"Anonymous" Hacks Palin's Private Email

netbuzz writes "'Anonymous,' best known for its jousts with Scientology, has apparently hacked Sarah Palin's private Yahoo email account. Contents, including sample emails, an index, and family photos, have been posted by Wikileaks, which calls them evidence that the GOP vice presidential candidate has improperly used private email to shield government business from public scrutiny." Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax. Update by J : Genuine.

Comments

The crossed the line this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Attacking Scientology is one thing. We all know that it is a crock of crap. However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[joshtheitguy]

Try telling Tom Cruise that Scientology is a crock. I'd imagine he'd scream incoherently at the top of his lungs, jump up and down then rip your face off.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I, for one, think the laws should be applied equally to all parties regardless of their insane beliefs.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Beached]

He and John are still in Stan Marsh's closet, so noone will hear them.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Anonymous Coward]

This was on CNN a few minutes ago and they confirmed that the Secret Service was already involved in the investigation.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand.. I agree they crossed the line.. on the other I kind of understand people's motives. Now I am in no way shape or form advocating hacking someone's email account, but there's something important to consider here. There's a great article at NY Times which talks about Palin's rise in politics. Here's one excerpt:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

If she does infact use her private email address for correspondence with other staff members or governmental bodies, can you really consider it a private email account anymore? I'm not asking for response from slashdotters with analogies here, but if she does infact potentially use her personal email to avoid subpoenas then why the hell should it be considered personal. She is paid by the taxpayers and they have a right to know what is going on. Why have her staff members been studying the use of personal email accounts for official business anyways?

Maybe the deal with her using personal email for work is just a rumor, and maybe the whole deal with "Anonymous" is not true, but still things aren't just black and white here.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[philspear]

I would imagine though that hacking into a yahoo e-mail account, even if it's a political figure, is not really going to get any serious penalties. It's not like they hacked into a government e-mail account. It's also not as if she has launch codes yet. McCain has to be elected, then die of a heart attack for her e-mail to be of much real importance. ... of course, if she did, they would probably end up in her yahoo account. And we'll be dead soon anyway. As Matt Damon said, someone who belives in creationism should not be an (old) heartbeat away from the football.

But I suspect secret service is investigating mostly to determine if there's a real security risk IE if she e-mailed out that there was a spare key to her house under a fake rock in the garden, or she was going to be in room 287 of the doubletree hotel.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I think Scientology is a dangerous cult, the actions of Anonymous to date have been demonstrating that they are just a group of dangerous radicals. Anonymous is dangerous because they attack and slander groups they disagree with and hide behind masks so that their opponents can not adequately defend themself. Now, I know many of the people who hate Sarah Palin and the Republicans won't see a problem with this, but for a moment imagine how you would feel if a similar group performed the same action on Barack Obama (or a political leader in your own country) and see how 'wonderful' it would be.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[philspear]

Right, remember this is the same group that hacked an epilepsy support page to try to induce seizures. Also realize this is pretty much the opposite of constructive: Palin is being used as a distraction to keep us from thinking about real issues. This only furthers that distraction. It would be one thing if they found evidence of corruption, but this is merely digital tabloid fluff.

Anonymous is doing this entirely to feed their own egos.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[moderatorrater]

Yeah, ever since Bourne Identity, I've come to rely on Matt Damon's advice more and more. I mean, I betrayed the organization because it was right, and he's got kick-ass fighting moves. That's the guy I want my political commentary from!

Re:The crossed the line this time

[TubeSteak]

But I suspect secret service is investigating mostly to determine if there's a real security risk IE if she e-mailed out that there was a spare key to her house under a fake rock in the garden, or she was going to be in room 287 of the doubletree hotel.

I suspect the Secret Service is investigating mostly because this is high profile and will end up being publicly embarrassing. Not so much to Palin as to the people she was communicating with.

No doubt someone archived the entire account in their e-mail program and will dump it all online sometime before the election.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[beckerist]

and then I PULL OUT MY GUN!!!

(now I'm in the closet too!)

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Tyger]

When the McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I recognized quickly it was quite an ingenious move on their part. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the big reasons she was picked was because of all the issues and drama surrounding her. It is enough to create a media feeding frenzy, diverting the major coverage away from the issues that could defeat them. As they say no publicity is bad publicity, and all the negative coverage paints her as the victim or underdog, whom literature has taught us to root for.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[creysoft]

What the hell are you talking about? Anonymous the name attributed to (and embraced by) the many and varied denizens of 4chan's Random (/b/) board. They rose to fame with their protests against scientology, but anyone who has ever visited /b/ could tell you that:

1) Anonymous is a 'group' only in the loosest sense of the word. There's no organization, no leader, and no real agenda. It works more like flash mobs. One person suggests something, and if enough people go along with it to achieve critical mass, then it's epic. Otherwise, it's just a few internet nerds making idiots out of themselves.

