The Palin Email Hack
 

Have any of you heard/seen about this yet..?

Can't say that I'm shocked, though I'm pretty sure nobody in the the GOP could have imagined that it would be this bad...It doesn't seem too revealing, though, you can peep it out on digg or here if you're curious about the content or the details of the hack...

The more underhanded aspect of this is that if real, there could be a potential fallout from the accounts now being deleted...I believe there were trying to subpoena the emails for something related to the so called 'Trooper Gate'...Of course, nothing ever really gets deleted, so they may come a calling on Yahoo if there are issues about it...

I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand, she was using a private e-mail account for public business, and I'm not sure if they could have been subpoenaed, and maybe she knew that.

But, this was an invasion of privacy. I don't want the government reading my e-mail, I don't think that her e-mail should be opened up to the world. Should these hackers break into McCain's doctor's office and post his medical records?

Who cares?

This another distraction, another irrelevance.

Regardless of the content, should a public official be doing the business of the public on a private account?

I believe hacking email is a crime. I think the news has said the Secret Service was alerted.

I hope the hacker ignores any subpoenas s/he may receive.

That is the larger issue for me as well. It is a violation of administrative procedures (in most states and the federal govt).

Sure, charge the hacker too, but that doesnt let Palin off the hook.

I'm getting more and more of a sense that Palin has no more interest in an open and transparent government than Bush/Cheney,

LMFAO..!!!! :thumbsup:

Over a yahoo account..? Its really, really not that serious...I'm afraid that by the time its all said and done, they'll have torn so far in the good Gov from so many angles it won't really matter that much...

I'm pretty sure hacking an e-mail account, yes even a Yahoo e-mail account, is a federal crime.

This guy's looking at possibly getting a five year federal sentence for basically doing just that.

Ex-anchor admits hacking e-mail - Crime & courts - MSNBC.com

It was anon users on 4chan. Who knows if the person breaking into the account was even a US Citizen. Also, guessing a password isn't hacking. Yahoo has all sorts of hints that allow you to obtain your password (dog's name, cars, street names, bs like that). A public official like that would have all that in the open.

Furthermore, whoever did this was probably skilled enough to be able to cover his tracks.

This should really be a lesson that you should never enter real answers into those hint checkers that allow you to access your account. At the very least you are better off making something obscure up and using it as the same answer on every account.

[ was the under the impression that, under federal law, hacking an e-mail account is a misdomeanor offense...unless it was a government e-mail account.

Exactly. Regardless of how the info has come out, it's out, and it's not encouraging.

Too funny.

It could well be, I have no idea. I know I read somewhere about the feds raiding that anchor's house and seizing his computers. From what I understood they did that looking for proof he hacked his co-worker e-mail. The article I quoted says he could face up to 5 yrs. I thought a misdemeanor in the fed system was a 1 yr max. but he maybe looking at 5yrs due to the number of times he violated, don't know. Really don't care.

My point was it is a crime. I think breaking the law is wrong. Even if you like the results of that crime.

I'm all for getting to the bottom of "troopergate" and finding out what kind of leader she is, but I don't think breaking the law is the way to go about it. I highly suspect she's got something to hide, if not why not just open it up and let it all out? Hell even her excuses have become rather bizarre.

Tully...I agree it is a crime.

So is an elected official violating a state's open records laws. Using a private e-mail account for public business might very well fall in that category.

It could be, don't know anything about Alaska's laws on this issue. Given the number of people and my experience with small governments (city, county etc...) I wouldn't be surprised to find there is no law regarding this issue. Might be after this is all over though.

I find it rather interesting the McCain camps screaming partisan hatchet job while the fact is the vote to proceed with this investigation was done with a GOP majority. I smell crap.

But, everything about Palin smells to me. I keep thinking about the old Cheech and Chong bit-

I'm hoping the US voters stop at "what's it smell like?"

Honestly, I didn't see anything that looked like anything that qualifies as REAL state business. Could she have abused this account to hide activities? Sure, but it doesn't look like she did.

Did the 4chan guys commit a crime? Yep. But so did I when I jaywalked Clark Street this morning. Pretty minor, unless Palin's quasi-legal account is somehow "special". Which I don't think it is.

This was an attempt to embarrass her. Mission accomplished.

Not sure I'd compare jay walking to a federal crime.

