Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Ashley Madison customers revealed: Missouri attorney Robert M.N. Palmer, head of Springfield Metropolitan Bar, is paying customer at extramarital-affair Web site

Robert M.N. Palmer
(From LinkedIn)
The president of the bar association in Missouri's third-largest city is a paying customer of the Ashley Madison (AM) extramarital-affair Web site, records show.

Robert M.N. Palmer, who has practiced law in Missouri for 34 years, was installed as president of the Springfield Metropolitan Bar in January 2016.

Palmer started a solo law practice in 1990, and it since has morphed into the Law Offices of PalmerOliver, with offices at 431 S. Jefferson (Suite 120) in Springfield.

Has Palmer enjoyed a successful legal career? It sure sounds like it. From his bio at the firm Web site:

Robert M. N. Palmer has represented clients in complex litigation in over 60 jury trials as lead attorney in over 34 states. He has obtained verdicts and judgments for his clients in excess of $100,000,000, including a verdict in Missouri for $21,000,000. He is currently President of the Springfield Metropolitan Bar Association; past-President of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys; past-President of Attorneys Information Exchange Group; a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy; certified as a Super Lawyer (Missouri and Kansas); ranked as one of America's Top Lawyers; AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell (over 15 years); member of the American Association of Justice, American Board of Trial Advocates and International Society of Barristers. He received the 2009 Orrin G. Hatch Distinguished Trial Lawyer Award from Brigham Young University. He lectures nationally to bar and professional trial associations on numerous topics including pretrial-discovery, evidence, use of experts and focus groups, and preemption. He has published numerous articles in national trial magazines.

With all of that going for him, why is Palmer messing around at Ashley Madison? That's hard to say, but public records indicate he's had some rocky times on the personal front.

Brent Bothwell Palmer
(From Facebook)
He married Susan Marie Schmucker in 1975, and they divorced 10 years later. He then married Brent Bothwell Palmer, and they have three children--Joshua Daniel Palmer, Samuel Lester Bothwell Palmer, and William Stuart Bothwell Palmer.

Brent Bothwell Palmer filed for divorce in 1994, but the parties reconciled, and the case was dismissed.

We twice contacted Robert Palmer, seeking comment for this post. He did not respond to our queries.

Palmer is the son of the late Bob Palmer, an award-winning editorial cartoonist for almost 40 years with the Springfield News-Leader.


(1) Edgar C. Gentle III--attorney at Gentle Turner Sexton and Harbison, Birmingham, AL (3/8/16)

(2) Stewart Springer--attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL. (3/9/16)

(3) Richard W. "Dick" Bell--attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL (3/14/16)


Anonymous said...

If someone is smart enough to become president of a bar association in a city of significant size, you'd think he would be smart enough to stay away from the Ashley Madison con.

Anonymous said...

A few comments, from an AM user near Alabama (but not quite there):

1. I would be surprised if any of the people you are doxxing actually had an affair. The website is a fraud, you had very low chances of hooking up with someone. I knew that from the start, for me this was more like a porn site than anything else. Never cheated, or even tried. Just because you paid does not mean you tried to cheat. If you don't understand why that is, perhaps you are not the best journalist to cover this story. I mean that as constructive feedback, not as a slam against you.

2. My wife knows about this. It is behind us, we are doing well but I do worry about my kids (who are to young to understand this right now). I really don't think it's anyone else's business. In short, you are being a dick for publishing these stories.

3. Despite Point 2, I am finding this very entertaining and actually funny. I can't believe you have the balls to do this. It's like watching a slow motion car wreck. Why do you hate lawyers so much?

Anonymous said...

Oh anyone on the bar must be concerned about ethics. I think the opposite is true and the attorneys I've consulted with have shared their view that if an attorney acts neglegent and is reported to the bar he may be disciplined for it, but if an attorney acts with malice he usually gets away with it. The bar is worthless. They govern themselves and police have better oversight than attorneys.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Schnauzer is a "dick" for reporting about users of Ashley Madison, what does that make you for actually being a user of Ashley Madison? Perhaps you are a "scrotum"? Maybe fecal matter?

legalschnauzer said...

