The NY Times Science Blog, Dot Earth, publishes a reader comment basically claiming that the hacks into the leading climate changes scientists' email was cyberterrorism. It even goes so far as to attempt to downplay the hack on Sarah Palin's account (which is relevant why?)

I don't support illegal activities, but there is a very odd moral equivalence going on. Scientists can lie in public in an attempt to alter global politics and economics and break laws to avoid legally required disclosure of much if not all of these documents, and we should feel sorry for them that their privacy was violated? If they didn't wish to be public figures this way they could easily:

a) not disseminate false and misleading information in an attempt to beggar economic growth as the new malthusians, or

b) practice the simple policy that most scientists do of making their underlying data and methods available to others publicly for debate and analysis.

Transparency does suck when you have something to hide...