:2)
Data will be abused.
Richelieu or whoever he copied had that right with that "six lines..." quote.
Lack of supervision, transparency, regulation, data safety and security, ethics and the legal ramifications for the lack of all of those are merely additional incentives for abuse.
It's not just the Chinese [techcrunch.com] or Mark Zuckerberg [wikipedia.org] that want databases on people which can be sort by "fuckability".
Or by race... when they feel that urge to deal with their issues by murdering a black man, like what Liam Neeson described.
The database also contained a subject's approximate age as well as an "attractive" score, according to the database fields.
But the capabilities of the system have a darker side, particularly given the complicated politics of China.
The system also uses its facial recognition systems to detect ethnicities and labels them - such as "Ãf¦Ã±Ãf¦--" for Han Chinese, the main ethnic group of China - and also "ÃfÃf¦--" - or Uyghur Muslims, an ethnic minority under persecution by Beijing.
Where ethnicities can help police identify suspects in an area even if they don't have a name to match, the data can be used for abuse.
The Chinese government has detained more than a million Uyghurs in internment camps in the past year, according to a United Nations human rights committee.
It's part of a massive crackdown by Beijing on the ethnic minority group.
Just this week, details emerged of an app used by police to track Uyghur Muslims.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the data wasn't unsupervised. Typically those records log every access to them, and the person accessing those records typically is already authorized to access the database containing those records.
Except what happens is people get curious, and they say "I already have access, let's see if I can't look it up".
People who have access to your tax information are the same - and more than once has someone been caught sneaking
Nice payday (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For over half a mil, the cops can poke around my records to their hearts' content. They can even make a couple of advances if they like (they won't)
For that kind of money, I'd blow them. So would most people, if they really were honest and rational.
Very unpleasant, but beats 5-10 years in the average job.
Re: (Score:2)
"their" (Score:5, Informative)
Can we please just write "her" when it's clearly a woman in question? The headline is confusing enough without this PC silliness.
Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Her DMV Data 500 Times
Re:"their" (Score:4, Interesting)
How does that make it more confusing? Adding "her" instead of "their" might cause some to see it either as a problem just because the victim was female or as only a concern for females. Real idiots might even dismiss it as excusable because she was female.
As a man, I have experienced police stalking at least twice in my life (the ones I know of).
The first officer I had troubles with was the ex of a girlfriend in Missouri. He tracked me, phoned many times at 2 in the morning apparently hoping he'd hear her in the background (never spoke and always hung up), and broke into my home at least once. I was only able to put a stop on it by having the phone company trace the "unknown caller" phone calls and pressing charges for harassment after three documented hangups.
The second time I had trouble, about a decade later in another state, involved several officers who were friends with an insane construction contractor who was a distant ex of my fiance. They informed him of my location when I was away from home so that he could attempt to catch her at home without witnesses to "talk" with her. We had a restraining order on him so the "without witnesses" was particularly important. They also ignored evidence when he broke in and vandalized our home and let him escape on another occasion when he was spotted dressed in black from head to toe (including black ski mask and tennis shoes) pouring kerosene around the foundation of our home.
In both cases I have reason to believe they abused their data access to research me, my partners, and even my neighbors seeking to find ways to further leverage their power.
Though both of these cases involved a female both directly and indirectly, officers routinely abuse their data access for personal reasons, many of which have nothing at all to do with stalking females. I have known them to use it to find leverage in disputes with neighbors, pricing from people providing them services, against parents of children their kids have fights with, etc.
It is insane that all access to such databases in every state is not thoroughly secured, tracked, and audited on a continual basis. And penalties for abuse should start with criminal charges, not slaps on the wrists.
Re: (Score:1)
It's confusing because the antecedent of the pronoun "their" in the headline is likely to interpreted as "police officers" instead of the intended antecedent, "cop."
Re: (Score:3)
How does that make it more confusing?
See: +5 Grammar post above for lengthy points on why in fact in that case it was very much correct to use "her".
Re: (Score:2)
How does that make it more confusing? Adding "her" instead of "their" might cause some to see it either as a problem just because the victim was female or as only a concern for females. Real idiots might even dismiss it as excusable because she was female.