Did this embarrass her? Not in many peoples eyes. Many folks see this as just one more example of how low the left will sink to "get her." IMO, crap like this allows her to bask in the light of victimization for yet another news cycle. Which means she can avoid answering questions about real issues. Something I don't think she very good at.

Yesterday someone at one of her rallies asked her what specifically makes her qualified regarding foreign policy. Her answer was something like "I'm qualified, if you want specifics go ahead try to stump the candidate.' Next question please. Umm, excuse me I think you were asked for specifics and you gave some gibberish answer.

This morning this was on my news for a sec. or two. Then they spent several minutes discussing the e-mail hack and the fact they hacker(s) posted pictures of her family. Gasp! Of her family? Ya, her family! By the way they were speaking I was expecting to see naked people doing coke off each other. Nope, a couple shots that look rather bland.

She plays the victim perfectly, that is something she's very good at. Almost like it was scripted or something, hmm.

From The Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian blog:

If Gawker can make the argument that its newsworthy stick, no one can really tell them what to do. All they have to do is point to the Troopergate investigation and say that serves as proof to back up earlier stories in Gawker and the media at large.

In other words, suck on our large, First Amendment-protected balls, feds.

First, I have not seen any evidence that Palin conducted state business using a private email account in violation of state or federal law. It is amusing to see people making assumptions, presuming guilt all without presenting any evidence.

Second, these laws are silly. I doubt reasonable people would be able to clearly define what "official state business" is, so this could be used as a political tool against any politician with a private email account. Why are emails treated different than other forms of communication. If I conduct "official state business" using smoke signals why should that be subject to different rules than emails.

Third, I think it is an easy way to attack your political enemy while pretending that you are on some honorable crusade.

This just illustrates that as much as those on the left complain about the political tactics used by the right, the left is just as bad or worse in many cases.

Emails are treated differently because it's a lot easier to hack into a Yahoo! account than a government account, I'm guessing.

Asaris, thanks for that post. I was going to put in a link and then saw you did.

Just for the record: the poster Asaris quoted above is Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington U Law School, specializing in criminal law and procedure, and computer crime. He's the guy whose posts I look to when I have questions about criminal law current events, because he really does know what he is talking about and is intellectually honest to a fault. If you want a link to the particular post, so that you can see some of the comments as well, click here. Kerr is almost universally well-respected.

What exactly does that statement mean..?

It means that a political party with a stated purpose of investigating some wrong when they have little or no real evidence can make an accusation that the person subject to the investigation may have used personal email accounts to cover up their wrong doings. There is no real defense against this invasion of privacy. If you are not guilty but don't want your private emails made public and fight - people assume you are guilty. If you turn over your personal emails you expose yourself to all kinds of trivial unfounded attacks and information being used improperly and out of context.

This is also a tactic that can be used as a "fishing" exhibition. Again, a political party not really having any evidence but will use personal emails in an attempt to get something. I don't like this because I believe in our Constitution - the part where people are presumed innocent. I think people have a right to privacy and should not be exposed to undue searches and seizures. I even think politicians have a right to privacy, regardless of party. Again, I thought the intrusion into Bill Clinton's private affairs ( pardon the pun) was wrong.

Ahh, OK...I get what you mean now ace...Thanks for the clarification... :)

Thats odd...and I thought it was a Republican majority committee (8R-4D) that voted 12-0 to initiate the ethical investigation and a Republican majority committee (3R-2D) conducting the investigation and issuing subpoenas....and that, on the issue of e-mails, that ethics laws and open records laws are justification for questioning and examining personal e-mails as part of that investigation, if in the course of the investigation, there is even a possibility that such e-mails were used in an "official capacity."

Otherwise, what is to prevent any governor (or any elected official) from hiding e-mail "conversations" concerning actions in an official capacity that he/she would rather not see the light of day by simply using a private e-mail account?

Hacking the e-mails is illegal and an invasion of privacy......requesting all potentially relevant e-mails on any account the governor maintained (and issuing subpoenas if necessary) is a legitimate part of such an investigation.

But then, its much easier to simply claim "politically motivated fishing expedition."

No comment, just thought this was interesting:

Report: Tenn. legislator confirms son is at center of Palin hack chatter

Democrat Tenn. legislator confirms son is at center of Palin hack chatter

If the kid did it...prosecute him..even investigate if he was part of a larger "conspiracy"

My objection is characterizing the entire investigation as a partisan politically motivated fishing expedition as was suggested here..and continues to be the central talkiing point on the issue by the McCain/Palin campaign and their surrogate talking heads.

