Slashdot Mirror


Rich Pretexter, Poor Pretexter

theodp writes "David Kernell used pretexting to gain access to Sarah Palin's e-mail. And now Kernell faces the possibility of a 20-year prison sentence. HP used pretexting to gain access to its Board's phone records. And now HP faces the possibility of supplying phones to the very companies that were victimized in the HP pretexting scandal. So perhaps Kernell should try coughing up $14.5 million to see if that'll make his pretexting problems disappear. Seems to have worked for HP!"

41 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Some Differences in These Cases by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the HP case, I don't think they publicized or gave away that information to potentially harmful persons. Palin could legitimately fear identity theft while the HP case that was more invasive seemed to have a very small group of people accessing the private information. Basically, was there potential identity theft in either case? Kernell's jury was hung on that, if I remember. The other thing is that the HP employees didn't seem to want to press charges (aside from one, if I recall correctly). So the pretexting victims need to step up and remember, the telephone companies weren't the biggest victims, it was the actual phone account holders that had their records accessed via pretexting. I'm no legal expert on the issue but I think if the people whose records had been accessed stepped up to sue then the result would have been different. I imagine Palin will exercise all options in prosecuting Kernell and since she's not in anyway trying to salvage a relationship with Kernell he'll get the book thrown at him whether he's sorry or not.

    Also, I read about this in ValleyWag and didn't see it linked to in the summary. Not sure if theodp works there or if it was just coincidence but if this comparison was gleaned from there, some small credit should be given.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, but in the Palin case, the former governor was using this email address to skirt public disclosure requirements. Palin is trying to play the victim here. She is the worst type of politician, and if our system was fair (which is impossible due to people like Palin), then she would be prosecuted as well.

      As far as I'm concerned, Kernell did the public a service in helping to expose a corrupt politician.

    2. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey! I'd sacrifice my reputation for 12 million dollars given have a chance..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...Kernell did the public a service in helping to expose a corrupt politician.

      We don't write law to serve the public.. In fact, some are written to protect the corrupt politician.. seeing as that we let corrupt politicians write the law

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by starcraftsicko · · Score: 2

      Public service or not, he broke the law in the hope of finding or creating a scandal. The law doesn't say "don't crack someone's email UNLESS when you do so you find something juicy". His success is immaterial. The penalty should be the same whether the account is full of lols and party invites or baby killing and kiddie porn.

      Two wrongs...

    5. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I recall, it was assumed that merely having a personal email account was a means to skirt public disclosure requirements, but after multiple ethics investigations, they didn't find anything.

      So was there proof she was doing "sekrit" business in her personal email account or not?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:Some Differences in These Cases by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except Kernell DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING INCRIMINATING IN THE E-MAIL. This was her personal e-mail account. Kernell went looking for the state business there and DIDN'T FIND ANY. But God forbid that fact ever showed up.

  2. ...f by hannson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I find most interesting about this case is that the initial sentence is up to 1 year for the unauthorized access itself and 20 years for the "obstruction of justice". I just can't see how that punishment fits the crime.

    1. Re:...f by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is because he erased incriminating files on his computer.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:...f by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And now you understand how the system works. Give yourself a pat on the back and get back to the salt mines.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    3. Re:...f by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obstruction occurs AFTER the initial crime and takes place during the investigation. It can be as simple as lying about the whereabouts of a person (I know someone arrested on misdemeanor obstruction for just this reason). Wearing a mask during the original crime doesn't count as obstruction because it does not occur during the investigation, but it could fall under other laws banning the wearing of masks in public.

      Kernell is charged with two crimes; one crime is unauthorized access of a computer system and he is charged with a separate crime for destroying evidence during the investigation of the first crime.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  3. Ahhh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kernell panic!

  4. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know about other people's email. I can read it from my house!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. HP didn't break the law, the PI's did by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there will never be proof that HP or it's officers told someone to break the law. they told the PI's to get the info and it was up to them how to do it

    1. Re:HP didn't break the law, the PI's did by Hyppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior". It will be enlightening.

    2. Re:HP didn't break the law, the PI's did by lancefox2323 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have your facts wrong. HP knew what the PIs were going to do and authorized them to do it anyway. A senior member of HP's general counsel, and, in fact, their director of ethics, was told of what the PIs planned, did "about an hour's worth of online research" on the legality of pretexting, and signed off on the plan. http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=444&Itemid=17

  6. No surprise really by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Under American law, corporations have almost all privileges of citizenship without most of the responsibilities of citizenship. And people acting on behalf of a corporation have lots of legal protections that us regular schlemiels lack. They benefit extensively from the protection of the US military (both in and outside of US territory), and of course have ready access to all the more local services such as police, the fire department, municipal water supply, and so on. Thanks to the current Supreme Court, they also have full rights of political speech.

