I'm no fan of Palin, but I think it's pretty low of Gawker to gain page views by posting the contents of her personal emails, as well as the personal photos. Apparently privacy rights don't matter anymore.
If it was just personal emails you'd be right, but she broke the law and conducted state business with her Yahoo account. While it was reported before, this confirms it. I'd say since she routinely used her Yahoo account for state business it should be public, just like her main account.
Please provide:
1) legal citations to the Alaska and/or Federal laws that say an elected official may not use a personal email account to conduct business.
2) links to the email(s) showing evidence that she broke a law.
3) an explanation as to why you are angry about a claim, stated without any evidence, that she broke the law, but quite happy about an ideological friend who has clearly broken the law and violated someone's privacy; and how you justify the difference.
4) an explanation as to why those people you agree with are innocent even when they've obviously committed a crime, but those you disagree with are guilty until proven innocent.
5) the name of a good civil defense attorney. Public accusations of the criminality of the unconvicted are legally actionable.
6) an explanation as to why murderers should be able to walk free if evidence was illictly obtained, but for the most smeared Presidential-ticket candidate in the last century no accusation is too baseless or low.
Wow, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? For the record lots of politicians have been caught using personal email accounts for business and I think the same for all of them. The entire reason her email account was hacked was that she was caught using it for state business. If she hadn't skirted the law the email address wouldn't have been known and it wouldn't have been hacked. I do not know the politics of the hacker, but evading public scrutiny by using private email for public matters is not a political issue--it's wrong no matter the party.
The Washington Post has a piece about Palin's email policies, which include CCing her husband on state business:
Employees of major corporations would be fired for the same behavior (Sarbanes-Oxley has 'em all shit scared--destroying evidence like she did is major jail time).
Time agrees that using this un-archived email system is indeed a crime:
> The Alaska Governor could also face charges for conducting official state business using her personal, unarchived e-mail account (a crime), with some critics accusing her of skirting freedom-of- information laws in doing so.
>> Time agrees that using this un-archived email system is indeed a crime.
When I asked for a legal reference, I was hoping for a bit more than a former journalism school student putting a two-word parenthetical remark in an article that reads like one of The Messiah's press releases.
The CC'ing of her husband was for matters relating to her brother-in-law, who was a State Trooper who has publically admitted to:
1) tasering a child with his service taser (the kid was curious about what it would feel like);
2) drinking in a patrol car;
3) (most importantly) has publically admitted that he told Sarah Palin's father that he would "eat a bullet".
This man was a state police officer. Not only should he have been fired the moment ANY one of these was determined, bit charges should have been pressed against him. I would have fired anyone who didn't get rid of him too.
A prediction: this is going to backfire on Obama badly. Palin was a reformer who pissed off a lot of people in power. Very few Americans want police officers walking around who have done any of those things. This is one smear I hope you keep pushing. It helps cement her reputation as the reformer that she truly was.
I'm in a rush, so I don't have time to dissect this the way I want to. I will say, however that:
Please provide ... the name of a good civil defense attorney. Public accusations of the criminality of the unconvicted are legally actionable.
... is ill-informed, melodramatic, and weakens what's otherwise a strong post, albeit one whose sentiment I disagree with.
Sarah Palin's a public figure and, unless the person you're responding to is an officer of the court or a news agency of some kind, I don't think he's going to need a "civil defense" attorney for stating his opinion.
Yes, in the cold light of day, it perhaps was a bit over-the-top. Give me this though: she's been smeared as no other candidate in my lifetime has been (I'm 53). This link (from a site backed by a group that once gave Obama a bunch of money, ironically) clears up some of the worst smears.
A perfect example of the smears I was talking about.
Wasilla has this for its money:
"It could seat up to 5,000 people and would include an ice rink and a cushioned hard-surface court where people could play basketball, volleyball and soccer, said Jim Blair, with GDM Inc., an Anchorage firm hired by the city to create a conceptual design for the center.
In addition to sports, the center could be set up to host conventions, trade fairs, theater productions, graduations and even motorcoss competitions.."
Evidently no other mayors in America have ever purchased city buildings using debt instruments. </sarcasm>
Meanwhile, Obama was chairman of the board of an organization that spent $109,200,000. Want to know what they have to show for it?
"The project appears to have failed to achieve any of its stated, measurable educational goals. For example, a comprehensive study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research concludes:
"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."
Obviously you have a definition of smeared that does not include the "Swift Boat (not actually)Veterans for (not anything like)Truth".