Could not agree more, @11:41. Bar associations not only are worthless, I think they actually condone and hide unethical behavior. The Alabama State Bar, in my view, is little more than an organized-crime enterprise. No surprise at all that head of bar in Springfield, MO, would partake in a Web site that advertises itself as encouraging people to cheat on their spouses.

Anonymous said...

I was a dick, or a piece of shit. Whatever you like. But that's for my wife and family to deal with - not you our Mr. Schnauzer. That's why he is a dick.

Anonymous said...

Well @ 11:45 since you've never made any mistake in your private life that would be embarrassing if a journalist were to publicize it, you have the right to call the other people whatever you want. And I have the right to call you a hypocrite...which is all anyone is who casts stones. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I know I'm not about to pick up any rocks...and I've never been near AM.

Anonymous said...

Professional associations do sometimes circle the wagons. We've all seen that.

I agree it is a dick move to accuse some lawyer you don't like of being a cheater when you have no evidence.

legalschnauzer said...

You want to try for a more stupid comment, @1:14, or maybe you can try to top this one. It will be tough.

First, I don't know Mr. Palmer, so I have no dislike of him.

Two, I never said he was a cheater; I said his name appears at a Web site designed for extramarital cheaters.

Third, I have absolute evidence. I have a copy of the Missouri AM list, and Mr. Palmer's name is right there, hard to miss.

The Missouri list is publicly available, or it was, so you might try looking it up.

Anonymous said...

Anyone wondering if the above story is accurate only has to read the following:


Alabama blogger ordered to pay $3.5 million in defamation lawsuit
April 14, 2015

A Shelby County blogger, who spent five months in jail before agreeing to remove stories from his website about the son of a former governor, has now been ordered to pay $3.5 million in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former campaign manager for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

The blogger had written about an alleged affair between Strange and the campaign manager.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Donald Blankenship on Monday entered a default judgment against Roger Shuler and his website Legal Schnauzer for $1.5 million in compensatory and $2 million in punitive damages. The judge wrote that all the elements for the judgment were present, including that a false and defamatory statement was made.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer, filed the defamation lawsuit in 2013 against Shuler. She had managed Strange's 2010 campaign for Alabama Attorney General and served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General in 2011.

"The facts are clear and the judgment speaks for itself," Garrison stated in an email Tuesday to AL.com. "The absolute and blatant disregard for the truth has to come with consequences. I am very happy to finally be in a position to set the record straight," she wrote.

Anonymous said...

You made the mistake of engaging with a company that did not protect your private data, @12:00. Because it wasn't protected, someone took it and placed it in the public realm. And that gives Mr. Schnauzer every right to report on it.

You might not like it, but you are a dick, and a piece of shit, and you are stupid as well. Mr. Schnauzer is a journalist enlightening the public on pertinent subjects, and you will never reach anywhere near his level of integrity and intelligence.

If you aren't bright enough to see that AM was a con, your judgment stinks--and you should try to improve it before casting judgment on others.

Anonymous said...

First, you seem to have a hate on for lawyers. It is sorta kinda obvious.

Two, you are clearly implying this guy is a cheater -- otherwise why is this a story?

Third, I say prove it. There is no "Missouri list" that I can find anywhere. I did look for it. Now you say you have a copy. Yeah, right.

And why so insulting? I'm not the one being a dick.

I'm thinking Someone fed you some bullshit. Don't know for sure.

Anonymous said...

3:33 PM we'll see how this turns out.

I don't think your BS will be any help to LS whatsoever.

legalschnauzer said...

Hah, what a hoot, @3:28. You believe what al.com reports. Hard to have lower journalism standards than that. Here is a little challenge for you:

* Where in the record of the Garrison case does it say there was a trial, as required under the First Amendment for defamation cases?

* Where does it say there was a jury trial, as required under the First Amendment for defamation cases?

* Where does it say Jessica Garrison ever was cross examined in an adversarial proceeding or ever engaged in discovery (sat for depositions, turned over documents, responded to interrogatories)?

* Where was my reporting ever determined at trial to be false and defamatory?

* In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that Jessica Garrison lied under oath in a hearing. Do you know what she lied about?

Let's see if you can answer those five questions. My guess is you can't answer one of them.

legalschnauzer said...

As the young folks say, "SMH," @3:35. A few thoughts:

* I have tons of readers who are lawyers, who know the justice system is screwed up and appreciate the fact that I'm willing to say what they cannot.