    However, about the only responsibility of citizenship that they have to any degree whatsoever is that they are required to pay taxes, and many of them manage to dodge even doing that. Interestingly, if the interests of their shareholders conflict with the interests of the US, they are legally supposed to go with the shareholder's interest. So, for instance, if it is profitable to find a legal loophole that allows some subsidiary to sell uranium to Iran, a corporation capable of doing so is generally obligated to do just that.

    The craziness of this: if Carly Fiorina pretexts to find out whether her husband is cheating on her, she's likely to be in a similar boat to David Kernell. If she pretexts to find out whether there's a leak on her board, she's now acting as a corporate officer, and thus the company is liable, not Carly, unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can convince a judge to pierce the corporate veil. Same person, same act, but in the second version there's an extra layer of legal protection.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:No surprise really by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 4, Informative

      If she pretexts to find out whether there's a leak on her board, she's now acting as a corporate officer, and thus the company is liable, not Carly, unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can convince a judge to pierce the corporate veil.

      This is just flat out wrong. There is no concept of "piercing the corporate" veil with respect to criminal prosecution. Veil-piercing is a product of civil law. Moreover, it is very common for corporate officers to face criminal prosecution for acts committed to further the corporate interest.

      To convict a person of a crime, one must generally prove an illegal act committed with the proper state of mind (called mens rea, and in financial crimes this generally means intent to commit the ac). In many corporate scenarios, the mental state does not exist in a single person - it is spread out across many people - and is therefore very hard to prove. In some cases, this spreading out of responsibility is such that no single person ever had the necessary mental state necessary to support a conviction. Corporate prosecution is a way to punish such acts without abrogating our general principle that we don't punish people who didn't commit a crime. It is in addition to prosecution of persons, not instead of, and thus means that more crimes can be punished under our corporate laws than could be if those laws did not exist.

      In sum, if a person commits a crime, the legal requirements for prosecution are the same whether committed to further a private or corporate interest.

      As a side matter, Fiorina was not at HP when the investigation happened. Link. More importantly, there was little or no evidence that the chair at the time new about the pretexting before it took place. They hired a private investigator who engaged in pretexting. Although this is legally enough to warrant civil liability, it is not sufficient to support criminal liability.

  7. Can we please go back to calling it "LYING"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretexting is just a made up word to make it look like they did something clever.

    1. Re:Can we please go back to calling it "LYING"? by iPhr0stByt3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We could also remove words such as running, sneaking, walking, jogging and sprinting and just say "going".
      Pretexting is a specific type of lie that means setting up the false pretext to be someone else - typically by using valid and/or confidential information about that person or by using the pretext over a prolonged period of time to make the ruse seem more convincing.

      I appreciate having this extra bit of information instead of just saying "he lied".

    2. Re:Can we please go back to calling it "LYING"? by gowen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better yet, lets co-opt pretexting: How about "Today two men pretexted themselves into my grandma's house by claiming to be from the gas company, then stole all her valuables." What's the difference here?

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  8. Verizon isn't letting this go... by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Verizon can find the identities of the investigators who did it, they will prosecute them. They have a few IP addresses, but it hasn't resulted in any names.

    Corporate espionage types do a better job of covering their tracks than David Kernell. He was sloppy, now he's going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.

  9. Corporatocracy by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Informative
    The word you're looking for is Corporatocracy.

    One important component you left out: the greater ability of corporations to influence government -- Disney, Halliburton, GlaxoSmithKline, etc. Other, more "polite", keywords to Google: rent seeking and Public Choice Theory.

    1. Re:Corporatocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The word you're looking for is Corporatocracy

      Protip: If you are going to link Wikipedia to bolster a point, choose an article where virtually every sentence doesn't end with "citation needed".

    2. Re:Corporatocracy by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Protip: If you are going to link Wikipedia to bolster a point, choose an article where virtually every sentence doesn't end with "citation needed".

      Given the well-documented editing of Wikipedia by corporations, it does bolster my point.

    3. Re:Corporatocracy by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer the term "corporate oligarchy". Means mostly the same thing, but those words actually exist.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  10. Pretexting is such a pretty euphemism by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We used to call these "criminal impostors" back in the day. If a thief, masquerading to be a cop, pulled you over and then stole your wallet, would you call it "pretexting"?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Re:You know what I think... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Funny

    There is no kdawson.