One issue with conducting official state business on personal accounts: it's never recorded. For instance, if i were doing some weird research in 10 -30 yrs about palin as gov of alaska, a TON of useful info that is in the personal account would not be available to me.

So, it's not on the up and up, let's just say. Also, after the secretive bush/cheney whitehouse, i'm ready for someone who isn't afraid to show what they are doing/discussing.

You seem to be much more partisan than I am. I believe Republicans and Democrats can abuse power.



I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with the law regarding private emails specifically and I generally favor a person's right to privacy and being protected from undue searches and seizures.

Nothing, but I pointed to the fact that emails could be used but so can other forms of communication - why the big deal with emails compared to other forms of communication? Ultimately, I look at actual decisions and actions, I suggest we let that be the primary determining factor of illegal activity. If I fire someone without the legal authority, what difference does it make what my emails say. The facts that the person was fired and I did not have the authority are the key points, everything else is somewhat trivial.

Or, it can be a fishing exhibition under the guise of an investigation. I prefer our laws error on the side of protecting privacy.

I think it is wrong when either party does it. Are you suggesting "politically motivated fishing expeditions" don't happen? If they do what is your position on protecting people from this type of abuse of power?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 10 : 42 : 43-----
My objection is when people pretend that the potential for abuse of power does not exist or does not happen. My objection is when people assume one party is always guilty of abuse of power in some cases with no evidence and the other party is always righteous and is victimized by the other party.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 10 : 46 : 04-----
A) what happened before emails?

B) An email sent is received by another party who could make the email public at some later date.

To suggest that the Bush/Chaney administration has been more secretive than the typical presidential administration is to ignore history.

ace.....it only ignores history if you are in an alternative universe.

In this universe, one only need examine:

More FOIA restrictions as a result of Bush EO (later overturned by Dem Congress) yet still w/ an average 2-yr back up on requests dues to the Buish EO

More restrictions by revisions to Presidential Records Act as a result of Bush EO limiting access to docs....as well as claim by Cheney that VP is not part of Exec Branch and need not comply with PRA (overturned by court last week)

More restrtictions on "sensitive, but unclassified" docs than any previous Administration

Tens of thhousnds of new "security" designation of previously accessible docs and less "de-classificaiton" of older docs than any previous Administration

Destruction of more than 2 milion WH e-mails in violation of WH administrative policies

More Executive "signing statements" than previous Admininstrations combined.

The list goes on.......

Ace, I think the assumption is that when Republicans are in charge of investigating a fellow Republican, partisan politics are less likely to be involved.

I think Palin made a few enemies in the Republican party. Also, keep in mind that she defeated an incumbent.

Has Obama ever taken a stand against his party? Has he ever voted counter to the marching orders given to him?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 03 : 44 : 44-----
I don't want to go through history with you, but I will say that government is generally more open today, more accessible today, with information more easily communicated to more people and faster today than at anytime during our national history. In addition some of the laws you cite were passed with the intent of making government more open, making the trendline trend to more openness. So, by comparison on a historical basis, your argument to me seems weak and in no need for further discussion. I never suggested that Bush has not put up a fight, but you are taking a position that I don't think is supportable on a historical perspective.

Shouldnt the Reagan mantra of "trust but verify" apply to our own government as well...at any level?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 03 : 53 : 53-----
In addition to new FOIA restrictions, PRA restrictions, tens of thousands of new "security" classifications, destruction of millions of e-mails, excessive use of signing statements, excessive use of "state secrets" designations to avoid release of docs.....

...there is also the "shred, baby shred" actions:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/trend_graph.jpg

From USAspending.gov

In 2000, the feds spent $452,807 to shred government docs; by 2006, that number rose to $2.9 million. And by halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting.

But I understand why you dont want to discuss these clear and present trends away from transparency and accountability.

So shredding documents is a clear and present trend away from transparency and accountability, is it? Paranoid much? Ever read anything about the massive increase in privacy laws? HIPPA? Would you make an equally paranoid conclusion from the vast increase in documents that the government keeps?

The fact is, we dont know, because of new and excessive Bush restrictions on FOIA (recently overturned, but still backlogged) and PRA, among other laws.