* I have numerous friends who are lawyers. You can ask Jill Simpson, Andrew Kreig, Don Siegelman, Wes Teel, Paul Minor, Angela Drees, and many more.

* If you aren't able to find a Missouri list, that doesn't mean there isn't one. You just have to know how to find it. I do. You apparently don't.

* I contacted Mr. Palmer twice, seeking comment for this story. He had every reason to claim his name wasn't on the list, or whatever he wanted to say. He chose to remain quiet. Why? I don't know. But the story is true, and my guess is that he knows it.

Anonymous said...

Hey @3:33, I agree Shuler has a right to report on this but that does not mean he is not a dick.

My judgment may stink but I have a nice house, a job that pays me almost 7 figures, and my family is intact. I bet my life is better than yours. It is certainly better than Roger's. So there's that.

Anonymous said...

Written with the intellect of a third grader. Most impressive, @3:52. I doubt your life is better or more meaningful than mine or Mr. Schnauzer's. Even if you have all you claim--and I seriously doubt it--you are still a steaming pile of feces. And based on your mindset, I don't think that ever will change.

Anonymous said...

What's with these lawyers who marry good-looking women and then try to cheat on them? This Palmer fellow should thank his lucky stars to be married to the woman in the photo. She is light years out of his league.

e.a.f. said...

now, please can we refrain from calling each other "dicks". its really hard to understand why men tend to do that. What exactly are you trying to say. I'm sure there are better words to describe how you feel about one another.

Now, as to the head of a bar association signing on to a website which encourages, "cheaping/having an affair". I'd want them removed. its a question of judgement. The man simply did not display good judgement and if he is heading a state bar association he needs to have good judgement. A lapse in judgement could be detrimental to clients of lawyers, lawyers, judges, etc.

Had any of these "clients" of A.M. been foot ball players, welders, greens keepers, it wouldn't have been the issue it is. Occupations which do not require "good judgement", well it doesn't matter that much. But when a position requires "good judgement", it is best if the person has it in all aspects of their lives. Now it is well known some people can compartmentilize their lives and do it very well. However, sooner or later, it could jeoprodise other aspects of their lives, so why take the chance.

In this day and age of wanting to know, the need to know, etc. reporting on this at some level is fine. At another level, I'm sure there are many saying to themselves, thank god I dodged that one. We may feel sorry for the families of those listed, but really the person who signed on might have wanted to give that a thought before they did so. Again, they did not exercise good judgement. they put the emotional lives of their families at risk for some momentary pleasure.

Many simply didn't think they would get caught. Some think they were "entitled". Whatever it was, the slogan of life is short, have an affair or some such thing, is down right sleazy. if you want an affair, you exit the marriage and then have the affair. Or you check with your spouse to see if they're O.K. with it.

As a friend's mother always said, don't put anything in writing that you would not want to see on the front page of the local paper. Guess either some people forgot the lesson or their parents didn't teach it.

Anonymous said...

If I ever need a lawyer in Springfield, I will hire Mr. Palmer. I will never have to worry about him getting a note that reads;Is it in YOUR best interest to win this case? signed Ashley M.

legalschnauzer said...

Excellent points, e.a.f. I wasn't planning on doing much (or anything) with the AM story until I saw the Alabama list and was stunned at the number of high-level professionals--people who are paid big money to show good judgment--on the list. When my wife and I were cheated out of our home in Birmingham, we moved to Missouri, and I obtained the list for that state. It was similar to Alabama in terms of the number of professional "elites" present.

To me, that's the most important element of the whole story, and it's largely been ignored by other news outlets.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I don't feel sorry for AM customers who were outed by the leak, but I also have zero sympathy for what has happened to you up to this point because of your reckless, inaccurate "reporting" and will still have zero when you reap the painful harvest from your latest series of "reports."

I, along with thousands of others, have had this list since the leak. It certainly doesn't require amazing cyber skills to decipher, as you have suggested in some of your comments. Despite this, the entire world of douchebag bloggers has chosen not to disseminate this information (other than the Henry County Report at the very beginning & even they took the posts down) any further....that is until you chose to do so. Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what that means and where that will rank you in the pantheon of douchebags. I have concluded you are determined to find yourself at the very top of the list and will stop at nothing to get there.