    Drawing inspiration from the cartoon world the other editors set up one of those pecking bird novelties to press whatever key moves a submission from the firehose to the front page. They play games with each other by manipulating the office thermostat to affect the rate of peck. When Taco is in the office you see fewer kdawson stories because Taco is warm natured.

    I'm not sure this is how pecking birds work but if it isn't there is probably a pecking bird geek in the crowd who will correct me.

    They named it kdawson because those are the letters the Chinese characters on its label look most like. Kind of a pinyin for the ignorant.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  12. Misleading summary and bad conclusions by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kernell does not face 2o years for pretexting. Kernell faces 1 year for unauthorized computer access and 20 years for felony obstruction of justice. To the best of my knowledge Kernell has not been sued by anyone over his unauthorized access.

    HP settled a civil suit brought by Verizon for US$ 14 million. HP and the investigators hired who did the actual pretexting still face criminal charges. Those charge may result in jail time. There is little chance of a 20 year sentence as there is no felony obstruction charge in the HP case. Each count of unauthorized access carries a penalty which can run either concurrent or consecutive.

    Verizon currently sells an HP netbook. HP may buy Palm, but there is no guarantee that Verizon will continue to carry Palm/HP phones. But, that US$ 14 million settlement may result in Verizon continuing to carry HP devices, especially if said devices are popular.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  13. A big Slashdot-y example of this from my life by br00tus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    On November 2, 1988, Robert Tappan Morris Junior released his worm, on an Internet that at that time had very little security. It took down a significant chunk of the net, crashing thousands of machines. Morris's father was a bigwig in the national security establishment, Morris was an upper middle class WASP who went to Harvard. Despite all this damage, he did no jail time.

    On January 24, 1990, in New York City, three MoD hackers were arrested. I had met all three before they were arrested. In terms of damage, only one machine they had ever been on had crashed, and all three denied crashing that one machine. There was no proof they had crashed it, and dozens of hackers had been on that Learning Link machine. Even if one had crashed it, which I don't believe, how can you accuse three people of the same crime? All three lived in poor or working class neighborhoods in New York, went to public schools etc. The judge said he would make an example of them and sent all three to jail.

    I was 16 years old when they were arrested, and this was my first real experience seeing the "justice system" - an upper middle class WASP whose father was high in the military establishment admits he crashed thousands of machines and is called a misunderstood genius who made a mistake, and walks on charges. A year later three guys younger than him are arrested for crashing a computer which they all plausibly deny crashing (and how does it take three people to crash one computer anyhow), a computer which had dozens of other hackers on it. They come from working class neighborhoods in Queens, with modems connected to Commodore 64's, not Unix workstations at Ivy League schools like Cornell. They go to jail, Morris walks. An early lesson for me on how America really works.

    1. Re:A big Slashdot-y example of this from my life by snerdy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a pretty good point. On the other hand, it's also true that public perception of this type of activity changed dramatically in the year that passed between those two events and the response by authorities had shifted considerably. 1989 was a pretty unique year.

      For this reason, it's somewhat difficult to compare the two situations on the same grounds. It is unlikely that economic disparity is not the only influential factor.

    2. Re:A big Slashdot-y example of this from my life by chudnall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There weren't really any good anti-hacking laws on the books in 1988. The Internet wasn't really on the public radar, and Morris did a lot to change that. I remember this time well because I was 20 years old in 1988 and was doing a lot of the same things Morris was. For anyone who could read a Unix man page, Internet security back then was a complete joke. Every system from pretty much every vendor was trivially hackable from the second the coax was attached. The thing that Morris did that the rest of us didn't was hack together some shell scripts to automate the process.

      Anyway, when the worm hit, there were a lot of questions over what he could be charged with. I think the whole "unauthorized access of a computing device" was drafted in response to that. At that time, My cohorts and I were on fairly good "friendly enemy" terms with the college sysadmins, and would dutifully notify them (i.e. brag) whenever we found a new exploit. However, starting right about the time the Morris worm hit, attitudes about our activity started changing rapidly. Laws were drafted, at the Federal and state level. There were mutters from higher up about "teaching those kids a lesson". The sysadmins didn't smile and wave anymore when we passed each other. Computers were starting to become important to "regular people".

      Personally, I wised up, and found more creative uses for my talents. I also got my own sysadmin job, which changed my outlook regarding hacking greatly :). But I would have fully expected, two years after the worm, to have faced far harsher treatment that Morris had, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to blame class-ism. It was a time of great change, in technology, attitudes, and criminal statutes.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    3. Re:A big Slashdot-y example of this from my life by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When Morris released the worm, there were no laws on the books specifically forbidding that activity, so there wasn't much they could charge him with. The MoD hackers were a test case for the new law that Morris' case led congress to pass. So yeah, it sucks, but you can't pass a law making something a crime and then charge someone for the crime of having done that thing before the law was passed. While there certainly are examples of the phenomenon you're talking about in law (e.g., the difference in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine), this is not such an example.

