Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Palin Email Hacker Found

Comments Filter:
  • This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom (715771) * <slashdot&uberm00,net> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:02PM (#25094011) Homepage Journal

    Cracker is an idiot. Ever hear of Tor [wikipedia.org]? Or better yet, post the information on something like Freenet [wikipedia.org] and just advertise it on Freenet somehow and let other people get the information out to the main web.

    Of course, the fact that he posted his nick on /b/ when it's usually forced-anon anyway means he basically confessed. Not to mention that he said which proxy service he used -- note to criminals: if you want to get away with something, don't brag about how you did it!

  • "Hacker" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Verteiron (224042) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:02PM (#25094019) Homepage

    So "hacking" now includes password guessing?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:05PM (#25094057)

    There's no evidence that we know of that this kid was indeed the hacker other than a post on /b/. And accepting a post on /b/ to be reliable information is like... trusting /.'s front page.

  • Re:"Hacker" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Helios1182 (629010) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:08PM (#25094105)

    It is usually the easiest way for a lot of systems; that, or just ask the user and they will tell you.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elektroschock (659467) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:09PM (#25094107)

    Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.

    Lessons:

    * government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)

    * Anonymous communication matters

    * Activities of governments should be transparent.

    * It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters. [youtube.com]

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hadlock (143607) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:12PM (#25094157) Homepage Journal

    The whole reason Palin is using Yahoo instead of government sponsored email is that any email sent through those channels is archived for a Very Long Time as a matter of public record. Wondering what the clerk at the DMV is REALLY emailing about? Put in a freedom of information act request and it's all yours.
     
    By Palin using yahoo, it's not closely watched and she can conduct official business off the record. It's very poor form to do so and is the real story here.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:15PM (#25094201) Homepage Journal
    I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.

    I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.

  • Important (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:16PM (#25094219)
    The important thing is that prosecution comes. Regardless of the politics involved, if there's no charges then any online email service is essentially useless for private communication. Not to mention the law on such matters doesn't "matter."
  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hadlock (143607) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:25PM (#25094289) Homepage Journal

    I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.
     
    Brilliant marketing, and the general public's desire to believe what they're told in hopes that it will come true. If the general public were half as smart as we give them credit for the world would have never seen Napoleian, Cesar (well actually the Romans solved that problem on their own), Castro, Hugo Chavez and more. But as the protestants like to point out, people are like sheep and will head in whatever direction the man who speaks softly but carries a big stick says.

  • Re:Important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zippthorne (748122) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:28PM (#25094309) Journal

    If he's a student, I hope Palin opts not to press charges, or pushes for a slap-on-the-wrist. Some kind of punishment that will sting, but won't be career ending.

    Regardless of the politics involved, if there's no charges then any online email service is essentially useless for private communication.

    No, they are *already* useless for private communication. Email is sent in plaintext across networks, and regardless of prosecution, the attack vector used here is a pretty easy one. If your email is unencrypted, or you're using easily looked-up information as passwords or recovery questions, then it's not private. period.

    It would almost be better not to prosecute at all, if it has the effect of making people aware of, and take precautions against, the complete lack of privacy already extant.

  • Re:"Hacker" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by colfer (619105) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:34PM (#25094365)

    Yahoo lets you answer the backup questions and then reset the password to one of your choice? I didn't know it was that insecure. Normally a system would email you a reset link, but I guess Yahoo users might not have another email address. Sounds like Y should give you the option of disabling this cracking feature. Either you have a it send the reset link to a backup email or to a registered phone number for SMS text. How does Gmail do it?

  • Re:Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:35PM (#25094379) Homepage

    I'm glad to see Wikileaks is back up, along with the Palin article. For a while I thought it was being censored by the thugs in charge.

    What a shame the media is focusing on the hacking angle rather than on Palin's inappropriate use of personal communications channels for government business.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:37PM (#25094399)

    By Palin using yahoo, it's not closely watched and she can conduct official business off the record.

    Or you know, she could in fact SEND PERSONAL EMAIL. Are you saying that no government employee should be able to have a personal email account? Then I guess you're OK with AT&T recording phone conversations without a warrant, because if government employees should not be able to have any private life why should you?

    The kid even said there were NO incriminating emails in the account (see: Wired story). So get off your high horse and allow for humans to be humans and have something of a life, even if it's one of your dreaded Repuglithuggnaughtterizies.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jaktar (975138) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:40PM (#25094433)

    And yet she believes judgment day is not far off...

