Once again, Tina Peters has never been afforded the opportunity to present the facts in a court of law regarding her findings, her beliefs, or her claims. But the judge took it upon himself to label them “snake-oil.” Remarkable.
Peters may have gone about the method she used to get her cyber expert access to the systems, although even the investigator admitted it is not identity theft if you give permission of someone to use your identity (the example given was a hotel key card knowingly used by someone other than the occupant of the room). However, what Peters did was essential to not only standard accounting and auditing practices, but also was required for preservation of records under state and federal law. And most importantly, evidence presented showed that the “victim” of the identity theft was in fact aware of the use of his key card by Peters’ expert.
