Slashdot Mirror


Palin's E-Mail Hacker Imprisoned Against Judge's Wishes

Em Adespoton writes "It was a computer security story that made headlines around the world, involving the private emails of a woman who could have become Vice President of the United States. And now, it's ended with a young man sent to a federal prison, hundreds of miles from his family home. David C Kernell, the hacker who broke into Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo email account, is reported to have been sent to jail despite a judge's recommendation that he should not be put behind bars."

502 comments

  1. Too fucking bad.. by intellitech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That is not the situation that his friends and family were hoping for, however."

    No offense, but too fucking bad. Considering the state of our legal system, the guy was lucky to not get boned for the full four crimes he was initially charged with (which would have been a lot longer than just a year, by the way). He committed a crime, one that I personally feel has far-reaching effects as one's e-mail inbox should be considered fairly private. Yes, it was Sarah Palin, and I can't stand her either. Doesn't mean that this guy shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

    "The US Bureau of Prisons, however, has decided to make Mr Kernell serve out his term in the low-security prison camp nearly 300 miles from his home in Knoxville, Tennessee."

    Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in. The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty much. In this day and age, it surprises the hell out of me that he thought he could get away with something as easily noticeable as hacking a presidential candidates email...unless he knew he wouldn't get away with it, and didn't care.

    2. Re:Too fucking bad.. by m0s3m8n · · Score: 1

      Right on man (70's lingo). He should be in the slammer just for being stupid enough to try it in the first place. What do you think would happen?

      --
      Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    3. Re:Too fucking bad.. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps they feel, as I do, that the punishment is out of proportion with the crime. Should he be punished? Yes, he should; he accessed email without permission. Maybe levy a hefty fine; no one was physically harmed or deprived of property, and he is no danger to society. As such, he doesn't deserve being locked away in a hole with more dangerous individuals.

      --
      SSC
    4. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's probably because of this:

      BBC News, however, reports that US government officials have intervened, and Kernell has begun serving time at federal correctional institute in Ashland, Kentucky.

      When most people think of an ideal criminal justice system, they think of judges and juries, not government officials. This system does not seem to be a well-oiled machine:

      The BOP is not bound by judicial recommendations, one legal expert said federal sentencing was often "arbitrary". "The judge can give either incarceration or probation, but if it's incarceration the state gives power to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the nature of incarceration," said Professor Robert Weisberg, director of the criminal justice center at Stanford University in California. "There is not a general or uniform US rule," he added. "There is huge local variation."

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    5. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you have any idea how expensive it is to keep a person in jail?

      Locking people up because they are stupid is enough to bankrupt any country. A much better punishment for nonviolent crimes would be community service (scaled to fit the gravity of the offense), where there's a net gain for society.

    6. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm curious how long until he "commits suicide" or keeps getting shuffled around in the prison system until he disappears, or worse, they keep extending his sentence for minor things, until it's his entire lifetime.

      The republicans support the prison system, and he fucked with a republican candidate.

      He's not leaving prison any time soon, and he will likely never see the light of day again.

      expect this to become common, soon it will happen when you speak against any candidate with any amount of political power.

    7. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see it the other way around, for such a crime to deserve a prison sentence it should be much more severe. Guessing someones password to yahoo mail, does not seem like a severe crime to me, if anything Sarah Palin should be schooled on password security and disciplined for sharing sensitive information over yahoo of all things. I work for a bank, and if i had emails on yahoo related to my work and got caught, i would be dismissed, end of story.

      Making examples of people just because they have upset a celebrity figure is barbarian and i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there. Where i come from everyone is equal, a crime against a politician holds the same weight as a crime against your average citizen.

    8. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but too fucking bad. Considering the state of our legal system, the guy was lucky to not get boned for the full four crimes he was initially charged with (which would have been a lot longer than just a year, by the way). He committed a crime, one that I personally feel has far-reaching effects as one's e-mail inbox should be considered fairly private. Yes, it was Sarah Palin, and I can't stand her either. Doesn't mean that this guy shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

      Completely agree. While I can't stand Sarah Palin either, this kid committed a crime and must face the consequences. As my Grandfather told me as a child, you have freedom of choice, you do not have freedom of consequences. If this kid didn't want to go to jail he should not have hacked someone's email. Once he did that, plus the other things he did, he put himself in a position to have his freedom put at the discretion of the judicial system.