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4720440.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

    So why does she bother to "hide" using a non government email address when she believes the world will end within her lifetime? Makes you wonder which side of her mouth tells the truth doesn't it?

  • What if... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:43PM (#25094471)

    I want everyone here to think about how they would respond if the report were about Barack Obama's e-mail account instead. Just shut the fuck up.

  • Re:"Hacker" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shihar (153932) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:44PM (#25094487)

    First, it wasn't password guessing. He exploited Yahoo's password recovery system to get it to reset her password. He basically used public information to pose as Palin and convince Yahoo's password recovery system that he needed the password reset. Exploiting such a weakness in the system is, by any standards, "hacking".

    Second, after he got in, he than went through all of her e-mail. Breaking into a system, even if it had been a password guess, and then going through its contents is again, by any standard standard, hacking.

    I loath Palin, but this guy is going to get what he has coming. Even shitty and crazy humans who think the world is a few thousand years old and much to my horror might be president one day, get legal protection. It isn't like the police can go, "Yeah, he hacked in, but Palin kinda sucks, so I think we will let this one slide".

  • Hacker (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3NO@SPAMphroggy.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:47PM (#25094519) Homepage

    Using this label gives this guy far too much credit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:53PM (#25094573)

    You're posting here, using racist codespeak (Bubba?), advocating for the physical and/or sexual abuse of someone who hacked a Yahoo account?

    Fucking fascist.
    - The Big Lebowski

  • Re:"Hacker" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:55PM (#25094601) Journal

    If you have followed the story, he didn't guess the password. He used publicly available information to fool Yahoo's password recovery tool to give it up.

    And somehow that turned into headlines that say:
    Palin Email Hacker Impersonated Her, Stole Password

    http://www.google.com/search?q=palin+impersonated [google.com]
    Even the Associated Press went down that road.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ccguy (1116865) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:56PM (#25094609) Homepage

    The whole reason Palin is using Yahoo instead of government sponsored email is that any email sent through those channels is archived for a Very Long Time as a matter of public record

    Not that I like her, but everyone's entitled to having personal accounts which should be respected.

    If she used her .gov account for everything some people would be complaining about her usage of public resources to email her family.

    Now, about what was found in the yahoo account: Obviously it would inadmissible in court, but it's very useful to her enemies anyway. Which I find disgusting.

  • by Tatarize (682683) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:56PM (#25094613) Homepage

    A number of those emails seem to be very state-businessy looking at who they are all from. And apparently they were using those accounts in order to have the ability to quickly delete any email they wanted rather than be subject to maintaining them for FOIA requests.

  • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:56PM (#25094617)

    Yeah, just like the punishment to the Watergate burglars was the same as that meted out to regular burglars.

    Fact is bugging your political opponents is Serious Business legally.

  • Re:"Hacker" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Free the Cowards (1280296) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @01:56PM (#25094619)

    I'd say it's less involved, not more. Answering a question which is a matter of public record is much easier than trying to guess someone's password.

    I've always thought that those "security questions" were a giant security hole. This just goes to show that it's true.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by L0rdJedi (65690) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:02PM (#25094683)

    Let's say it like this: He or she is no hacker or cracker. It is just a usual internet user who did not obtain great skill.

    Lessons:

    * government users should not take yahoo (who ever came to that idea?)

    * Anonymous communication matters

    * Activities of governments should be transparent.

    * It may help a person to become vice president who appears to be a nightmare and encourage anti-hacking regulations. Fortunately S. Palin has close affiliations with witch hunters. [youtube.com]

    Oh please. Here's the real lessons learned:

    1. Don't make your security question anything that can be found online or don't discuss anything about it online (hers was where she and her husband met).

    2. Don't enter your real birthdate anywhere online. Again, what places really need this for an online account except "social networking" sites? Even then, anyone you know is probably going to know when your birthday is anyway.

    3. Don't use your real zip code.

    All of the above would have completely prevented this "hack". It's not difficult to make up a birth date and use that instead. Same goes for a zip code (12345 anyone?).

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:02PM (#25094685)

    The whole reason Palin is using Yahoo instead of government sponsored email...

    Do you have any evidence of this, other than a few isolated emails?

    People use a variety of communication systems. They talk on the phone, talk in person, email from various accounts, etc.

    Most people make some attempt to organize this: a work phone number, a work email address, etc., but there is almost always some spillover. People socialize with other people they work with, and so there is bound to be some mixing among all of these types of communication. The only time that doesn't happen is when the consequences are huge, such as top secret information or something.