2) Anonymous has no real code, moral stance, or ethical guideline. /b/ frequently delves into such subjects as drug use, murder, petty crime, and child porn.

3) Anonymous does everything they do for their very own personal amusement. Any claim to be standing on principle is really just part of the joke. Since anonymous is kind of an intersection of Slashdot and MySpace when it comes to demographics, you'll find you agree with many of their 'positions.' However, don't expect any real loyalty from them.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[schnikies79]

"no publicity is bad publicity"

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about marketing. One of the first things I was taught in my marketing classes is how that is a crock.

Bad publicity has bankrupted companies, people and countries. It's drove people to suicide. There IS bad publicity.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[vux984]

Holy shit. How you believe we originated really matters on whether you should have control of nuclear codes?

Presumably the connection is that a creationist clearly lacks even a modest helping of critical and independant thinking.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[The Snowman]

no publicity is bad publicity

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about marketing. One of the first things I was taught in my marketing classes is how that is a crock.

Bad publicity has bankrupted companies, people and countries. It's drove people to suicide. There IS bad publicity.

You misunderstand. Bad publicity is bad publicity. No publicity is also bad publicity. Sometimes slightly bad publicity can drown out the really bad stuff, or divert attention without hurting too much. Especially when the issue is not selling a product to make a profit (like a business), but flinging mud at a political opponent.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[lgw]

Except that's just not true. People put blinders on when it comes to their religion. For example, the best mathematician I've ever met personnaly was a prof at Rice University--an altogether brilliant man--who was a devout Christian. I doubt he was specifically a creationist, but he believed in literal interpretation of equally odd parts of the Bible. The last day of class before finals he would always give a lecture on the importance of developing a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and pass out Bibles or portions thereof. The students always put up with it because he was a once-in-a-lifetime combination of genius and great lecturer.

I can't explain it, but it's true nevertheless. Heck, look at William Buckley, certainlt a critical and indpendent thinker, who would present profund insight into the value of personal libery and personal choice, and then in the next breath condemn legal abortion as a great evil.

It just doesn't hold that believing in some crazy religious BS entails being stupid in other areas.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[spazdor]

Holy shit. How you believe we originated really matters on whether you should have control of nuclear codes?

Maybe not, but if she's getting the launch codes, I sure as hell care about whether she is counting on the Rapture.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Digital End]

Anonymous isn't a group any more then the western hemisphear is a group. There's not exactly an application. All this means is someone from 4chan got into her account and posted it for a laugh. Also: " It would be one thing if they found evidence of corruption, but this is merely digital tabloid fluff. " You won't find anything if you don't look.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[commodoresloat]

There's no evidence that Anonymous was behind the epilepsy thing, and many have suggested that Scientologists did it to discredit Anonymous.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[MagdJTK]

It just doesn't hold that believing in some crazy religious BS entails being stupid in other areas.

No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. But being a creationist shows that you're willing to overlook overwhelming evidence in order to believe something written in the bible. What happens when there's a Second Cold War and the fundamentalist with their finger on the big red button starts reading about Noah and how God killed everyone but Noah and his family?

And remember, Bush's "crusade" is still killing people every day.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[anaesthetica]

Palin was a trap that the Democrats walked into. There are many substantive policy issues upon which one could attack Palin, instead she was attacked personally and her family was made the center of attention. Within a week, Obama's poll numbers took a nosedive and McCain led in both national polls and electoral vote count. The Guardian commentary summarized it nicely:

[I]nstead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska.

Two weeks ago an Obama volunteer who knew from class came up to me and gave me that well-tread talking point about Palin's lack of experience, and the hilarious "heartbeat away from the presidency" cliche.

The bottom line is that both Obama and Palin have been at their presidency-qualifying jobs (Senator & Governor) for less than four years. Obama having two years on Palin is insignificant compared to the experience that McCain and Biden have: 25 years and 35 years in Congress, respectively.

It's also insignificant compared to the experience that our three youngest presidents--TR, Jack Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton--had before assuming the presidency. TR had already been Asst. Sec. of the Navy, Governor of New York, and Vice President. Jack Kennedy was in the House and Senate for a combined 13 years. And William Jefferson Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for 14 years.