We ALL get it. You HATE lawyers, Siegelmans, and Rileys. You LOVE young, gay Bill Pryor. It seems to me if you really cared about exposing corruption in Alabama you would diversify your "reporting" a tad more. But you don't really care about exposing corruption, do you? You only care about getting revenge for what you see as the wrongs that have been done to YOU by certain individuals. You don't give two shits about anyone or anything else, certainly not this fake "heightened ethical/moral agenda" you prop yourself up with.

As an attorney in Alabama, I can guarantee you that there's more than enough REAL stories of corruption all over this state to keep you in business for many years to come. Corruption that is doing actual harm to citizens each and every day. Corruption that needs to be exposed and extinguished. Corruption that is out there laying on a silver platter for anyone to find and run with. Unfortunately, you are too busy posting a naked picture of a teenage Bill Pryor for the millionth time to even care about this real, ongoing corruption. It is really sad that you cannot escape your personal obsessions and vendettas long enough to sprinkle in even a few posts that could make a real difference in this state.

Yeah, you may have a fair amount of readers who are lawyers, but I guarantee you none of them are visiting this site in anticipation of your next courageous post outlining the inner workings of the screwed up justice system that they only wish they could write themselves. They are coming here to laugh at you, find new clients and hoping one day you will stop regurgitating the same tired posts about the same tired people and finally post about real shit that impacts more people than just you.

legalschnauzer said...

Are you off your meds, @5:43? This might be the most hysterical, nutty, otherworldly comment I've seen here. Can't begin to cite all the stuff that conflicts with reality in your comment, but I'll note a few:

* You claim I don't like Don Siegelman? I lost my career for standing up for Don Siegelman and played a major role in taking down the corrupt judge who unlawfully caused him to be sent to prison.

* You claim my reporting is inaccurate, but you admit the photo I've run is of a young Bill Pryor. And you can't cite any report that is inaccurate. You are like Rob Riley and Jessica Garrison. They scream "defamation, defamation," but they can't prove it in court.

* You say I write only about issues connected to me. Try asking Sherry Rollins, Linda Upton, Bonnie Cahalane, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, Don Siegelman, and dozens of others I've written about--whose cases have nothing to do with me. Is this your first visit to the blog? It must be because you have no idea what I've reported on.

* Regarding the AM list, I've never said it requires amazing cyber skills to decipher the surface of the list--and I've never claimed to have amazing cyber skills. But it does take special skills to look beneath the surface at the account data for paying customers, and some very skilled individuals have helped me do that in a way that no other news site has done.

Not going to waste more time with you. If you are a lawyer and want to let me know of corruption that should be reported, my contact information is on here in multiple places. Get in touch. I would recommend you stop by your pharmacy first.

Anonymous said...

5:43 PM is dead on, as far as I'm concerned.

Roger, you are not fooling anyone except yourself. What you do with this blog is rationalize your paranoia and obsessive conspiracy theories. But building an intellectual cloud castle here doesn't make any of these fantasies real. Your principal enemy remains yourself. Do you really, truly think that all of us are simply deluded? Unintelligent? Missing the facts?

Garrison did prove defamation in court, and you are guilty of defamation. Period. I don't know any reasonable person looking at the evidence who would think otherwise. You made baseless, harmful claims and could not back them up. Frankly, even if the claims were true, I don't know how they could be justified ethically.

Now you are making more baseless, harmful claims about supposed Ashley Madison members. Claims you know you cannot back up. There are many reasons no other media outlets, even marginal ones, have done what you are doing. Consider why you are willing to do this public shaming and everyone else is not. Perhaps challenge yourself and think for just a second that you could be wrong, that your judgement might not be right.

You are not a journalist. You are a con artist. But the person you are conning most of all is yourself.

legalschnauzer said...

I know, in general, where many of my readers come from, and they tend to be a highly intelligent lot. They know our justice system has problems, and they come here for reporting they aren't likely to find anywhere else.

Are you, @12:03 (and $5:43), among the intelligent crowd. Doesn't look like it.

Based on your own words, you don't know the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. One is not found "guilty" of defamation; one is found "liable" for defamation. If you don't know the difference, why are you reading a blog about courts--unless of course my reporting has you feeling anxious and afraid, for some reason.