    So what is your evidence that she did so to avoid record keeping and hide the information from FOIA requests?

    It's very poor form to do so and is the real story here.

    No, the real story here is our tolerance for people who harass, intimidate, violate the privacy of, or otherwise punish people who run for public office (or maybe just the people we don't like). We're never going to get good people to run for office if they are punished for doing so.

  • Re:it WOULDNT (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zippthorne (748122) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:03PM (#25094693) Journal

    So, you're saying that, because Obama doesn't use private email for government work, you'd definitely be OK with someone "hacking" Obama's private email and posting it to the world?

  • by Doug52392 (1094585) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:07PM (#25094723)

    First off, I don't think this guy was really from "Anonymous" or anyone like that - I think he was just someone who wanted attention.

    Quoting from TFA:

    As detailed in the postings, the Palin hack didn't require any real skill. Instead, the hacker simply reset Palin's password using her birthdate, ZIP code and information about where she met her spouse -- the security question on her Yahoo account, which was answered (Wasilla High) by a simple Google search.

    This proves how fundamentally flawed the "Password Recovery" system, used by many websites, really is. Even if this had happened ot an average Joe guy, all one would have to do to get his security question answer is simply know the guy and his past. The questions are SO GENERIC that anyone could easily guess or find out the answer!

    Like the common "Mother's maiden name". All you need to do is Google the target's full name! If the target or anyone remotely related to them ever made a family tree, you'll find the tree - including the target's mother's maiden name.

    So if it's THAT EASY for an average guy, doing this for a politician whose ENTIRE LIFE STORY has been told countless times on TV, online, on the news, and on the radio, is as simple as one Google search.

    I hope everyone running for President right now learns this, and, when someone becomes America's next President, has the sense to change this issue (cough)Obama(cough).

  • by drerwk (695572) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:19PM (#25094869) Homepage
    Do you know that she seems to have been using the account for gov business? No matter what the kid said or saw there is more to it than you seem to know.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html [washingtonpost.com]

    Among the e-mails released as part of the records request in June were several from Frye asking a state official whether private e-mail accounts and messages sent to BlackBerry devices are immune to subpoena, then reporting the answer to the governor and her husband, Todd, who also uses a Yahoo! mail address.

    Asking if Yahoo accounts are subject to subpoena and relaying the answer to the governor suggests to me that the accounts were not simple private email accounts.

  • by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:19PM (#25094879)

    As for the hacker, hopefully the Feds will give him a nice long stay in a real PMITA prison with a guy named Bubba.

    Your post was great until you said this. People should be punished according to sentences under the law, not subjected to the arbitrary abuse of other prisoners.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _KiTA_ (241027) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:21PM (#25094891) Homepage

    She wasn't using the account for gov business, at least not based on what was posted on wikileaks, or according to the purported "Hacker". It was personal e-mail, in some cases about how she and others were being treated personally in the political arena, but not anything related to official government business.

    As Officer Bar Brady says "Nothin to see here, move along now".

    Yeah, the emails with "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line from other officials in her administration really screamed "Not official government business" to me, too.

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:23PM (#25094923) Homepage

    So we have two people:
    (1) Sarah Palin, who may or may not have crossed a "blurry line".
    (2) Some punk who obviously broke the law, caused chaos, and distracted from other issues during an election for the US President.

    (1) Sarah Palin, who is actively interfering with an investigation into "Troopergate" (a bipartisan investigation, one that the deciding vote was cast from the representative of her home town, I would also hasten to point out), has a record of abuse of power, corruption, and mismanagement.

    (2) Some kid who broke the law, caused chaos, and chipped the little mask of Professionalism and Competence that Karl Rove is trying so hard to put around Palin and McCain.

  • by Keebler71 (520908) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:26PM (#25094945) Journal
    Wait a second.. it depends on what the "negative issues" were. If these were issues relevant to Alaskan politics and she was discussing them with her aides, then maybe this could be problematic for her. But if this was about the PR handling of issues related to her VP campaign then she would be wrong to use her official account and by all means she should be using a personal (or republican party) account. You can't use state resources (i.e. email accounts, office time, phone charges) to advance your political career.
  • by atraintocry (1183485) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:28PM (#25094965)
    Let's say that hypothetically, she was discussing government business on a Yahoo! account. One later crime committed against her does not mean she gets a pass on her own. Plus, she might be Vice President. Hell, maybe even President. So it does matter a bit more than what some punk does.
  • by Kuutti (556414) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:32PM (#25095035)
    And remember to switch your mobile phone off or even better, don't take it with you at all!!
  • Re:just tell me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:36PM (#25095083) Homepage Journal
    it is NOT her yahoo account anymore. at the moment she used it for correspondence of government affairs, that account has become a public property.

    it is not only permissible, but mandatory to make its contents accessible to public.
  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BenoitRen (998927) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:38PM (#25095111)

    Napoleon wasn't all bad, though. Thanks to him our Belgian courts (among others) don't suck as bad as the Americans'!