The major difference between Obama and Palin, in terms of experience and bracketing their policy differences, is that the former is running for the presidency, whereas the latter will only assume the presidency if McCain keels over. The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president. Doublethink. On experience alone, neither Obama or Palin should be in the race, both are bad choices (again leaving aside their policy positions and "vision").

What's so unbelievably hypocritical on the Democratic side of things was their opposition to Hillary's "experience experience experience" propaganda that she used against Obama. Now they're turning around and reproducing the same failed strategy by doing exactly what Hillary did, giving lie to their protestations that experience wasn't the most important thing when defending Obama against Hillary's OMGTHREEINTHEMORNINGPHONECALL attacks.

There are significant substantive problems with Palin. Instead Democrats emphasized their own weaknesses in attacking Palin. Dumb.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm very non-religious, having had most of the religion driven out of me by my experience at the Air Force Academy. However, I became fairly pro-life on all counts.

You don't need religion to be pro-life and anti-abortion (Two separate topics in my opinion).

I simply cannot find a more definitive point at which 'life' begins than at conception. It has nothing to do with my religion, but it is the most logical point at which you can say "Before that point, it was definitely not a human" and after that point "If we do not interfere, it will become a human". I've tried to rationalize abortion by looking at different stages of pregnancy, but I cannot find, or it hasn't yet been identified, that there is a singular event that bridges alive and not alive. Conception, is the most definitive point.

Of course, I'm also very much opposed to the death penalty.

I also, thankfully, have not had my beliefs tested at any extreme level (Child with downs syndrome, or due to rape, or had a loved one murdered and the suspect caught). I am very thankful for that. So while I do not know if I'm strong enough to hold to my convictions, I hope that I never have to face them, but if I do, that I remain true to my beliefs.

So please don't assume that it is just the religious that are against abortion. You can have completely secular objections against it.

Re:The crossed the line this time

[Atario]

Obama is a socialist. I don't want that kind of change.

1. Define "socialism" as you meant it above.

2. Why not?

Re:The crossed the line this time

[CTachyon]

I simply cannot find a more definitive point at which 'life' begins than at conception. It has nothing to do with my religion, but it is the most logical point at which you can say "Before that point, it was definitely not a human" and after that point "If we do not interfere, it will become a human". I've tried to rationalize abortion by looking at different stages of pregnancy, but I cannot find, or it hasn't yet been identified, that there is a singular event that bridges alive and not alive. Conception, is the most definitive point.

See, now, when I look at the stages of pregnancy, I see fertilization as "large cell plus tiny wannabe-cell equals large cell", not some sort of dramatic change worthy of special treatment... much less a supernatural event where a hidden deity sneaks a soul in, as claimed by the religious folks. This view is validated by the fact that a single fertilization can readily lead to two (or hypothetically more) resulting embryos, resulting in multiple unique individuals with identical DNA. This tells me that DNA is not really central to what it means to be an individual, unique person. Therefore, the moment when two haploid genomes join into a diploid genome isn't a particularly good moment to start saying that a cell has become a person.

Instead, I ask myself the question: what makes a person a person? And my answer is that a person (1) reacts to the surrounding environment; (2) remembers the past, learns from it, and makes predictions from it; and (3) has a personality, which seems to be a second-order effect of established memory plus genetic biases. (Yes, by this standard, many animals count as "persons". I'm not terribly concerned about that: in this context of "person", I'm concerned with how to treat a person ethically, and it's clear that animals with these traits must also be treated ethically.) And it's obvious to me that, while some of these things start while the fetus is in the womb — certainly the first, and the beginnings of the second — they definitely don't start until after the embryo has become a fetus, and based on how the brain works they definitely don't start prior to the formation of the human-style frontal cortex around weeks 22-26.

As a result, I don't see any moral issues whatsoever in abortion in the first trimester or the early second trimester, for the same reason I don't see moral issues in masturbation or exfoliation or hysterectomies. The bigger moral concern is the emotional well-being of the mother. Pregnancy is a big deal, after all: the choices surrounding pregnancy — abortion included — take on a very weighty importance due to their massively life-changing consequences.

Re:Who?

[Free the Cowards]

I'll pardon your ignorance if you pardon my advice to just fucking google it.

Confirmed by her campaign

[benjackson520]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html

It has been confirmed by her campaign and Amy McCorkell, the sender of one of the emails that has been posted.