    9. Re:Too fucking bad.. by kalirion · · Score: 2

      ITT stupidity is a crime.

    10. Re:Too fucking bad.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      "The US Bureau of Prisons, however, has decided to make Mr Kernell serve out his term in the low-security prison camp nearly 300 miles from his home in Knoxville, Tennessee." ...The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why.

      Actually it sounds like USBOP is doing him a favor - putting him in a regular Federal rape-cage closer to his home would not be in his best interest. IIRC, his father is well-connected politically.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me preface this by saying that the guy was an idiot and had absolutely no right to go reading someone else's email. He deserves some form of punishment. The legal system is supposed to be fair and consistent, however, and that does not in any way appear to be the case here. Take a look at a few other crimes which have been treated equally harshly.

      Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in.

      Sure you don't get a say, but I find it a little surprising that the judge's recommendation was ignored.

      The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.

      The fact that they are making an example of him seems to reinforce the view that an individual invading the privacy of a political figure is somehow worse than the reversed situation. Sounds like a very bad message to be sending, to me.

    12. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You realize he's in a low security resort prison and not a "Pound Me in the Ass" maximum security prison, right?

    13. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there.

      Common? Yes. Acceptable? No. Well, at least not for those of us that actually think -_-;;

    14. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Azarman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I understand where you are coming from

      However what is being missed here completely by all this drama is that Sarah Palin had government related emails in her personal mail box. Now under US law this is highly illegal as all government related emails must pass via the public system so that it can be monitored.

      This guy broke in to her email, found emails relating to her work which by law should not have been there and suddenly there is a massive circus and he goes to prison. This is just another case of the government using a scape goat to hide the fact that a government official was doing something they should not.

      Also he did not HACK it, that would imply some skill, he simply answered the secret question and got the password reset. His fail was that he used a Proxy that was known to give up private details if requested by the government.

      Now finally in closing, I agree he did something wrong, however if this had been done to a normal person no one would have cared. The reason for the media circus was/is to take the light off the fact that Sarah is talking to other government members via private email so that it stays off the audit trail.

    15. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low-security prison camp? That sounds like a fancy name for a country-club prison to me. Plus, it's unlikely he'll have to serve the full term (time off for good behavior, etc).

    16. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. It shouldn't matter who's account was hacked. If he cant get a fair trial (the same punishment you'd get for hacking your neighbour's email account not a celebrity) then why even bother with the expense of a trial?

    17. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seriously think some kid breaking into someone's e-mail is a danger to society? Basically you're equating it to a violent crime where they need to be locked away.

      Your attitude it precisely what's wrong with the US justice system. Why don't we try to rehabilitate people? Even the lightest punishment would be enough to teach this kid his lesson. Give him probation and community service and he will probably never hack anything again in his life. I don't want to pay to keep him locked up in a prison for something that could be taken care of a lot easier, without the brutal punishment of the federal pen.

      Sure, habitual offenders might need something a little more tough but in this case we're talking about someone who never broke any laws before.

    18. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      Most people argue that the prison system is to seperate the dangerous individuals from society. This guy is not a danger to society, no one is in danger of getting hurt. Put him on Parole for 2-4 years with community service where all his network access has to be reviewed by a parole officer. Long reaching, annoying punishment, that contributes back to society instead of sapping money.

    19. Re:Too fucking bad.. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, there's lots of oil.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    20. Re:Too fucking bad.. by wzinc · · Score: 2

      Wow, that's actually a really good idea. You'd still have to pay guards to keep them working, but w/o housing, you'd save a lot. Another benefit is, say you have them repairing buildings for the city or whatever; you're also teaching them a trade that they can use when they get out of jail. Maybe they'd learn the value of work and go legit. I'm sure there are some downsides, like this might not work for violent criminals, etc.

    21. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem so fatalistic. "Even if the consequences are not in proportion to the crime, you MUST FACE THEM! There's nothing that can be done, they're written in stone, we must take them on faith like the 10 commandments and never question them..."