  • Re:This Just In (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Latinhypercube (935707) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:41PM (#25095153)
    Hugo Chavez and Castro are your examples of a uneducated public ? How about BUSH and erm, BUSH ! Fool The US has voted in this world class criminal twice and his father. He has utterly butt fucked the US into oblivion and your taking pot shots at Chavez ? You fool.
  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:43PM (#25095177) Homepage

    Nah, he's far below /b/tard level. /b/tards at least know to post Anon.

    This kid is your typical attention-whoring suburban fuckup. He's probably going to grow up to be a nice little volvo-driving banker.

  • by slashgrim (1247284) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:43PM (#25095183) Journal

    Like the GOP staff that used an exploit to read their oppositions email?

    Exploit? You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does?

    The memos were hosted on a publicly searchable shared folder...that would be like putting up a web page for Google to search and complaining that the opposition read your page.

    The GOP staff should have informed them of the loose security!

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:49PM (#25095239)

    You cannot attack her because that would make her a victim and she makes you appear rude.

    Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.

    That's a little more than "rude".

    As far as the usual political back-and-forth (the legal kind), every politician uses rhetorical shields to hide from legitimate criticism. Ultimately, the people decide what's a legitimate criticism and what is not.

    Many people have decided that, yes, it is rude to criticize Palin for the actions of her daughter, or to question the parents of her youngest child.

    But it's not rude to criticize her for supporting the bridge to nowhere, or some policy position you disagree with. If she tries to hide behind the "underdog" persona to avoid these charges she will be unsuccessful.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:53PM (#25095279)

    Maybe she was using her personal email for her personal political career, and there is good reason for that to be marked "CONFIDENTIAL" without being official government business.

    In fact, there may be laws preventing her from using government networks to discuss a political career.

    You should really provide some specific evidence that she did something wrong, because I haven't seen any yet.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wakkow (52585) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:53PM (#25095281) Homepage

    So how do the presidential candidates themselves run? They're getting paid their Senate salary while they travel around the country campaigning, aren't they?

  • by Hubbell (850646) <.moc.evil. .ta. .iillebbuhnairb.> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:55PM (#25095303)
    The only people who wanted to 'investigate' this 'scandal' (she pushed to have a trooper, her brother in law or ex brother in law, i forget which at the time, who fucking tasered his 10 yr old step son, who drove in his cruiser drunk multiple times, and was caught hunting illegally, fired, as well as actually fired the commissioner of whatever organization/department for repeatedly going behind her back to push his own agenda/budget plans and ignoring the budget he had been handed by her) are people trying to attack her. It's such a bullshit case that the only reason it is 'news' or even happening is because of everyone holding up Obama the Messiah as if he's jesus himself.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:56PM (#25095311)

    Do you know that she seems to have been using the account for gov business? No matter what the kid said or saw there is more to it than you seem to know.

    I'm not sure how YOU know that given that the kid did not think so. Read the wired story, he said there was nothing there. Sending email to co-workers is not a crime. Have YOU never used a personal email account to send email to people you work with? Guess you're hiding something too!!

    You obviously just have it in for her and she can do no right.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Main Gauche (881147) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:57PM (#25095319)

    I mean look at her statements. I mean for instance when she talks about her son beeing deployed in Iraq. Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda?

    When an elected official's son goes to Iraq, it's "peasant propaganda"? Well, when he doesn't, it's someone else [michaelmoore.com]'s propaganda. I guess they're screwed either way!

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:07PM (#25095423)

    You use that evidence to track him, other evidence to prove guilt.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ArcherB (796902) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:08PM (#25095435) Journal

    I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.

    I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.

    Are Cheney and Palin not allowed to have personal lives? Should every conversation they have be public record? Should their personal emails be sent via government servers?