Re:Confirmed by her campaign

[Neoprofin]

Except that no one has read the emails. The "damning evidence" is a screenshot with a few potentially public matter subject lines. The email from Amy McCorkell mearly tells her not to let criticism get to her. Is that an email between two public officials? Yes. Is it an email of public business? Not even close.

It's often said you can't believe everything you read on the internet, you're banking on something you haven't even really read yet.

She's probably guiltier than sin, but I try to wait till something is verified before I bring out the tar and feathers, especially if your news source is Anonymous.

History in the making

[krog]

This might be the first time the Secret Service has encountered the Streisand Effect.

Probably Genuine

[amaupin]

Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax.

Wired has confirmed from one sender, Amy McCorkell, that the displayed message from her to Sarah Palin is genuine.

Hacking?

[Gr33nNight]

Since when is it 'hacking' to guess that her email password is her zip code? You can't hack stupidity and ignorance.

Re:Hacking?

[Gr33nNight]

Yes it was. I was following the 4chan discussion on it but please don't make me go back YOU CAN'T FORCE ME OH GOD.

Hooray for women's rights!

[philspear]

Sarah Palin is proof that there is no glass ceiling for women, as long as you're not ugly, have fufilled your reproductive obligations, don't have any actual power, will be subordinate to a man, seem clueless, and hiring you will keep a black man out of the white house.

What will happen in retaliation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true, I think it's possible that Anonymous has just painted a gigantic bulls-eye on a free internet.

I am all for ferreting out corruption, but what I worry about is how many will paint this: "Terrorist Rogue Hacker attacks Vice Presidential Candidate."

What limits are there on privacy now? I hope I am wrong.

Alrighty then...

[Anonymous Coward]

HEY TOM CRUISE!!!!

If you're reading this, then I tell you that your hokey sci-fi, pseudo-religion CULT is a crock of crap.

And I also think you're a faggot weenie too.

So there.

PS: Your acting sucks too.

Re:Alrighty then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Tom Cruise will see this the next time he logs onto his /. account. And he surely thanks you for your opinion.

Re:Alrighty then...

[philspear]

PS: Your acting sucks too.

Insult the man's beliefs, fine, they are crap, but his part in "Tropic Thunder" was hilarious.

Re:I've looked. Check Gawker

[uberotto]

As I understand it, what is in the emails isn't what's important. There have been several people accusing her of using her personal email account to conduct public business, in order to hide the emails from becoming part of the public record (sounds familiar). The catch was that the people who were supposed to be investigating this claim stated there was no proof, therefore nothing to investigate...

Now, there is proof...

What she said isn't the story, it's who she said it to.

Re:First impression: not cool

[dougr650]

I would actually agree with you there, were it not for the fact that she had discussed using her Y! mail account as a way to conduct communications regarding state business that would not be archived, as the law requires. In other words, she wasn't just using it as her "personal" account to send family picnic invites and negotiate deals with wealthy Nigerians, she was using this account as a way to skirt the law and conduct official business in her capacity as governor without the accountability that the law requires.

Since she's advertising herself as a candidate with strong ethics who's trying to clean up government and get rid of backroom dealing, she clearly feels that she's not accountable to the same standard of ethics that others should be held to. This is a huge lapse in judgment that voters need to be aware of before they cast their votes.

Re:No way to tell?

[DigitalisAkujin]

Ok here's the full list of Wikileaks domains:

        * http://www.wikileaks.org/
        * https://secure.wikileaks.org/
        * https://wikileaks.cx/
        * http://wikileaks.org.uk/
        * http://www.cauce.us/wiki/Wikileaks
        * https://secure.wikileaks.be/
        * https://secure.freedomsbell.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.libertypen.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.ljsf.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.sunshinepress.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China

Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[spineboy]

I think that I understand the reasoning of anonymous actions, in that s/he thinks Palin is doing wrong, and s/he wants to call attention to it.

This may just backfire, and generate support for Palin, thereby defeating his actions purpose. Indeed, this type of attack could even be used as a method for generating support by Palins camp.

The end is not justified by the means, and these types of attacks should not be pursued, either by the attacker, nor by the readers of such "information".

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[smilindog2000]

I respect your opinion on this issue, though I don't agree. Sarah Palin has done the exact same thing that Bush did - hide governing related communications on non-government servers. I believe this is illegal. I also think republicans have been doing this since Nixon got caught with tapes. Rather than reform their integrity, they reformed their communication systems to illegally hide their activities. Sarah Palin is scary, and Anonymous is doing us a favor. Only the light of scrutiny will reform our government.