You make hyperbolic claims as though Mrs. Palin were some sort of sanctified Joan of Arc riding out to defeat the heretics; when in fact she's nothing more than another corrupt local politician who's gotten lucky in her choice of alignments and is being pushed forward by the fact that she will make a tractable puppet if elected.
This election does not matter, the American people are Fucked no matter which party takes office. And people like you deserve to have their homes taken away, their jobs automated or outsourced, their communications monitored, and to be subject to intrusive social controls.
>> ... and to be subject to intrusive social controls.
Such as having our email accounts broken into and displayed to the whole world, along with the email addresses and personal photos of friends and family.
I would encourage you to explore alternative media (such as the above) rather than just following the conventional "wisdom" of the mainstream media. Just because one group owns all the microphones doesn't mean everything they say is the truth.
The feeling is mutual. I don't agree, however, that Palin's been smeared worse than, say, Barack Obama. From using the dog-whistle politics of racial and religious innuendo to smearing Obama by lying about the nature of his anti-predator legislation in Illinois to connecting him to terror attacks that happened in the 60's, the same good ol' boys club that smeared McCain in 2000 is running his campaign now, using every dirty trick in the book, and acting shocked, shocked that people have the audacity to scrutinize Sarah Palin's record.
The fact is, they're using the sort of up-is-down doublespeak I haven't seen in a First World country outside of 1984. The GOP represents change, but they've been running the country for 8 years. The governor who requested and received more earmarks per capita than any other governor is now an anti-pork reformer. The Obama tax plan will hurt middle class pocketbooks, but his plan cuts taxes more than McCain's does.
This isn't to say that Obama's campaign is perfect, not by a long shot. But even if you prefer McCain's policy positions to Obama's, I don't see how you can deny McCain's running a dirtier campaign. It's not just lying; it's divisive, petty politics. If you disagree with their agenda, you're anti-American. If you criticize Sarah Palin's record, you're a sexist. Never mind that she is on record criticizing Hillary Clinton's accusations of sexism as whining. It's the highest -- or, better, lowest -- form of political cynicism.
The fact is, Sarah Palin deserves scrutiny, just like any other relative unknown selected to be on the presidential ticket of a major national political party. I mean, before a few months ago she didn't know what the VP even did. That's not a smear, that's directly from this interview with her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ Watch it, it's scary.
Sure, you can argue that the average American doesn't know what the VP does. Sure, just like Sarah Palin, the average American hasn't been out of the country much. The problem is, I don't want the average American to be the VP. I want someone who's solidly grounded in the issues that the president will deal with, someone who can be trusted to represent the best of our country, not the mediocre. If she's a serious candidate, her ticket ought to let her get vetted like one.
That's all I'm going to say in the thread. I'm trying not to fully engage in this discussion much because once I start, it'll be difficult to stop. It's off-topic for Hacker News anyway. :)
There's not even an attempt at a "Well usually we wouldn't publish someone's personal email but in this particular case we think it's justified because [insert justification here]"
I guess I may be expecting too much of a site called "gawker" though. Still, here's hoping that someone (not me!) hacks Barack Obama's personal email soon so we can check whether they treat it the same way.
McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign Manager Rick Davis: 'This is a shocking invasion of the Governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.'
Gov. Palin is under the protection of the Secret Service, and it is a crime committed in the context of disrupting a U.S. election, so the full investigative power of the federal government will be brought to bear. Plus I suspect Yahoo will be very cooperative.
yes, the long arm of the arm will have its day on this one.
However, it is important to remember that most/all revolutionary behavior involves breaking the law. I'm not saying this was an appropriate thing to do. But obviously, whoever did this thought it worth the almost certain chance they would go to jail for what they did.
So, who's the better American? The ones who violate the law and try to effect change or the peanut gallery that kick back and do nothing?
Sure, you can say, "I vote". That is something. Its just that others obviously feel more action (even illegal actions) is required to effect change.
Note: I am a member of the peanut gallery. I just bitch and vote. But it is key hacker news that we are at a point in our history where others are deciding to take alternative action.
Oh yeah, hoo-fricking-ray for that brave 4chan script kiddie, heroicially giving up his own freedom so that the rest of us could see more of Sarah Palin's family photos.
More likely this particular asshole is just an idiot who didn't think through the consequences of his actions. He just thought it'd be funny.
just as likely. I wasn't implying this was a heroic action. Perhaps my original post was misleading in that regard. I don't know anything about the person that did it or why. History gets to decide the import of people's actions.