It's a matter of law that defamation only can be proven at trial, before a jury. It's a matter of public record that Jessica Garrison's claim never went to a trial of any kind, with a jury or without.

You deserve credit for one thing. You pass yourself off as an expert on the issue of "fooling oneself," and you truly do appear to know a lot about that.

Anonymous said...

If the Garrison matter is so crystal clear, Roger should appeal. A simple "matter of law", he says. It should be a slam-dunk for him, if he is correct.

But he won't appeal, and he can't appeal, because the law and the facts are not on Roger's side. Instead of accepting the truth, he instead spins his paranoid fantasy of a vast conspiracy involving universities and politicians and lawyers and police and his own family. From the outside it looks like what it actually is: delusional.

Roger Shuler is nothing more than a heartless, paranoid cyberbully hiding behind a journalistic mask. The sooner he is offline the better.

legalschnauzer said...

Well, looks like you are still proving yourself to be a moron, @4:31. Congrats on your consistency.

I won't appeal because I'm not going to waste my money on an Alabama appellate court. I know from multiple experiences that you spend a bunch of time and money on a appeal and get back a one-page ruling, stating, "Affirmed, no opinion." You don't even get an explanation as to why your appeal was denied.

Aside from that, the Garrison matter raises federal issues, and that is where my approach lies--even though federal courts also tend to be corrupt. By the way, it's a matter of public record that young Ms. Garrison committed perjury in her case, so she might wind up facing criminal sanctions there.

If you think an Alabama appellate court is going to follow the law and issue a correct ruling . . . well, you are the delusional one, my friend.

Ask Sherry Rollins, Linda Upton, and Angela Drees (among many others) about their experiences with Alabama appellate courts.

Ms. Garrison has some serious problems in her future. Not sure she is smart enough to realize that, but it will hit her soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Shuler, you are well aware that you were ordered to pay $3.5 million as a result of the Garrison lawsuit. How on earth can you say an appeal would be wasting your money? What about the $3.5 million, for heaven's sake? What about your reputation as a journalist?

Your actions clearly don't back up your words. You're a hypocrite and coward of the first order.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Garrison has been or will be charged with perjury? Of course you don't. This is just mad, wishful thinking on your part. You continue to attack this woman with groundless lies in an attempt to damage her reputation because she is on your enemies list. You are an abusive bully.

You call me a moron, Mr. Shuler, but I have never been arrested, never been sued, never been jailed, and I don't post lies online trying to destroy the reputations of people I don't know. My wife was never beaten because I put her in harm's way. And I will stand up to the likes of you any day.

Mr. Shuler, you disgust me. I wish I could laugh at you, but everyday you work to make someone's life miserable, simply to satisfy your paranoid craving for attention. You have created all the enemies you have ever had. I have no sympathy for you anymore.

Anonymous said...

When the thieves in Lee County Alabama were trying to steal my property, the powerbrokers told me to get an attorney and prove it.I talked to a civil rights attorney and he gave me some free advice.Do not waste your time and money in a Alabama court room. Be patient and get your case in a Federal Courtroom.The citizens of Alabama have no clue of the storm on the horizon.

legalschnauzer said...

6:07: If you have lived such a charmed life, tell us who you are. If I disgust you, why are you here? Go somewhere else. Sounds to me like you've lived a sad useless life. Winston Churchill said it's good to have enemies because that means you've stood up for something. You are too big a coward to identify yourself and you are too big a coward to stand for anything.
You are worthless.

Anonymous said...

I'm worthless? Aren't you and your wife living out of someone's car?

From what I'm told you now work at the Higginsville Piggly Wiggly as a part time meat cutter. Pretty impressive, Mr. Courageous Blogger Journalist. At least it's honest work --- more honest than what you do on this libelous blog.

Once you get your life together, grow some balls, and appeal the Garrison decision, you can talk to me about cowardice.

Oh, and we all know what happens when we tell you our names. You publish them, plus every personal detail you can find, in your blog. Just like what you did to those lawyers you claim (with absolutely no proof) were on Ashley Madison. Any crap you can dig up, you think is fair game. No thanks.