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[phanboy_iv]

And I'll wager Democrats have been doing it for just as long.

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[frieko]

You're overthinking Anonymous. It's a group of people whose only collective goal is epic lulz. It's like saying "the secret terrorist organization Every Slashdot Troll hacked Palin's email. Will this truly forward Every Slashdot Troll's agenda???" Um, well, technically yes, because it was lulzworthy.

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[Plekto]

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

This is from the Washington Post

"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."

She's screwed. She's using her personal address to ask if here blackberry account can't be subponea'd. It looks pretty conclusive to me that she was doing or planning to do bad things with her personal accounts to keep the courts from getting ahold of it easily. So says the Washington Post, and well, that's about as good as it gets.

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[Arkham]

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

But 4 lefts do.

Sadly, that's incorrect. 4 lefts makes you go straight. Try three next time :)

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[Hal_Porter]

Or any evidence.

Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail

[meringuoid]

Second, Scientology gets the benefit of watching/gloating as the Secret Service does all the heavy lifting in uncovering these guys. I'm pretty sure that when the Feds are done with these guys, the one thing they won't be is anonymous.

You think they're the same people? Anonymous isn't an organisation. It's a meme complex, nothing more. It's a collective term used for the posters on a variety of independent imageboards sharing a common culture of in-jokes, comic references, stock trolls and memes. Some Anons protest scifags; others crack email accounts; others go on Habbo Hotel dressed as Samuel L. Jackson and announce that the pool's closed; others grief furries on Second Life; others go to online memorials for teen suicides and declare the dead kid an hero. Although actually, it's usually ebaumsworld doing that stuff and not Anonymous at all.

It's actually very unlikely that the Anonymous we're dealing with here have anything to do with the Scientology campaign. That's mostly moved off the chans to its own dedicated forums now. Most of the sentiment among the Anonymous mainstream is that protestfags are part of the cancer that is killing /b/.

Re:I've looked. Check Gawker

[vux984]

So far only two emails, some personal photos, a contact list and some inbox screenshots have been posted. Nothing incriminating.

Depends how you define "incriminating".

Work email goes to and from work accounts. Personal email goes to and from personal accounts. That's a policy common in corporations and in government, and is increasingly strictly adhered to the higher up the ranks you go.

As a member of public office, she is accountable to the public, and her email pertaining to her office is a matter of the public record, and subject to things like the Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA). Using a personal Yahoo account to conduct government business would be hugely inappropriate for a multitude of reasons; not least of which is undermines her accountability to FOIA.

In Palin's case its evident that a number of her contacts are @alaska.gov... meaning she was corresponding as 'personal palin' to other public officials using their office-accounts.

While perhaps not incriminating, it is hugely inappropriate. Either she was sending them personal messages -- which is inappropriate; she should have sent those to their personal accounts, or she was sending or receiving work related messages which is completely unacceptable.

Palin clearly didn't adhere to this separation of work and personal (hell, her "personal" account is 'gov.palin' which is itself inapprorpiate) and while I'm sure many many people are guilty of it, its still inappropriate, and most of us aren't angling to be 2nd in line to the presidency, so the scrutiny on her is warranted. It would be nice if we could unmask the other canditates personal accounts too, to have a more balanced exposee, but that's beside the point.

Re:I've looked. Check Gawker

[Anonymous Coward]

the scuttlebut on /b/ yesterday was that no, Anon did not download a backup file, and got cold feet when he realised where he was and that partyvans would be dispatched shortly. There was much crying and gnashing of teeth among /b/tards yesterday, I tell you, who were hoping for complete copies of the e-mails, and were denied.

Re:First impression: not cool

[blind biker]

This is what I don't get, after reading about half of the posts in this thread: About 95% of the posts don't mention the right to privacy, at all. But monitoring e-mail traffic by secret service in order to catch terrorists or prevent possible terrorist attacks, is frown upon by the great majority of Slashdotters.

Ugh...

[Sitnalta]

I don't like Palin or the entire McCain campaign in the least... but how is this even remotely acceptable? We cry and bitch and moan about warrantless government wiretapping, yet when some group of a-holes breaks into an elected official's personal email account and posts screenshots on the web, we see it as just some more dirt on a candidate. The best word that describes that is "despicable."

Mark this as flamebait all you want, but people running for public office have constitutional rights too. I've always considered Anonymous a bit shady in their dealings, and this justs seals the deal.