Because "their" is a plural pronoun. As such, reading the headline makes it seem like one cop was awarded damages after dozens of cops accessed their own data on DMV servers. It confuses the headline because you have a single subject and a plural subject so, grammatically, you may well assume that the plural pronoun somehow references the plural subject instead of immediately seizing on the concept that "their" in this instance is intended in the overloaded non-gender specific single subject sense that has
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia says singular "they" dates to the 14th century, although that usage was discouraged (but prevalent) in the 19th century before once again becoming more widely acceptable (& even preferred in some cases) in the 20th.
Re: Get rid of licenses to drive. (Score:3, Interesting)
Papers please, comrade.
Re:Get rid of licenses to drive. (Score:4, Interesting)
well in some states it might just as well be a reverse license to not drive.
Anyhow, maybe the database could be made one way only by having the search for the card be possible only with info on the actual card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, maybe the database could be made one way only by having the search for the card be possible only with info on the actual card.
Ohhhhh, like a barcode containing a key to decrypt your data in their database. This would probably hamper other investigation efforts, such as accessing your information in the event you are a suspect in a criminal investigation. Are there any other practical implementations and what are the limitations of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow, maybe the database could be made one way only by having the search for the card be possible only with info on the actual card.
Ohhhhh, like a barcode containing a key to decrypt your data in their database. This would probably hamper other investigation efforts, such as accessing your information in the event you are a suspect in a criminal investigation. Are there any other practical implementations and what are the limitations of them?
Maybe make a copy of the license when it is issued and hand it over to a civilian agency to keep in escrow (the public defenders office might be an appropriate candidate). If you want a copy of the driver's record, get a warrant.
Re:Get rid of licenses to drive. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several useful features about a license:
- the education you're required to go through before being able to get a license.
- the ability to weed out bad drivers by withdrawing their license
Enforcement for those that drive poorly certainly helps.
What enforcement, if you can't revoke a license? Or keep track of successive traffic violations?
People's inherent self preservation instinct keeps them safe.
That's incredibly naive. Every day, I see examples of people's self-preservation instinct failing.
Re: (Score:1)
Alcohol is the big killer on the road, not permissionless drivers.
Go advocate for legalized weed if you want to decrease road deaths - it's not perfect but it's the largest RoI.
Also advocate for legalizing autopilots everywhere so humans can get out of this crazy period where we have neither a horse's brain nor an AI to help us out on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who lose their license seem to lose it for alcohol related offenses here, though lately texting and driving is another reason.
Re: (Score:1)
>Go advocate for legalized weed if you want to decrease road deaths
The state of Colorado would like to have a word with you.
Hundreds of people have died under drug the influence since legalization.
Adding more ways to become an unsafe driver is an odd way to reduce traffic fatalities.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not safer to drive through flood than walk, you know. Cars float.
Cars can drive down the highway faster than hurricanes move. If there's a hurricane then people can drive away from it before it gets them. The point is to drive away quickly while it's just a bit of rain, rather than walk slowly while the storm rolls in over the area.
The same goes for other natural disasters. There's wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes. All of these can knock out power and communications for large areas, leaving people on their own to get out to find shelter, food, and medical care.
It's
Re: (Score:1)
There are several useful features about a license:
I don't care.
There's lot's of things we could be doing to make law enforcement easier, most every one of those things would be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Consider this, people tolerate these licenses because they see value in them. What happens if abuses like this go beyond a dozen officers? Would it not then be more valuable for the public to NOT have a license? What happens if everyone just tosses their license in a shredder one day?
The government only has the authority the people grant it. If
Re: (Score:3)
You are arguing with a village idiot. It is a waste of your time.
Re: (Score:2)
rates based on driving history
So someone still has your data in a database, just asking for abuse. You just tanked your entire argument.
Re: (Score:3)
People's inherent self preservation instinct keeps them safe.
Bwhahahaha! Have you ever seen people drive, like, on an actual road?
Re: (Score:2)
Bwhahahaha! Have you ever seen people drive, like, on an actual road?
Yes, I have, and you should really slow down and use your turning indicators.
Explain to me how the license, the actual piece of plastic, makes people a better driver? It doesn't.
Does training help? I assume it does, but that doesn't help if people think that they can get away with poor behavior.
I'd like to see enforcement of traffic laws. We don't need a license to drive, and a government database, to do that. We need police to do that.
Make commercial drivers have a license. Require minors to get a lic
Re: (Score:2)
This problem may soon fix itself. A large and growing number of teenagers have no interest in driving. Between today's Uber and the looming self-driving taxi, there will soon be no reason to get a Drivers License.