      The beauty of the American political system is that the Constitution and the Laws are NOT written in stone; they can be changed, amended, repealed, according to the will of the people. Are you going to stand up for what's right, or for what's been written?

    22. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Americano · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.

      From the BOP web site:

      The Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Ashland is a low security institution housing male inmates with a satellite camp that houses minimum security inmates.

      And since the article calls it low security, but references the prison camp, he might be housed at either the low or min- security facility. Here's a description of the type of facility he's going to:

      Minimum Security: Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and program-oriented; and many are located adjacent to larger institutions or on military bases, where inmates help serve the labor needs of the larger institution or base.

      Low Security: Low security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced perimeters, mostly dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and program components. The staff-to-inmate ratio in these institutions is higher than in minimum security facilities.

    23. Re:Too fucking bad.. by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Net gain to society? WTF. Are we advocating low impact crimes to help society? I can see some PSA's now - "Forget Jobcorps, come hack email accounts with us and help your community!"
      This line of thinking also states for future potential crimelords that if you hack into email, your time is a walk in the park. If there is no deterrent then what is the point of the criminal justice system?

      Wow, way to completely miss the point. Read sentences much? He meant that the COMMUNITY SERVICE was a net gain for society, since the perp has to do something productive to earn his forgiveness, instead of being locked up and supported by taxpayers.

    24. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      no one was physically harmed

      I take it you've never gotten a phone call at 4:00 AM on an "business use only" line saying "you're a worthless sack of shit and I can't wait to see your death on the news". Four days and zero hours of sleep later, there's definitely "physical harm" involved.

      The article only mentions that Palin's family got only "abusive emails and phone calls". There's no mention of threats, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were. That quote above was told to me by someone whose number had been given to a single psychopath. I can only imagine that a widespread leak would be worse.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    25. Re:Too fucking bad.. by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Tying the penalty to how hard something is to do is simply foolish, I could go end somebody's life with a couple pounds of pressure on a trigger, and hacking the private communications of a political candidate is something that can easily subvert the election process. It should carry extremely stiff penalties.

      If Palin was wrong in any illegal way she should be punished also. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    26. Re:Too fucking bad.. by shadowrat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I see it the other way around, for such a crime to deserve a prison sentence it should be much more severe. Guessing someones password to yahoo mail, does not seem like a severe crime to me

      The strength of a password has no bearing on the severity of the crime. kicking in a deadbolt and breaking a window to get in a house are both breaking and entering. Nobody ever suggests a homeowner should have nothing but concrete block walls.

      Making examples of people just because they have upset a celebrity figure is barbarian and i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there. Where i come from everyone is equal, a crime against a politician holds the same weight as a crime against your average citizen.

      Where are you from? Antarctica?

    27. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much. In this day and age, it surprises the hell out of me that he thought he could get away with something as easily noticeable as hacking a presidential candidates email...unless he knew he wouldn't get away with it, and didn't care.

      Oh, he was dumber than that. He was dumb enough to leave identifying information in the screencap (screencap is SFW, some of the ads are NSFW) he took.

      By leaving the URL visible, it didn't matter how many proxies he was behind. There was a clear chain of evidence linking him to The Incident. Unsurprisingly, the Party Van showed up, and the rest is history.

      Anonymous is legion, but on occasion, some Anonymous are very, very stupid. When Anonymous ceases to be anonymous, Anonymous thinks it's pretty funny.

    28. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      He's going to a minimum security resort prison.

    29. Re:Too fucking bad.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A) are legal system sin't that abd, and no one with any real knowledge of it expect any of the really charges to actually be workable.

      B) Yes it was a crime, but this punishment is bad for numerous reasons.
          1) He sin't a risk to society.
          2) It's an unnecessary expense to the tax payers
          3) These types of sentences end up creating more criminals the prevents
            4) Prisons should be about rehabilitation, not about creating more criminals, and not jsut about punishment. For the majority of crimes, there are better punishments.

          5) While not imprison, they could be working and adding benefit to society.