    Sorry, but NO! There was no government business on her Yahoo account, so no law was broken. All the stuff I saw there WAS STUFF THAT DID NOT BELONG ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS! Prayers from friends and pictures of her kids have no place on government computers. If these WERE on her government account, then you'd have something, abuse of power or whatever. But they weren't, so there is nothing but what you make up. She was right to keep her personal crap on Yahoo!

    Since no law was broken, why are you assuming that Palin feels she was above the law? I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for those with an (R) or (D) next to their name that they make stuff up to fit their preconceived notions and justify their irrational hatred.

  • Re:Public Records (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BlueStrat (756137) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:08PM (#25095439)

    Why is Sarah Palin using a private account when she is Governor?

    Because there are laws in place that say what you can and cannot do with government services and equipment. What you do not seem to get is she was abiding by these laws. Thats why she has 2 (or more) email accounts. The hacker ought to be prosecuted, he even said he did it with malicious intent

    I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be

    but guess what? he found squat and diddly.

    I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor.... And pictures of her family

    I'm sure I'll get modded down to non-existence for this reply, but I've got tons of karma to burn.

    Burn, baby, burn!

    You know that the fact that no state business was being conducted through those email accounts means diddly and squat to the haters. They'll just say "well she has other accounts we don't know about, or she deleted them" and despite all the evidence to the contrary, maintain that somehow she's a criminal because she doesn't bow to the lefts' agenda.

    Truth doesn't matter to the haters on the left, only their rabid hate and their wish to silence and destroy anyone who dares disagree with them. Laws, rights, and freedoms should only protect *their* guys, because *they're* the "good guys". She's a conservative Republican, which to the haters on the left makes her not-human, so she doesn't get to have rights or enjoy the protections of law and due process. Since she's a conservative Republican, any methods used to injure or destroy the woman and anyone close to her, including handicapped children, are perfectly fine and justified tactics to the haters.

    The level of hypocrisy, douche-baggery, outright denial of reality, and visceral hatred by many on the left is beyond the pale. They even hacked Bill O'Reilleys' website and grabbed user registration information and email addresses because he dared have an opinion they don't like about the obtaining and subsequent publishing of the Palin personal emails.

    Maybe Obamas' and/or Bidens' personal email accounts should be hacked, if hacking Palins' personal account is ok. I wonder if the haters would be fine with *their* guys' personal emails being published? I'd be willing to lay strong odds that there would be a lot more red meat there than anything found in Palins' emails.

    Cheers!

    Strat

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by proverbialcow (177020) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:09PM (#25095459) Journal

    Obviously it would inadmissible in court

    Why? IANAL, but as I understand it, the "fruits-of-poison-tree" argument only holds if it were the police (or investigative government body) who had accessed her account without her authorization or a warrant.

    Anyone who IAAL: care to clear this up?

  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:11PM (#25095473)

    I am curious where you get the compelling evidence that someone you don't even know, and hadn't heard about until a month ago, is in contempt of the law? And what does Palin have to do with Cheney? It is like saying someone from Massachusetts is a murderer, so everyone from Massachusetts must be a murderer.

    What is insightful in this comment?

  • Re:This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:11PM (#25095481) Journal
    I know you're half joking, but I'd think that banks would prefer someone who can keep a secret. As a matter of fact, I'd think that any position that could use his meager skills also require the ability to STFU and be subtle.
  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by toby (759) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:18PM (#25095569) Homepage Journal

    Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda? She wants to get into a leadership position and talks herd. That is frigthening.

    Sad to say, historically it wins elections. And if you can't win them that way, just fiddle with the results and the Supreme Court - like they did in Florida '00, Ohio '04, and shortly, the '08 election.

    The irony is that the leaders who are elected in this way, are invariably the ones who attack and destroy democracies elsewhere in the world. And yes, we're as concerned as you are. The Republican ticket in '08 is very bad news for America and the world. :(

  • by jesdynf (42915) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:30PM (#25095697) Homepage

    I believe this man, who has illegally spied on a member of the government, should face the full and certain penalty that those who illegal spy at the /behest/ of the government should face.

    No penalty for this unconscionable breach of privacy is too harsh or severe, no fine too large, no jail term too great. He should face them---

    Oh? Really? I guess that does change things, doesn't it.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by kisak (524062) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:31PM (#25095717) Homepage Journal

    Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.

    Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law. And by violating the air-heads yahoo account, it was shown that Palin has -- just like the current republicans in the White House -- used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office. I feel hard to feel sorry for her and also, the finding is very telling about what kind of president she will be when McCain gets cancer and dies.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jabithew (1340853) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:31PM (#25095719)

    Belgium uses the civil law system, otherwise known as the Napoleonic code. The majority of American states use English common law system*, which relies a lot more on judicial judgement and precedent (which have the same force as law itself, effectively allowing courts to legislate). Our common law actually has a lot in common with Shari'a in terms of how it works.

    *CA, for example, doesn't. Neither does Scotland, hence English.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flyingsquid (813711) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:38PM (#25095809)
    Personally, I'm fed up with all this "sexist" bullshit that's surrounded her nomination. Sure, nominating a female VP is historic (kinda sorta, since the Dems did it 24 years ago). Are we suddenly supposed to stop asking questions about whether this woman is experienced enough or capable enough to assume the leadership of the United States of America? We are, after all, engaged in two major wars.

    And yes, small-town hockey mom becomes vice presidential candidate, that's a good story. It's like a Hollywood script, or a fairy tale where the girl raised on a farm suddenly discovers she's really a princess. Yeah, it's a cute story, and I hate to see a good story spoiled, but our economy is facing the biggest crisis since the crash of 1929. I want somebody smart and experienced ready to take over if anything happens to McCain.

    But Palin simply isn't qualified. Her performance during the ABC interview revealed that she had virtually no understanding of American foreign policy. Anyone who regularly reads a serious news magazine like The Economist or a major newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post would be familiar with the questions that Gibson brought up- the Bush Doctrine, the right of America to strike in Pakistan- but Palin didn't seem to have ever thought about either before. Palin argued, in all seriousness, than being able to see Russia from Alaska somehow gave her some sort of experience. That's like arguing that you're ready to engage in negotiations with Putin because you saw Rocky Balboa fight Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV".

    After the ABC interview- watch it on YouTube, if you haven't seen it already- only way you can argue that Palin can be taken seriously is to lower the bar. The only way you can argue that she is qualified is to argue that as a woman, she can't be expected to have the same understanding of foreign policy as the men. Now thatis sexist.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:57PM (#25095991)

    Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law.

    Even if that's true, it's unrelated to the matter at hand. It's illegal for government to read your email without a warrant, and illegal for private citizens to do so without your permission.

    It's hypocritical of you to stand for privacy rights when it suits your needs, but then act as an apologist for people who violate the privacy laws already on the books.

    used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office.

    I still have seen no evidence that she used the Yahoo account for the specific purpose of hiding communications.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:01PM (#25096049)

    Palin was using her personal account for government work, which is illegal.

    Reference, please. Be specific: what kinds of email are required under the law to send using a government account, and what did a specific email contain that fell under that requirement?

    And she's telling her staff to ignore subpoenas about whether she campaigned with state resources.

    Reference, please.

  • Privileged (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:38PM (#25096363)
    As someone said on the wired blog, if she is not a terrorist what does she have to hide? She is a law abiding government official. This was her personal account. It must therefor not contain any official emails either. Hence, all these must be personal emails and and again since she is not a terrorist she has nothing to hide. But wait ... the Republicans felt that the "pig comment" was directed at her. Now I understand: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
  • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:43PM (#25096419)

    Please have the courtesy of reserving judgement (sic) until such a time all the facts are in

    Request denied. Slashdot is not a court of law, and judgments and opinions expressed by its membership are not binding on anyone. As such they may be made and expressed with too few, just the right amount, or too many facts.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coaxial (28297) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:47PM (#25096445) Homepage

    All you need to know, is that Cheney, Rumsfield, and whole lot are throwbacks from the Nixon administration, and want to "restore" the presidency to Nixon level. Now this would all seem relatively innocuous, or at least inane, until remember Nixon's famous quote from his Robert Frost interview:

    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal."

    Interestingly enough, the Republicans like to talk big about the rule of law, but then turn around and have no problem with, and in fact argue that they are duty bound to ignore subpoenas. (Todd Palin, just being the most recent one; but that's small time compared to Rove and Harriet Miers.)

    Then you also have this gang promoting the prima facia absurdity of unitary executive [slashdot.org], and that the president can prevent investigations into himself and even pardon himself for any crimes, which of course aren't crimes, because "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal."

    So yes. They do believe that they are above the law.

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:50PM (#25096483)

    If I remember my US History correctly all of the watergate burglars were charged with obstruction of justice, illegal campaign activities and purjury.

    I don't remember any "burglary charges" being brought.