The problem then will be to have a new form of ID, not linked to driving. It will be needed for any occasion that ID needs to be verified, ranging from alcohol purchase, legal documents, air travel, and (gasp) voting.
Maybe a passport? That moved the abuse potential from merely local & state t
Re: (Score:2)
It's awful mission creep, too. It's not even a good internal passport considering that they're issued by states and lack much common standard. I know the enhanced license standards are supposed to fix this, but it's not the same as an actual Federal identity document issued by a single agency and with a common standard.
But it'll never go away, if only because it is a defacto internal passport.
I'd probably add in that the ability to revoke driver's licenses is also a powerful weapon state control, both to
There is a bright side... (Score:1)
At least while the cops were searching her details in the middle of the night they weren't beating their wives, or at least were only able to do so with one hand.
Studies have shown that at least 40% of cops are beating their wives at any one time, so any reduction in this is welcome.
The human race is basically a bunch of voyeurists (Score:1)
This is why Facebook and other such trash media are so successful
Maybe... but (Score:1)
People's inherent self preservation instinct keeps them safe.
I am a frequent bicyclist and pedestrian. In my experience, whether or not people's instincts keep *them* safe, many drivers have no such instinct toward the preservation of *others*. Preserving the safety of the driver is *not the purpose* of licensing a driver. It's for the safety of the rest of us.
Grammar Matters: Their vs. Her (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Not "Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Their DMV Data 500 Times," but "Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Her DMV Data 500 Times " The former one means that officers accessed their own information; the latter means that they accessed one cop's data. (My capcha is "frisking" btw).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not "Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Their DMV Data 500 Times," but "Cop Awarded $585K After 'Dozens' Of Police Officers Accessed Her DMV Data 500 Times " The former one means that officers accessed their own information; the latter means that they accessed one cop's data. (My capcha is "frisking" btw).
Or, if you want to still use "their" you could re-order the sentence: "Cop Awarded $585K After Their DMV Data was accessed 500 Times by 'Dozens' Of Police Officers"
Krekelberg, oh my... (Score:5, Funny)
But police need more power . . . NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
This story is so indicative of why more police power is almost always a bad thing. Every single time that American politicians make the argument for more power and less privacy, they act as if it's the FBI is carefully using the data and access under close supervision to stop something horrible. In reality, it's usually something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
This story is so indicative of why more police power is almost always a bad thing. Every single time that American politicians make the argument for more power and less privacy, they act as if it's the FBI is carefully using the data and access under close supervision to stop something horrible. In reality, it's usually something like this.
Nonsense! If only we had another bunch of police policing these police officers, it would all be good. Although, someone would have to police the police policing the police though... hmm...
because she was a police officer..... (Score:3)
she knew the appropriate law that protected the data, and she knew how to request an audit of the people accessing her account.
I knew a woman who was a 911 dispatcher, who would access peoples records whenever she wanted to get dirt on someone. She would spread gossip about people based on the info she found. She eventually lost her job for it, but no one ever sued her for it.
Alternate scenarios (Score:2)
Victim was a civilian: A payout of 10 bucks, in the form of a voucher that's only valid if you spend over 100 in shop you never go to.
Perpetrators were civilians: A swatting.
Regulations will never be enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Auditing and near-real-time tracking (because real-time tracking is expensive, yes, ha) are the answers. Monitoring access and activity are the only proper and meaningful measures.
First, the thought hat you can trust the users is clearly wrong. So regulation implies you can coerce or threaten users sufficiently to prevent abuse. If that were the case we would need no police. Woops.
Second, detecting abuse is too late, but since prevention isn't practical, then detection needs to be 'immediate'. At least timely.
Third, when detected, abuse needs to be addressed, both by sanctions and by restricting or suspending access to violators. So if they cannot do their job, they are furloughed. And that was their choice, to break the rules.
Speaking of rules, consider the facts known about this case; some accesses were 'in the middle of the night'. Is that permitted, despite some of these officers being shift workers? And the 'rules' regarding workplace behavior? 'romantic advances'? There is a lot wrong here. And ypou can be sure this sort of behavior isn't limited to one department or even one state.
I work for a financial institution where if I were to examine my own data, MY OWN DATA, I would be dismissed. Promptly. And if I were to examine, without good and preexisting reason, consistent with my responsibilities and past performance, the data of significant or 'public' persons, I would also be dismissed. This behavior is monitored constantly. And I've been asked before, offering full explanation.