      Yes, he committed a crime. But for this crime, not allowed on social media sites for 6 months, and picking up trash on the side of the road would be more appropriate, and better for society. If not that, then teaching classes on internet safety to kids.
      Prison? No, not in this case.

      This is bad for him, bad for his family,a dn bad for societ. It hurts far more then it punishes.
      "his 366 day punishment at a halfway house, describing it as "a sufficient restriction of the defendant's liberty"."

      That would have been a reasonable punishment for this crime. Why people think someone did a crime, there for lock them up in prison actually helps anyone is beyond me.

      And of course, Palin blames this on her failure. Not her nonsensical speeches, and vapid answers to questions.

       

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:Too fucking bad.. by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      I agree but I think the question some folks are asking is whether he would have received the same sentence if the victim was someone other than Sarah Palin. People hack email accounts all the time and post stuff on the net. Suppose, for example, he had hacked a high school class mate's email account. Would he have received a year in jail?

    31. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Pamplona+Slowpoke · · Score: 1

      Another benefit is, say you have them repairing buildings for the city or whatever; you're also teaching them a trade that they can use when they get out of jail.

      Good luck with the unions allowing that!

    32. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For now.

    33. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really as completely retarded and illiterate as you just made yourself look? Low impact crimes helping society? WTF. Because that's not at all what the guy was saying...

      Try going back and reading it over from the start... slowly and carefully. Maybe even wait until you sober up this time.

    34. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When we do it, it's teaching them a trade. When China does it, it's re-education.

      Who are we to tell criminals how they should live their lives?

    35. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2

      It surprises the hell out of me that he thought he could get away with something as easily noticeable as hacking a presidential candidates email.

      Well, I think he would have gotten away with it too if he hadn't gone and posted what he found right away.

      I don't know if Yahoo does this, but Gmail does this thing at the bottom of the page, "Last account activity: 7 hours ago at IP whatever.whatever.whatever.whatever" - And do you think Palin regularily checks something like that?

      If this guy had any brains about him, he could have easily gotten away with the 'hacking' the email account part. Seriously, suppose someone knew the answer to your security question right now, and was casually reading your already read emails. Assuming you don't look at logs, and they aren't closing your session on you, Would you even suspect something?

    36. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deterrent? Or maybe they hope to make hackers smarter!

    37. Re:Too fucking bad.. by index0 · · Score: 1

      "The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why"

      You have no problems with different laws for different people?

    38. Re:Too fucking bad.. by zeroshade · · Score: 2

      Except that the judge reccomended he be placed in a halfway house. Which would have been closer and less restrictive.

    39. Re:Too fucking bad.. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "Yes, it was Sarah Palin, and I can't stand her either."

      Is this the modern day equivalent of "I have black friends"?

      Is every post that would seem to benefit Palin to be prefixed by a disclaimer indicating that you too, hate Sara Palin?

      Is it the case that if you happen to be ambivalent about Palin or *gasp*, even be a supporter, that your statements, which normally everyone would agree with, suddenly become inoperative?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    40. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, total shame about that Martha Stewart. She goes to a federal prison camp, and comes out a hardened assassin. But I love her new "white power" tattoos, they're sexy as hell. Oh wait - that didn't happen at all, did it?

      The "federal prison" this kid is going to is the same sort of facility Ms. Stewart went to for her securities conviction. This is not a jail, it's a work program with (MAYBE) a chainlink fence around it. He'll spend his time there working on whatever sort of work program the Ashland facility arranges for its inmates.

    41. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Capt_Morgan · · Score: 2

      IMO shoplifting and even SPEEDING are more dangerous crimes

      --
      It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
    42. Re:Too fucking bad.. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      His Tin Foil Hat is interferring with his reason.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    43. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, judges tell convicted criminals how to live their lives on a regular basis: usually it involves living it in an 8x8 cell.

    44. Re:Too fucking bad.. by swfranklin · · Score: 1

      "The US Bureau of Prisons, however, has decided to make Mr Kernell serve out his term in the low-security prison camp nearly 300 miles from his home in Knoxville, Tennessee."

      Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in. The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.

      Not to mention that Ashland is the nearest low-security federal prison to his home. It's not like there is a prison in his neighborhood.