    If this kid were an Obama staffer then he might face some sort of illegal campaign activity. But seeing as this was a simple account 'hack' it should be treated like my Steam Account being stolen.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daemonenwind (178848) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @04:57PM (#25096537)

    Absolute tripe.

    Do you have a job?

    Do you have an e-mail account you use which is not associated with your job?

    All these assumptions about what goes on in private e-mail accounts have not been substantiated. In fact, the cracker responsible said he went through Palin's e-mail, and found absolutely nothing.

    Furthermore, since this cracker is the son of a Democrat, he would have known what to look for. Instead, he freely admits it's just stuff like communications with friends, casual conversations with other Republicans, and pictures of her kids.

    There's nothing there - as the opposition party fully admits - but it sure doesn't stop the idiot conspiracy theorists from foaming at the mouth.

    And one last thing: if you consider this to be a politically-used account, then what _exactly_ is the difference between this and Watergate?

    Answer: nothing.

  • by u38cg (607297) <calum@callingthetune.co.uk> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:03PM (#25096601) Homepage
    WTF? Why the hell are logs not automatically written to /dev/null? I mean how fucking pointless is it to run a proxy and *keep* the logs?
  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:13PM (#25096723)

    Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda? She wants to get into a leadership position and talks herd. That is frigthening.

    Sad to say, historically it wins elections. And if you can't win them that way, just fiddle with the results and the Supreme Court - like they did in Florida '00, Ohio '04, and shortly, the '08 election.

    The irony is that the leaders who are elected in this way, are invariably the ones who attack and destroy democracies elsewhere in the world. And yes, we're as concerned as you are. The Republican ticket in '08 is very bad news for America and the world. :(

    What democracies have been destroyed? Surely you are not saying that Afganistan, ruled by the Taliban, and Iraq, who had a dictator named Sadam, were democracies. Your conspiracy theories about the elections being stolen have been proven to be wrong many times. Do you think the Democrats would have just given up if this had really happened?

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by spazdor (902907) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:17PM (#25096769)

    But they can argue about just how illegal it is.

  • by db32 (862117) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:18PM (#25096783) Journal
    I can't believe this shit is modded insightful. The judge even admonished the Palins for trying to destroy this guys life. Most of the claims are pretty much hearsay, and at least two of them you cite have been explained. Wooten may not be a great guy, but the shit her family has spewed is a gross over exaggeration. All of her claims of "being tough on corruption" are bullshit. She took tons of money from the bridge to nowhere project. McCain HIMSELF even called her projects out specifically when he was attacking pork spending (wonder why the sudden change of heart...God damned sellout used to have at least some ethics and purpose). She has a tremendous history of abuse of power with this, her dear ol "shadow governor" hubby who seems terribly involved in state business, and then there is the numerous other cases of her firing everyone in her path that didn't do her bidding. She is right in line with the Bush/Cheney method of 0 accountability, above the law, I do what I want style government.

    Then there is the issue of her being against teaching evolution. Or the issue of her refusing to fund sex ed classes and demanding abstinance only education (I bet her daughter would have prefered to know how to use a condom about now). We also have her silly "ebay" jet crap...which didn't sell on ebay and was prompty sold to another of her Republican cohorts in a no bid sale for less than market value.

    That crazy double talking bitch has no place in our government. And for all you who think Obama's minister was a wackjob, you should check out Palin's. I think the crap Obama's pastor said was pretty bad, but chasing witches out of town just takes the fucking cake.

    It is on the news because she is a stark raving mad, clueless, and evil bitch of a woman who will do anything to get her way and dodge any kind of accountability. To include the SAME GOD DAMNED STUNT that this administration pulled by illegally outsourcing emails on government business to avoid the archival requirements. All of this from the party that expects me to believe "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" applies to everyone but them.
  • by raehl (609729) <raehl311 AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:47PM (#25097033) Homepage

    We lowered the bar 8 years ago. She is, frankly, almost as qualified to be President as the current President. About the only differences are that she's governor of a smaller state (but it's closer to Russia), while Bush co-owned a sports team Palin just talked about sports teams, Palin is even MORE of a religious conservative than Bush, and Bush's parents had the political clout to get him through Yale instead of community college.

    Of course, we haven't exactly been doing well with the current President....

    That should be the message. "Sarah Palin: Even less qualified than George Bush."

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:09PM (#25097671)

    every member of her staff -- independently, with no guidance or direction from their boss

    Maybe they were advised by lawyers not to respond. And that's perfectly believable if that's the legally wise thing to do.

