Slashdot Mirror
Palin E-mail Hacker Indicted
doomsdaywire writes "A University of Tennessee student who is the son of a Memphis legislator has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of hacking Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail. [...] If convicted, [David C.] Kernell faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three-year term of supervised release. A trial date has not been set."
It probably helps to be a public personality, but there are cases where people breaking into less-than-presidential-candidate-email have found themselves losing to the law:
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=%22Larry+Mendte%22&btnG=Search+News
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Close your eyes; it's not illegal.
The freedom of information act would disagree.
Not really relevant, since old persons don't use email. Just ask John McCain.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Completely incorrect. Fruit of the poisoness tree ONLY applies to searches done by police. As is the same with most other evidence law precedents. There may be another reason why it isn't admissable, but that is not it.
Actually, Alaska Public Records Act. FOIA is a Federal law, not a state law.
As I understand, the archive didn't make it; just a few screenshots before the guy freaked out and asked 4chan to glom it for him, which is when/where someone changed the password and alerted Palin. (The screenshots are also supposedly what made it possibly to backtrack him through his weak-sauce anonymizer.)
In short, epic fail for Palin and this cracker schmuck. But a quarter million $ and 3 years? Not going to happen. This kind of thing happens hundreds of times a week, if not day. How many times a day in the US, does someone steal a piece of physical mail (a Federal crime)? Probably in the thousands.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Using your logic, because police officers detain suspects we the public should be able to as well.
Or are you suggesting that people aren't allowed to detain those they catch stealing from them? You should not be calling anyone's argument "weak".
You seem to be unaware of the fact that all the powers of (our) government are granted by those that it governs, as are all the laws the define legal behavior for both the government and citizen alike. It starts with Constitution and derives from there.
The entire archive wasn't uploaded as far as I know, unless it was done long after the buzz died down, there were screenshots of like 3 emails, a couple of family pictures and contact list.
Basically the guy just released enough to prove he did it, I doubt he cared about the rest of it. He just wanted to look like an internet tough guy.
I don't know from where you post, but in the USA very few (actually, I can't think of any) professions have a legal salary cap.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I will second that. The one time I was in front of a judge, I was clearly guilty and pled so. You'd have thought I shot her dog from her reaction. I still feel I was penalized for "doing the right thing" and not tying the legal system up for an additional year. Apparently in this country admitting your crimes is right up there with committing them...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Why should she be indicted? None of her emails were very inappropriate.
Government officials have record and reporting requirements. By using an external E-mail provider, she avoided those.
even though her personal emails have been exposed and cleared as appropriate
The account was called "gov.palin" and contained messages like this:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008
Let it go--she obviously wasn't, and we know that thanks to the idiot who accessed her emails.
She was using the account inappropriately, that much is clear. One can argue about whether this should be a big deal, given that there was no obviously incriminating information she was trying to hide.
I'd usually say this shouldn't be a big deal. But given her apparent history of abuse of power, this is quite relevant.
Wikileaks hasn't posted the full e-mail archive to the general public.
The Guardian looked through them, and found e-mails related to a draft letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger, discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals, and emails from "DPS" - the department at the center of Troopergate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/sep/17/uselections2008.sarahpalin
"Incorporation" concerns the Bill of Rights and various other rights. FOIA is an act of congress that applies to certain documents of certain federal agencies. FOIA is not a right, and thus is not incorporated.
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
...encapsulated in one, simplistic know-it-all sentence.
The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.
All surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation.
Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and all surveillance must again happen only via FISA, as amended.
Also, TSP, in its entirety, was never as clear cut as being simply "legal" or "illegal" (court decisions on individual aspects aside). Those who claimed that it was "illegal" did so largely for political reasons. The other mistake is equating "traffic that *could be* listened to" with "traffic that *is* listened to" -- unfortunately, they are not at all the same. This also ignores that to even determine whether traffic is subject to legal collection, it must -- to be blunt -- actually be able to be collected. Thus the things like "secret rooms" at telecom facilities.
Having the capability to instantaneously examine traffic of international origin, where one or both endpoints of a communication are international, necessitates such wholesale monitoring capability. However, such capability being present does not imply its use for all traffic.
There are two issues here:
1. Monitoring the contents of a communication
2. Monitoring the metadata or "envelope" (source and destination information) of a communication
The first is allowable without a warrant or court oversight when one or both endpoints of the communication are international, and when the target of such monitoring is a non-US Person outside of the United States. Such foreign signals intelligence collection does not require a warrant or court oversight.
The second point above has multiple functions. One is using advanced data mining techniques to look for troubling patterns in communications.
Such collection has been found to be legal without a warrant or court oversight by the US Supreme Court:
Source: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
Courts have subsequently found that pen register statutes apply similarly to computer network addresses known as IP addresses, lists of web sites visited, and the "envelope" of an email message -- its To: and From: addresses and related information. The NSA itself has long understood that while the capture of the "metadata" of communications is fair game, the capture of the *contents* of the conversations of US Persons is not, without a warrant:
The only one I can think of are professional sports. Even then it's a series of rules to limit team salary, and not a hard cap on how much an individual can make.
Incorporation applies via the 14th amendment to rights guaranteed by the bill of rights and other constitutional mechanisms. The Constitution does not grant a right to our government's communication to the public, which is why we have the FOIA. It also doesn't prohibit them, since it's not even discussed in the Constitution in the detail that's covered by the FOIA and related state laws, therefore it falls under the purview of the 10th amendment, which leaves the matter to the states and their residents to decide.
The FOIA act does not grant a new right under the Constitution, and Congress does not have the authority, even under the expanded Interstate Commerce Clause rulings, to force open such communications. Therefore it is not incorporated by precedent into state laws and actions. It is thus functionally invisible to the 14th amendment.
That said, she's probably fair game under Alaska state law, as it should be, since she's only accountable to Alaskans at this point given the only elected office she holds.
I don't know from where you post, but in the USA very few (actually, I can't think of any) professions have a legal salary cap.
I've always been told that most engineering fields, doctors, and athletes, have salary caps. I tried doing a google search, but all I get is page after page talking about salary caps for various sports leagues, so at least the athletes have salary caps, although from the results it looks like those are mandated by the leagues, not law. Seeing as I can't find any results to backup that statement I guess I'll have to retract it, but the rest of the post is still valid, and we do give the lawyers and judges way too much power. I wish we could come up with some way of separating attorneys and politicians, otherwise it's the case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do not think you know what you are talking about. Executive privilege is used TO RESIST SEARCH WARRANTS.
Yet the page you link to as proof says it can be used to resist search warrants "and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government."
Maybe you should fully read links that you post backing up you point of view from start to finish in order to not comes across looking like an idiot.
I dont read