Note: Odd seeming lingo is probably just familiar "Garage Logic" terminology.

###Ethic of Discovery

B as in B, S as in S. It's just someone trying to sound erudite. It's not an "ethic". It is, however, a wonderful expression of the Mystery: taking an observation about something people do and calling it an ethic, without ever considering if it's right or wrong. The fundamental use of an ethic is to describe a set of moral principles, to describe how right and wrong apply to us.

###Analogies

Though the $20 bill left on the bar was close, the following is a better analogy for the "blogger's discovery" conversation than anything shared on your show.

Someone left her purse in a public bar.

Looking into the purse can either be laudable ("I'm trying to find out who this belongs to so I can return it."), or condemnable ("I'm trying to get whatever is of value for my own use.") or worse ("I'm trying to find something with which I can cause her harm.")

There's no doubt the broad was a moron for leaving it on the counter. More so, since it had something similar to a blank, signed check in it. In our case, the ad company was quite clearly in the wrong for leaving the purse out in public, on the bar.

###But the "blogger"...

He was seeking to dig out this information. In a sense it is like investigative reporting. I found in seconds that Mark Kennedy's ad agency was in Texas through the Pioneer Press web site (August article), via Google. And so he kept getting fact after fact, refining his searches, and finally got somewhere.

###Passwords!

But he didn't just find it. He had to guess a password. Again from the Pioneer Press:

"Kunin claims to have gained access to the file by guessing the password needed for access, which could mean he committed a crime."

So when he later says "there was no security", he's speaking carefully crafted geek talk. Yes, in his opinion (and mine), the security was so weak it was tantamount to none. But, he circumvented what weak security there was.

Having password security changes the analogy from what was being discussed on your show (general poking around). Now the purse is inside the house. Maybe only the front porch with only a screen door, but nevertheless private property.

Because of tools now available, it is possible to find out an incredible amount of data about a person or thing. But the difficulties are, I think, the same as 50 years ago.

Given the tools available then, a reporter could ask a personal question, could go to the courthouse and look up records, could ply the secretary for information, could pay to have someone followed continuously, could break into their house when they weren't home and rifle through their things, or could illegally bug their telephone line.

Similarly, there's a whole spectrum of possibilities using new tools.

###The bloggers coup d'gras offense

He shared the data with the obvious intention to do harm. I can find stuff if I want, too. If I do, I have to be asking myself "is this right or wrong". But if I take what I find and share it with the purpose of harm or unfair advantage, the question is plainly answered.

And I think at the heart of what some callers wanted to get at was that it is questionable whether the blogger asks himself such questions. And if he really does, then whatever he's holding as a moral standard is dreadful.