You compare yourself to Winston Churchill --- that's a laugh --- but do you really know why you have enemies? No, it isn't because you "stood up for something". It's because you are a lying, bullying asshole. And I'll stand 100% behind that.

Anonymous said...

Shuler why don't you go somewhere else? Like North Korea? You'd feel right at home.

legalschnauzer said...

10:05: Why would I post anything about you? You have never done or said anything newsworthy in your life. If you want our communications to be off the record, that's what they'll be. You talk about "growing balls". I want to see if you can grow a pair and talk to me directly.

Anonymous said...

Actually LS why don't you just say it: everyone is out to get you, right?

SP J said...

Roger Shuler is what we call a useful idiot. I don't mean he is unintelligent. Far from it. What makes Shuler useful is that he is an expert in rationalizing his incredibly poor judgement, while being reasonably predictable.

We love Roger Shuler. He does heavy lifting for us. Feed him some gossip or an outright lie. If it lines up with his paranoid worldview, he'll flesh it out and publish it. He might even call the target and harass them for you. Ethically blind. Hates sex but is obsessed with sex. When things go sideways, Shuler takes the fall. He's done it dozens of times. Net cost zero. We love him.

He imagines all of us meeting in the West Lounge of The Country Club plotting his downfall. Not at all. Many times I have sent the text message: "send it to LS"

Shuler hates the elites. Shuler is a tool of the elites. Shuler is being played like a fucking violin. We know he isn't really credible. But he muddies the water.

Shuler is so locked into his delusions that he'll publish this comment. He may even critique it. He won't believe it. He'll go right back to business.

Thank god for Roger Shuler.

legalschnauzer said...

You are right, SPJ, I will publish this comment. You don't have a clue what you are talking about--in terms of facts, law, or my personal/professional life--but you put some time into, so I though your handiwork should see the light of day. Congrats.

legalschnauzer said...

Everyone is out to get me, @6:32? I've never said or implied that. But since you apparently think it--even though it is a nonsensical statement involving an extreme word ("everyone")--here is a challenge for you.

Why don't you do some research and find a case I was involved in that was decided correctly under the law? If that's too much for you, just find a single order that was decided correctly under the law. Or find a case involving someone else I've written about (not me) where the case was decided correctly under the law, and my reporting was inaccurate.

I look forward to learning what you find.

If all of the cases involving me were wrongly decided, does that mean "everyone is out to get me." Nope, and I've never said that it does. Does it mean our justice system has serious problems? Yep, and that's why this blog exists.

legalschnauzer said...

Hey, @10:05, it just occurred to me that Higginsville is in Missouri, I think just above I-70 between Columbia and KC. Pretty sure there is no such town in Alabama.

You make a Missouri reference. How interesting.

Then you repeatedly refer to Jessica Garrison, who is in Alabama. I think you mention her 5-6 times, maybe more. So someone who knows obscure places in Missouri also has deep concerns about Jessica Garrison. How interesting.

I think you've let the cat out of the bag, ol' left-hander.

Anonymous said...

Missouri’s third largest city is unable to serve more than 12,000 outstanding arrest warrants to people accused of crimes such as shoplifting, traffic infractions and misdemeanor assaults because there is no room for the offenders in the county jail as a result of a bitter dispute between the sheriff and local officials.

The situation is so bad in Springfield, population 165,000, that a local judge told city officials recently that she had one docket of cases with 82 people on it and only eight bothered to show up.

Anonymous said...

Who is ol' left-hander?

legalschnauzer said...

That's a slang term I use for certain people in a generalized way. I use the terms "con man" and "back stabber" in a similar way.

Anonymous said...

Did you mean anyone in particular by ol' left-hander? Like a lawyer or anything? Just wondering.

BTW do you have a legal defence fund we can contribute to?

legalschnauzer said...

I answered that question above at @12:30.

Anonymous said...

The Fourth Amendment was created so we wouldn’t have to live in a completely transparent society where the government gets to know what people are doing whenever it wants. If we decide to indulge our curiosity every time a hack happens, we may start to live in a citizen-sustained surveillance state where there is no protection from ‘unreasonable searches’ by those in our lives. Maybe that will lead to a better, more well-behaved society, or maybe it will be more oppressive than the founding fathers could have ever dreamed.