    If you become aware that your subordinates are doing something illegal

    So she's supposed to hand out legal advice about the nuances of some legal proceedings? If they are following competent legal advice, and you don't know that they are guilty of any serious crime, I think a "wait and see" attitude is perfectly appropriate.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jadavis (473492) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:23PM (#25097777)

    I'd say it's relationship would be described as "identity"

    Someone violating a law on the books is very different from someone violating a law that you wish was on the books.

    And some abstract Republican supporting a law that is unconstitutional is very different from Palin specifically supporting such a law.

    Republicons can violate any constitutional protections they wish on their own say-so, but pry just a little into one of their lives and suddenly they're the champions of liberty.

    I am consistently a champion of liberty and the Constitution, so you have not made the case that I am a hypocrite.

    I would support the immediate end of all wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant. I believe it is unconstitutional to allow it.

    By being a hypocrite, you do a lot of damage to the cause for liberty.

    Do you think that the same people who want to spy on you with wiretaps will suddenly change their tune because someone, somewhere, hacked the yahoo email account of one of their political allies? I think it's much more likely that the privacy invasions just escalate until we have no more.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sabz5150 (1230938) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:23PM (#25098669)

    Do you have any evidence of this, other than a few isolated emails?

    "Other than a few isolated emails"? Isn't that all that is needed? That's like saying "You say he's a murderer? Do you have any evidence of this, other than a few isolated killings?" If you break the rules even once or twice, is it not still breaking the rules?

  • Re:This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)

    by darkmeridian (119044) <william,chuang&gmail,com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:39PM (#25099211) Homepage

    We're never going to get good people to run for office if they are punished for doing so.

    Palin's nomination as the Republican candidate for VP seems to bear this out.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rtb61 (674572) on Monday September 22, 2008 @02:38AM (#25100485) Homepage

    Plus of course the additional technicalities of whose email it is. A web mail, it is most definitely not 'private' email and add to that if the Alaska government web access is provided by a proxy server as in normal, this is evidence of a failure by the IT staff to retain a copy of the logs as a matter of public record of all communications as required by law.

    So is it illegally obtained evidence of the illegal act of attempting to hide questionable activities of the Alaskan government (brings to mind other instances where this vigilante effort has previously been approved by the FBI), is Yahoo the only one capable of pressing charges and is it likely to decline to avoid political entanglement, is the only recourse civil suit by Palin for the invasion of privacy unfourtunately all the emails would have to come out, is the deletion of an account that has also been used for government business a criminal act and, of course can you have 'private' email when it is on government infrastructure paid for out of the publics taxes and only intended for legal governing purposes.

    Then there is of course the matter of the proxy logs and the deletion of the same, when government correspondence was been sent and received outside of the normal accepted email infrastructure.

  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2008 @06:53AM (#25101629)

    I'm surprised that you don't mention George Bush.

  • by jadavis (473492) on Monday September 22, 2008 @11:55AM (#25105399)

    Logically the two are completely unrelated.

    I agree completely. However, I never said she wasn't guilty of some impropriety, nor that being intruded upon is an excuse.

    and that the violations uncovered evidence of impropriety on her part

    As I understand it, there are laws preventing politicians from using public networks to advance their own political careers, and therefore must conduct their personal political business using their own resources.

    So, what makes you so sure that she was conducting official state business with the yahoo account, and not just advancing her own political career?

  • Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)

    by feed_me_cereal (452042) on Monday September 22, 2008 @12:28PM (#25105981)

    not only all of your very good points, but also: am I the only one who read the quoted text as sarcasm? I'm pretty sure it was, which makes the sprawling ranting response +1 funny to me, anyway.

    The "cracker" was a moron. That might be the scariest thing about the whole incident. GP needs to understand: Joe Biden and Barack Obama, assuming they have such ties that GP for whatever reason takes as a foregone conclusions, WOULD NOT USE A FUCKING YAHOO ACCOUNT FOR STATE RELATED BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RIDICULOUSLY INCOMPETENT!

  • Re:This Just In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Canislupus01 (1368173) on Monday September 22, 2008 @12:39PM (#25106171)
    Your premise (though wildly inaccurate) in no way supports your conclusion. Either make your statement: "the ENTIRE purpose of her office using the Yahoo account was to obstruct justice." Or back it with actual TRUTHS and make a case. You did neither.
  • Re:This Just In (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2008 @01:45PM (#25107401)

    The Heritage Foundation is a conservative propaganda machine. Find a source worth trusting. I would take wikipedia over Heritage any day.

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...