I think that increases in behaviors where people work outside social norms (this includes people that strap bombs to their bodies) are indicators of stress in the social fabric. Labeling actions as stupid, or terrorist, and such are useful but miss the bigger picture sometimes.
First -- it's a crime, plain and simple. Somebody should go to jail. Sites trafficking in stolen goods should be charged.
Second -- glad it happened in September. Can you imagine something like this happening, only in the last week of the election? Heck, you could put any kind of flamebait stuff you wanted in the screen shots. It doesn't even have to be real. It could easily throw the election and you're left with a mess and nobody to blame for it.
Third -- How was the system breached?
This is definitely hacker news. As an example, I had an idea last year for a site/app to keep track of breaking election-year news. As the emotional juices roil in the 40% of die-hards on each side, there's this incredible thirst for up-to-the-date, cutting-edge news and insights. It doesn't get much more up-to-date and insightful than reading the candidate's email. (Note earlier comment about legality, though)
Where there's a great thirst, somebody is going to be selling trips to the water fountain. Not only is there lots of money in this right now, elections are predictable, repeatable events and piggybacking on people's emotional investment in them is only going to get more and more profitable.
Dunno, I just went and quickly braved 4chan (I know... I feel so dirty) to see if anyone was linking anything. They had some rapidshare links up (a 1.4 mb and 1.1mb one).
Am grabbing now just to see what they are... I'm curious if there is anymore info on this.
No, it wasn't. "popcorn" is the password after the reset that was posted on /b/. If you look at the screenshots, you'll see that her password was reset using the "Forgot Your ID or Password?" feature.
To reset a Yahoo! Mail password, you need the person's birthdate, zip code, and answer to their "secret question". That information is easily accessible for public figures like Palin. Try it sometime with your friend's email/screenname and Facebook; it's quite easy.
If that's true, I think it's very interesting. I wonder if the security community will step up and take advantage of this opportunity to discuss the inherent security issues with the "secret question" method of account recovery.
The thing that struck me in this is that being a Republican politician generally means you're going to have more people who know how to do this stuff against you than for you.
I'm not saying this is ok or making a political statement - just an observation.
Thats why you need better security settings if you are in public office, considering all the secret questions one might ask about you to retrieve your password can be found on your wiki page
General law enforcement in the US is crap when it comes to computer crime, but if you get the boys at the NSA, the FBI or at Secret Service interested, you're going to be spending a lot of quality time exercising in a little room with metal bars for a wall. And, if you have any sort of "ideological" basis for your acts, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the word "terrorism" creep into the DA's vocabulary at some point during your legal proceedings.
I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm not endorsing that people break into other people's accounts. What I am saying, is that I don't really think that the script kiddies that (I'm assuming) did this truly realize the extent of the deep guano that they've just gotten themselves into.
I won't feel bad that these people get punished for their crimes. I will feel bad if these people have charges of "terrorism" brought against them, which I suspect might happen.
Because it's alleged that she funneled government email through private email accounts deliberately to avoid transparency laws --- in other words, to prevent citizens from learning about her on-the-job correspondance --- only to have the raw contents of those mail spools dumped to the entire Internet.
It touches on a political controversy (running the State of Alaska through Yahoo may be illegal) and involves a seperate crime commited for publicity and political purposes. It implicates the security of hosted email providers in general, and begs the question of how confidential government emails could have been so insecure in the first place.
I'm betraying opinions that I'd like to keep close, because this hasn't been authenticated. If it is, I'd say it's huge news. What a fuckup.
Looking at the screenshots, there is no evidence of government business there. She's bitching a bit about Dan Fagan (a repub. commentator in AK) in the one email, but everything looks pretty personal.
I have a work and personal account... 99% of the time I manage to keep my personal account personal-- occasionally I don't. I'd be stunned if there weren't occasional transgressions on this front in any governor's office. I'd expect that security tightens up a bit in the Executive branch.
(disclaimers: I lived in Alaska until 2 years ago and know how utterly wrong the national media is about what goes on up there. I am not a republican, but don't really consider myself a democrat, either.)
I'm not going to repost stuff from Wikilinks here, but it looks like you're not correct: there's a transcript of the screenshots that includes things like, "CONFIDENTIAL ETHICS INVESTIGATION" and "REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS".
In addition to being a fuckup of spectacular proportions, it also corroborates an earlier news report of leaked emails that included specific instructions not to send sensitive government mails to Palin's work account.
Of course, none of this has been authenticated. It looks credible, but there's plenty of incentive to make something look credible in this political and news climate.