Re:Ugh...

[rantingkitten]

I was listening to Sean Hannity blathering on his radio show this afternoon about this topic and had the same thought, but somewhat inverted. He was filled with self-righteous indignation about the immorality of breaching someone's privacy like this, making all sorts of comparisions to listening in on people's phone conversations, checking their mail, etc. Of course, Hannity and his ilk lack the self-reflection to realise they're the same ones who just love warrantless wiretaps, pen registers, sneak-and-peek maneuvers, things like Carnivore and Echelon, and all the other invasions of privacy the government has been heaping on the American public in the past few years.

Apparently it's okay to do it to the masses because it might catch THE TERRORISTS OMG!, but when it happens to a candidate they like, suddenly it's the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone.

Personally I agree that privacy is important and Palin shouldn't have been put through this, but that's because I'm against that sort of invasion on principle, and I'm not willing to pick and choose who it's okay for and who it isn't.

Who did?

[jcr]

It's entirely likely that some scientologit did this and claimed that "anonymous" was behind it. Google for "operation freakout" for another example of the criminal nut-cult framing an innocent party for a crime.

-jcr

How they did it - it was the "Tinkerbell hack"

[kroyd]

From the file "protip.txt" in the rapidshare archive:

account recognizes
b-day 2/11/64
ZIP code 99687
for password change.

The zip code is of course that of Wasilla, Alaska.

It would seem that the republican VP candidate is at least twice as security aware as Paris Hilton. Paris' had just one security question, the name of her dog (Tinkerbell), while Palin had two extremely obvious security questions.

Of course, two times "nothing much" is not a lot at all..

Posting near the top....

[ptbarnett]

There's a posting here from someone that observed the entire episode:

The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking

Pre-emptive warning: it's a partisan blog, but the explanation is quoted in full.

Short version:

• After Palin's email addresses were publicized, the account was locked by all the people trying to login.
• Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".
• He looked through all the emails, was disappointed that he couldn't find anything incriminating.
• Announced it on /b/
• Someone else reading /b/ changed the password and notified a friend of Palin.
• The account has since been deleted.

The original cracker attributed his /b/ posting to another yahoo.com address. He claims to have done all this through a single proxy, but admits that he is a bit scared of the FBI at the moment.

Re:Posting near the top....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe ANYTHING on /b/ you have no idea what that board is about.

That includes the person that thinks they know what happened.

No facts, no truth.

Re:Posting near the top....

[Spazmania]

Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".

What's with that anyway? Sites insist on a long gobbledygook password (God forbid we use something that doesn't have digits and capital letters) and then let us change the password by typing in something where a list of 100 covers about 99% of the answers. Just how stupid are these supposed security experts?

Fuck yes!

[SatanicPuppy]

I want the person with their finger on the button to think that they're going to murder billions, not send them all to happy fluffy fucking cloud world.

POTUS is no job for someone with a world view that's more conservative than the one espoused by the Catholic church.

Password recovery questions

[Charles Dodgeson]

Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".

Can someone give me the rationale for those password recovery mechanism that are usually far weaker than the passwords themselves? They seem like such a blatantly bad idea, that I must be missing something in failing to understand why they exist at all

Re:Password recovery questions

[symbolset]

Can someone give me the rationale for those password recovery mechanism that are usually far weaker than the passwords themselves?

They're not. Of course I've changed it since, but yesterday my answer to "Where did you meet your spouse" was "At the intersection of Beta Sirius and EO5F4KNwSfIWsTv94VyXSCRXbRrOeUzcAOozDUpeYRHFmmKJbRImqt5XPr5lDZ1"

Re:Password recovery questions

[straponego]

That's the combination to my luggage!

Re:Password recovery questions

[raju1kabir]

Married all these years, and only today you discover that you both sneak off and read Slashdot.

Re:Too much attention to entertainers

[cayenne8]

"Seriously, do you want the US to behave like the Roman Empire?"

And just what have the Romans done for us?

The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.

Masked Activist: And the sanitation!

Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...

Matthias: And the roads...

Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...

Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...

Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...

Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...

Activist Near Front: And the wine...

Omnes: Oh yes! True!

Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.

Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!

Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.

Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Xerxes: Brought peace!

Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!

Bloody Romans....

Ha! Insightful Python!!!

[Mjlner]

I love it! A whole post, consisting of nothing but a long Python quote, gets modded "5, Insightful". I love it!!!!

And all these years people thought I was just trying to be funny!