Privacy regulations can never put data back into the secure and confidential state is was before an abuse. Punishing the transgressors is a must.
Oh, and in the financial world, the US and other nations might consider the example of Iceland. Token fines and business restrictions are not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Without auditing there is little to go after. The institution might claim immunity. No specific violation leads to the amorphous 'someone did'.
Actually, without auditing, the complaint becomes that they are unable to manage or assure control of the data, That should be its own breach.
They should've had insider threat mgmt software (Score:2)
Just for once... (Score:2)
Just for once, I'd like to see one of these lawyers admit that their client fucked up.
Minneapolis's city attorney responded that the police department has changed its policies -- which had previously encouraged officers learning how to use the database to "go back to work and look up some of [their] friends and family members.
Bull shit. This had nothing to do with their policy. They were looking her up after she rejected their advances, so obviously she's not a friend or family. They got caught with their pants down, and you're claiming that the department told them to try walking around without a belt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is just wrong... So very very wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they though? Who paid to create the database; who elected the law and order types that decided to create it? People routinely vote for politicians that promise to get tough on crime; prosecutors and sheriffs, love to make big busts before elections etc. Part of why these databases exist is because arguably the public wants them. If people valued privacy and freedom more than they might not be on the hook for half a million in abuse related damages.
Re: (Score:1)
Bwahaha. There are no law and order types in Minneapolis.
What we have is a city council and mayor that brays about their inersectionality and white privilege in public constantly. But when no one is looking, they do nothing to reign in the cops because the thin blue line is the only thing that keeps the downtown from going full-on Detroit and the low-income neighborhoods from turning into a full-on war zone.
If they gave a shit about what they complain about it in the daytime they would have put the cops o
Re: (Score:2)
People get het up about their own privacy. In general they don't give a shit about other people's privacy and will happily sell a thousand neighbour's personal data down the river t get a week of 20% discount on a sludge-burger.
Re:This is just wrong... So very very wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
And no, it's not gouvernment fraud. Just because you don't like it, it's not necessarily what you claim it to be. The misuse of the database was neither govermentally demanded nor falsely presented to the public. Thus there is no fraud involved. Many people seem to confuse legal terms with swear words. But that doesn't change the meaning of legal terms. If you want to use swear words, be my guest!
Re:This is just wrong... So very very wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised she didn't get more. Some of these were guys who she turned down for dates, accessing her personal details including home address in the middle of the night. Probably a good thing she was a cop or they might have been tempted to visit.
It doesn't say if they were fired or not.
This also went on for years and years before she found out. Half a million seems on the low side for this kind of systemic, sustained abuse of the system, especially since they were actually advising people to go do it.
Re: (Score:3)
The complexity of this case comes from the fact that they encouraged officers to look people up. My first thought was that the officers themselves should be responsible because they abused the system to look up a love interest. However, if there was no policy forbidding this, then did they really do anything illegal? Being creepy is not necessarily a crime. After all, if they are interested in her and work alongside her, they may also consider her a "friend," and thus they have actually been encouraged to l
Re: (Score:2)
for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
What part of violating the law do you think is not illegal? The reason she sued the city as well as the officers is because the policy violated the law.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. The officers broke the law, and the city is culpable because policy encouraged the officers to break the law.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if there was no policy forbidding this, then did they really do anything illegal?
Statutory law trumps policy in court. She only had recourse because of a specific law passed by the legislature.
Re:This is just wrong... So very very wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't say if they were fired or not.
The male officers expressed remorse and have resigned, announcing they’ll be starting unspecified new positions with Delta Airlines at the Minneapolis- St. Paul airport.
Re: (Score:2)
> Some of these were guys who she turned down for dates, accessing her personal details including home address in the middle of the night. Probably a good thing she was a cop or they might have been tempted to visit.
The odds are just that they were wanking it on the night shift.
She seems to have a few photos on Google Image Search. "Work hot" syndrome, perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
> Some of these were guys who she turned down for dates, accessing her personal details including home address in the middle of the night. Probably a good thing she was a cop or they might have been tempted to visit.
The odds are just that they were wanking it on the night shift.
She seems to have a few photos on Google Image Search. "Work hot" syndrome, perhaps.
The point is that had she been a civilian, they would have been encouraged to confront her.