The interesting story here is the trend story. It applies to companies as well as government officials. People will attempt to use personal email accounts to avoid subpoenas. But nobody knows enough to keep those accounts secure, and the growing insecurity of the web guarantees most hosted mail accounts will eventually get popped. Meanwhile, it's hard for executives and officials to find "secure" mail providers without tacitly confirming that they're conducting business in secret. It's an interesting problem.
Ah, I'd just looked at the screenshots, not the text "log". Interesting that they'd screenshot all of the subjects that are totally personal/innocuous but the text log has all of the potentially damning subjects... Hrm. Why wouldn't you just scroll down and take a few screenies to prove the evil?
I've worked on the technology side of a few candidates and politicians-- they are almost without fail moronic about technology. I can imagine accidental sends to Palin's personal account. For all we know, the content of those emails are "You dumbass. How many times do I have to tell you that stuff like this should go to my work account?!", right?
(a) Because the people who pulled off the attack are stupid.
(b) Because the people who pulled off the attack somehow lost access after getting the account but before archiving all the mail, and so made up the good stuff.
(c) Because the people who pulled off the attack are very smart, and are going to slow-drip this out to the media over the next month.
The narrative of the compromise is pretty convoluted, but from what I understand, it was done more for lulz than for politics or ideology. The way I understand it, notification of the compromise went out to one of her contacts at the same time that the password was posted to /b/, so with all of Anonymous trying to log in at once, the account got shut down quickly, and was deleted shortly thereafter.
Give me a break. There are very few organizations less well equipped to respond to computer attacks than US law enforcement. It takes years to convict on computer crime cases, and almost every one of them is front page news in the trade press. You know how many we've had in the past decade?
Trivia question: which law enforcement agency was primarily responsible for responding to computer incidents throughout the 80s and 90s?
You underestimate the cleverness and persistence of a large group of bored internet trolls at your own peril. I am not kidding. Either that, or you've drastically overestimated the security of the Internet at large.
A startup that does no-frills, genuinely secure mail on hardened servers might in fact do pretty well. I've wanted one a lot lately. It's not an easy problem though; you're going to deliberately sacrifice features for security, a tradeoff most customers won't get.
It won't solve this problem though; funnelling mail through Yahoo comes with plausible deniability. Funneling it through the email security vault, not so much.
Because I have time to audit and re-audit dovecot's source code at every release? We host our own mail right now, on qmail, but there's no workable IMAP or POP solution I would trust out of the box. Hence, I'd pay money for someone else to do this.
This way you need to know the password _and_ have the physical token in your hand to know the current key. On the downside, it's also a hassle to carry it around and use it (I have a couple of 'em for access to various supercomputers), so I wouldn't bother doing it for my own email, but if you're a public figure or otherwise sufficiently paranoid it might be worthwhile.
I'm not sure whether "Request for documents" and "Confidential ethics investigation" are really there, but even if they are, they may still be personal email.
"Request for documents" could be any kind of request for documents. Maybe it's the McCain campaign doing some vetting. Maybe it's some journalist requesting a copy of Trig's birth certificate. I actually think it's unlikely to be official business -- if you need documents from the governor's office you probably request them from a low-level official, not from the governor herself.
"Confidential: ethics investigation" could be personal too -- if she's under investigation and has hired a lawyer, for instance, then communications with that lawyer should be protected under client/lawyer privilege and shouldn't be a matter of public record.
I"m not sure exactly where the dividing line is between personal and official email for government officials -- I expect it's blurry, having been defined in a law somewhere but never tested in court.
This is indeed an epic fail... for, as it were, the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this only has the potential to help the Republicans. Let's assume the 98th-percentile scenario, from a Democratic perspective: a few mildly inappropriate emails are discovered via the hack. To us, meaning those who post on Hacker News, transparency and propriety matter a great deal, because we care about such "academic" issues. However, the average American (who spends 3 hours per workday surfing the internet, despite having signed an agreement that work computers were "for official use only") isn't going to be shocked or disgusted that a governor has sent a few emails in violation of propriety; it can easily be spun as a "one of us" crime, and the hackage will do nothing less than engender sympathy for Mrs. Palin.
Let's assume the 98th-percentile scenario, from a Democratic perspective: a few mildly inappropriate emails are discovered via the hack.
I'm expecting a bunch of things to be "discovered" in the next few days. Most will be fakes -- some obvious, some ambiguous. There might be some real ones mixed in there somewhere, but how are we going to know one way or the other?
In the end, everyone will believe what they want to believe.