  14. I cant be the only one who has never heard of this by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pretexting
    Pretexting is the act of creating and using an invented scenario (the pretext) to engage a targeted victim in a manner that increases the chance the victim will divulge information or perform actions that would be unlikely in ordinary circumstances. It is more than a simple lie, as it most often involves some prior research or setup and the use of a priori information for impersonation (e.g., date of birth, Social Security Number, last bill amount) to establish legitimacy in the mind of the target.[3]
    This technique can be used to trick a business into disclosing customer information as well as by private investigators to obtain telephone records, utility records, banking records and other information directly from junior company service representatives. The information can then be used to establish even greater legitimacy under tougher questioning with a manager, e.g., to make account changes, get specific balances, etc. Pretexting has even been an observed law enforcement technique, under the auspices of which, a law officer may leverage the threat an alleged infraction to detain a suspect for questioning and close inspection of vehicle or premises.
    Pretexting can also be used to impersonate co-workers, police, bank, tax authorities, or insurance investigators — or any other individual who could have perceived authority or right-to-know in the mind of the targeted victim. The pretexter must simply prepare answers to questions that might be asked by the victim. In some cases all that is needed is a voice that sounds authoritative, an earnest tone, and an ability to think on one's feet.

  15. imagine by Voline · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what would have happened to you if you'd gone around distributing thousands of CDs to people that, when placed in a computer, installed a rootkit?

    Now, what happened to Sony?

  16. Um... no. by jwietelmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You might be able to make the civil disobedience argument if he had, say, broken into the email account, downloaded everything, and sent it to a site like Wikileaks. Instead, he put the password on 4chan, and in the process he didn't really expose anything and delegitimized anything that might have been found.

    Painting this kid as some sort of noble hacker/whistleblower is pure fantasy.

    (At the same time, I do feel empathy for him, as we all know what law enforcement would do if someone broke into one of our personal webmail accounts: Absolutely nothing.)

    1. Re:Um... no. by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not saying you are or aren't in the group I'm about to argue with, because it's a bit unclear from your comment; but...

      I've noticed that a lot of people throw around the "civil disobedience argument" as though they think it should be a legal defense. It isn't. It was never intended to be. The very concept of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions, even if they be unfair consequences imposed by a corrupt regime. That's the nature of the play. If you don't like that part of it, then civil disobedience may not be for you.

      So, yeah... he might have gotten a more sympathetic judge and/or jury if he'd done as you suggest, but he still would've gotten a criminal record and some sort of sentence out of the deal. Bottom line is having the best of intentions still doesn't make it ok to go outside the system. What crimes Palin did or didn't commit would be a separate matter, but don't expect evidence revealed in this manner to be what brings her down.

  17. Re:You know what I think... by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure this is how pecking birds work but if it isn't there is probably a pecking bird geek in the crowd who will correct me.

    Well, as a matter of fact, they need to dip into water.

    Typically, older birds are filled with freon-11, or most modern ones with methylene chloride, in a liquid/vapor mix. They operate mainly by having the water soaking their heads evaporate. This changes the temperature of the refrigerant, causing it to change density (some turns from vapor to liquid) and alter the balance of the bird. Without a water supply to replenish the system, it would soon no longer be able to "peck" at the submit key.

    It's basically a heat engine, and you've removed the temperature differential.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  18. The Major Difference in This Case by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    You managed to avoid the truly major difference in this case; The 20 year sentence is for felony obstruction of justice. The actual hacking of the e-mail account was only filed as a misdemeanor, and has a maximum sentence of 1 year.

  19. Who are you calling "Poor"? by twmcneil · · Score: 2, Informative

    This kid is the son of a Tennessee State Representative . I don't think he could be classified as "poor". Sounds like his daddy has simply left him to suffer the consequences of his actions alone and on his own. I suppose in some way you could call that good parenting. My cynical nature requires that I admonish his father with "Mike, you shoulda just called a few favors and sprung the kid."

    Can you imagine what would happen if every lame-ass action originating at 4chan resulted in 20 years?

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  20. it would help if the submitters RTFA by Khashishi · · Score: 2, Informative

    The settlement only covers the civil lawsuit.

    HP and the investigators hired who did the actual pretexting still face criminal charges.