And yes, I am familiar with HIPPA and its requirement re: record keeping of electronic health datafiles. Do you have any evidence that the 600 percent increase in shredding is due, in any measurable way, to HIPAA compliance?

And how about those millions of WH e-mails "accidentally" lost from the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the leak of Plame, the firing of the US attorneys, etc. in violation of WH administrative procedures? Or the excessive use of "state secret" designations to withhold "sensitive", but unclassified information from the public.

As to ace's core argument....we have more access to federal government data than 50 years ago...100 years ago...200 years ago? That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that by any objective measure, the federal government is less open and transparent than it was eight years ago!

Bump: The accused hacker's case has gone to jury. If he gets the book, he gets 50 years. Bet he never even considered losing a half century for his efforts. I'm curious to see what he gets. I'll bet he gets 10 years, out in 3.

I'll bet you're wrong. He's being tried in Federal court, which means that the stronger truth in sentencing laws are in effect. If he gets 10 years, I think he's got to do a mandatory 9 (or 8 and change, I don't remember exactly what the formula is). He's being tried under The Patriot Act (which covers identity theft), so he's got to do a mandatory 3 years if he's found guilty on that single charge. No if, ands or buts.

Oh, there will be butts involved. He's pretty and soft. He's going to make a good wife to someone. Why he didn't plea bargain is beyond me.

I just read a report that he published Bristol Palin's personal cell phone number to the internet during the hack. Just goes to show you that it only takes a second to make a decision you'll regret for the rest of your life.

It just takes a second for the keystrokes; it takes a lifetime of stupid to believe there wouldn't be repercussions.

I don't understand how people like this don't think they are going to be caught? Just because you don't have a social life doesn't mean the government can't find you.

Personally, I applaud what he did, but doesn't mean I'm going to be throwing cigarettes over the prison wall to help keep his virgin butthole safe.

Personally I don't applaud what he did. I have a serious dislike for Palin and her ilk but the law is the law and breaking it just because she's a douche doesn't make it right.

This is remarkably off-topic, but I kind-of-sort-of agree with you, Tully. I don't like her, but it's against the law. But I have a real problem with this being prosecuted under the Patriot Act. That's bullshit, and it's the misuse of a law designed to stop terrorists, not dumbass /b/tards.

Yeah, it seems like they moved identity theft under the Patriot Act umbrella, though I don't know why. The best I could speculate is that it's a resource sharing issue? The resources and skills used to track terrorists fall in line with identity theft investigation? Did it mean harsher sentences or does it simply fall under that investigative/legal authority? I know the words "Patriot Act" are generally offensive, but did it really make a difference as to the harshness of the charges on this guy? I don't know.

I'm glad to see a couple of you speak up. I don't know how anyone could applaud this guy or what he did. We are a nation of laws, not men.

He was wrong and should pay for his crime but significant jail time isn't the answer to this. We have rapists and violent criminals who cause a hell of a low more trouble than this /b/tard did and they get off easy.

Truer words have never been spoken. They are going to let a rapist out early so he has a bunk.

I will say that my applauding this kinda of crime is based on if I like the person or not. I could argue about using a unsecured web based email like Yahoo for a government correspondence, but it really is just a cover; I just don't like Palin.

Was it a crime? Yes. Was it wrong? Yes. Should he go to jail? Yes. Would I be pissed if it happened to me/friend/family/famous media figure I actually give a damn about? Yes.

So yes, I only like that her email got hacked because I don't like her. I don't like that he is being prosecuted under the Patriot Act, because it was a personal account (as not being part of government intraweb/vpn/.gov account), but yeah... broke the law, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The problem with fucking with people like Governors is you spin the wheel and whatever the US attorney chooses to do in the case is out of your control.

That said- using the patriot act for this is indeed bullshit.

Sounds like an opportunity for you to grow as a person. I admire you for admitting the core of the matter. I'm sure you know that reveling when bad things happen to people you don't like is not a good character trait. Recognizing a fault in one's personality is the first step towards correcting it. Good luck! :thumbsup:

Guilty on obstructing an investigation (max 20 years)
Guilty on unauthorized access to a computer (max one year)
Acquitted on wire fraud
Deadlocked on Identity Theft

I would imagine the prosecution will wait for sentencing to determine whether to retry him on the Identity Theft charge. I'll trim my guess and say he gets 6 years.

Lol, really?

Tell me, my friend, what did you expect from girl?