Slashdot Mirror


Palin Email Snoop Found Guilty On 2 Charges

netbuzz writes "A federal jury in Knoxville today has convicted David Kernell, 22, of two charges — misdemeanor computer fraud and felony obstruction of justice — in connection with the 2008 episode where he accessed the personal Yahoo email account of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and then initiated a worldwide rummaging of its contents. The obstruction charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years."

10 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Jury also hung on one count by random+coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They also hung on the count of Identity Theft; The DA can retry that later if he so chooses.

    1. Re:Jury also hung on one count by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Identity theft? I think they need to bring Tina Fey up on that charge!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Re:I'm still confused by something... by etymxris · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, that's not it. As long as the person is not working as an "agent of the state", anything they do is admissible. This came up when a hacker kept hacking into pedophiles' computers and turning them into the police. The courts ruled he was not working as an agent of the state, since the police had no control over him.

  3. Re:Two Stupid People by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "He gained access to Twitter accounts by simply working out the answers to password reminder questions on targets' e-mail accounts, according to investigators. " Seriously, I hate those things. When it used to be allowed, I always just retyped my password into the answers for those security questions. It's always really easy stuff to socially engineer or, in the case of a public figure, look up on google... Did he figure out the name of Obama's first pet, where he went to school, his first job, his mother's maiden name, or what? All of those things have got to be fairly easy to work out.

  4. Re:So you kill a guy, can get out in 2 years min by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two years only happens in extenuating circumstances (say, a woman kills her rapist after the fact; it's murder, but it's really hard to apply a tough sentence). Murder is rarely punished with a mere two years. That said, sentencing guidelines are fscked up, because it's always easier to appear "tough on crime" than it is to establish just guidelines.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  5. Re:Two Stupid People by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did he figure out the name of Obama's first pet, where he went to school, his first job, his mother's maiden name, or what? All of those things have got to be fairly easy to work out.

    You mean, people put honest answers in those fields??? [boggles]

  6. Re:Cost of imprisonment isn't worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    it's not worth that much to keep a man behind bars for guessing a password.

    Up to one year for guessing a password. 20 years for lying about it.

  7. Re:Cost of imprisonment isn't worth it. by Graff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I don't want my taxes spent on keeping this man imprisoned for up to twenty years. Cost of imprisonment is on average 22,650 per year, at 20 years that's $453,000. In my opinion it's not worth that much to keep a man behind bars for guessing a password.

    He won't get anything near 20 years. In a case like this he'll get almost no time in a minimal security facility, then he'll be put on probation for a number of years and he might also have to do community service or similar. Total cost to the taxpayer will be minimal, the trial itself will probably cost more than the actual imprisonment.

    That being said, you NEED to have the threat of 20 years so that there's a possible consequence to your actions. If you break into someone's e-mail there should be penalties and just the possibility of 20 years behind bars is enough to keep most people from trying this sort of thing. You also need it for repeat offenders so that you can punish them properly. This doesn't mean you always need to give the maximum, that's why it's a maximum and not a set amount.

  8. Re:Two Stupid People by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Except it wasn't the 'obvious password' which did them in, it was the lame drop-box security questions. Make it so all security questions are chosen when the account is created, and not selected from some stupid list, and your problem is solved.

    Please answer your security question: "What country were you born in ?"
    > "Kenya"

    *ducks*

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  9. Re:I'm still confused by something... by mortonda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Too lazy to look up the details, though, so no "informative" mods for me.

    You think that proof is required to get modded up as informative here on /.? You must be new here.