Lawsuite, Investigation (Score:5, Informative)
Whats stopping a team of cops from doing this on purpose for the payout (from the taxpayer)?
The fact that this money wasn't awarded after the female cop simply file a claim on the "get money compensation fast !" .gov website, but that was the end result after an investigation and a lawsuit.
Said ruling would need to have been done by an independent judge. Said investigation done by an independent team (internal affairs) which is *NOT* the team of cops.
If justice works as intended that means there is enough elements of proof for the judge to determine that the female cop was indeed being stalked by the male cops, and that in order to achieve their stalking, they did indeed overstep their rights to the database.
Other wise the "team of cop" would need to span to several completely different independent branches (including internal affairs) and including the justice department too, not only the cops.
Of course the above relies on a well functioning justice system, and given the state your whole country seems in as of lately, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Re: (Score:1)
If justice works as intended that means there is enough elements of proof for the judge to determine that the female cop was indeed being stalked by the male cops, and that in order to achieve their stalking, they did indeed overstep their rights to the database.
Which part of on purpose confuses you? They will on purpose illegally access the database. They will on purpose have members of the team that did not access the database testify about stalking. In the end, they will on purpose admit guilt to their "crime."
Seems to me, you dont know what on purpose means. Either that, or your a trusting fool that doesnt understand how a team of fraudsters works. Everything you think will be "missing" if its on purpose wont be missing. All those "evidence" things will be t
Waht if they're found out ? (Score:2)
Which part of on purpose confuses you? They will on purpose illegally access the database. {...} In the end, they will on purpose admit guilt to their "crime."
And what if the investigations and subsequent suits shows that there was collusion between the database abusers and the "supposed victim" ?
Do you really think the judge will award money to the female cops if the investigation reveals she was a good friend with the supposed stalkers and that there are signs they might have intentionally collaborated to get money?
The whole ruling relies on the female cop being a victim stalked. :
Getting the money relies on
- either the group being extremely good actor
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, there was no evidence of fraud. None of the accused police men in question profited from the alleged scheme. Contrary to this, it costs two of them $300,000 of their own money. Thus you'll have a hard time to prove it.
Re: (Score:1)
None of the accused police men in question profited from the alleged scheme.
How do you know? If she is also a member of the scheme, they will be splitting the award. You are just hoping that this isnt true now, and using that hope as justification for thinking there isnt a real problem here.
This site used to be full of hackers. People that knew what a hole in a system looks like. You arent that.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a large scheme being run here. Rockoon goes around claiming tax payer money gets fraudulently paid out to the wrong people. And then someone will award a niece of Rockoon a large governmental contract to investigate governmental fraud.
I got you. Your whole accusations are nothing else than the thi
Re: (Score:2)
If it's handled correctly, the co-conspirators violating privacy would be paying their co-conspirator victims. If you think cops carry E&O insurance you're mistaken. And if the government pays these settlements for their employees, well, actually, they are just following the lead of our Congress, which is paying settlements for various workplace violations out of taxpayer funds. Bad. Lots of cities and towns won't do that, because they can't print money...
No, it's not a viable business model. Close thou
She didn't defraud anyone (Score:1)
You should demand that the pay comes out of cop funds, not tax increases or services cuts elsewhere.
Re: This is just wrong... So very very wrong. (Score:1)
The average basement dwelling slashdotter, angry that no one pay to see his moobs
Re: (Score:1)
"So, someone with a pair of boobs attracts the attention of a few of her co-workers, who then do the equivalent of a facebook search to see some (presumeably non-nude) pictures of her late at night, and the TAX PAYERS end up paying her over a half a million dollars?!? "
The taxpayer already paid them during the time they committed that felony, so it's sort of the taxpayers' fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxpayer already paid them during the time they committed that felony
Felony? This was a civil case, not a criminal one.
so it's sort of the taxpayers' fault.
If you break into a computer system at work or plant a logic bomb in your company's network while at work, is it the company's fault you broke the law? Don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxpayer already paid them during the time they committed that felony
Felony? This was a civil case, not a criminal one.
People have been charged with felonies for less egregious misuse of systems they had legitimate access too. Just ask Aaron Schwartz. If these guys weren't cops, there's a decent chance that a prosecutror would find something to charge the "hacker" with.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations. You just wrote 173 words, 8 sentences and 2 paragraphs and never managed to get even one single thing right in any of them, apart from the spelling. Your parents must be so proud of you.