    45. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freakin A

    46. Re:Too fucking bad.. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      The judge is partially to blame (although blame may be a bit strong because personally I think this guy deserved punishment). According to TFA, once he sentenced him to incarceration, he essentially gave up any rights to set the terms of incareration. He gave those rights to the US Bureau of Prisons

      The BOP is not bound by judicial recommendations, one legal expert said federal sentencing was often "arbitrary".

      "The judge can give either incarceration or probation, but if it's incarceration the state gives power to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the nature of incarceration," said Professor Robert Weisberg, director of the criminal justice center at Stanford University in California.

      Once it became a 'federal' decision, it's no surprise that he was handled the way he was.

    47. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this kid committed a crime and must face the consequences

      And yet, as has been pointed out already, his crime showed that Palin also committed a crime. Why does she not also have to face the consequences for that? Does being a politician grant an exemption from the law now? Or is it just because she's a moron, and clearly not competent to face trial, so not worth pressing charges against?

      I'm not arguing that he should be let off easy here - I'm arguing that she should not be. And since her own crime was far more severe than his, a longer prison sentence is clearly due.

    48. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize he's in a low security resort prison and not a "Pound Me in the Ass" maximum security prison, right?

      "Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. W-Why do you ask, anyway? "

    49. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Graff · · Score: 1

      Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in. The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.

      The minimum security federal prison in Ashland is widely-known as being one of the easiest in which to do time.

      Yeah he could have been put in a halfway house but that would really have been just a slap on the wrist for interfering with a federal election. It doesn't matter that all he did was guess a password, his actions directly influenced a major election. Imagine if there was little or no punishment for this offense, there's a lot of people who would happily take some time in a halfway house in order to get paid to interfere with an election in this manner. If the penalty is time in a federal prison, even a club fed like the one in Ashland, less people would be willing to take the hit.

      Elections need to be protected from this sort of interference and one of the best ways is to have the threat of serious incarceration.

    50. Re:Too fucking bad.. by android.dreamer · · Score: 1

      Let us say he pirated music online. For downloading music, they argue he stole it and send him to jail for larceny. Would that be considered fair? They currently settle out of court for this act but they could easily make an example out of someone.

    51. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That does seem integral to the US justice system: upset a celebrity and the punishment is severe, commit a crime as a celebrity and the punishment is reduced or eliminated. Accessing celebrity's email: a year in federal prison. Celebrity slashing ex wife and her lover to death with a knife: you are free to go. (Go OJ, Go!)

    52. Re:Too fucking bad.. by horatio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WTF. Are we advocating low impact crimes to help society?

      I don't see this as much different than the cash-for-clunkers program. The idea is that after rendering all moving parts inoperable so they can't be sold as used replacements, you smash what was a perfectly good car. Then you give someone $8000 ($4000?) in tax payer money to buy a new car. This helps the economy. If that is really true, we should start leveling houses - to boost the construction industry. We should start breaking legs - to show how beneficial single payer healthcare services are. We should have the National Guard out to burn our wheat fields - so farmers can plant organic crops.

      The same logic applies to "low impact crimes can help society". We should encourage these so-called "low impact" crimes so we can increase the pool of "low impact" criminals that will do community service. Except, the criminal smashed something that belonged to someone else. In this clown's case, it was someone's privacy and their personal property (email account). The logic is so absurd it is almost funny - until you find out the people advocating it are completely serious.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    53. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Temposs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reality is that the US prison system is formed around the principle of punishment. If threat isolation was the primary motivation, our prison system would look much different than it does.

      The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God. So, the prison system is set up as a kind of forced penance through societal punishment, This is why we still have the death penalty, too, while most other developed countries do not.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
    54. Re:Too fucking bad.. by hebites · · Score: 1

      Private communications with minor children. The children got blasted by ignorant losers. I know that most people figure that they are Sarah Palin's kids so they deserve to be tortured by the self important ankle biters, but the fact is that they should be treated with the same respect that anyone's innocent children are. They are not fair game just because their mother is a famous republican. A year in jail ? Good, I wish that the amateur media would spread the news and maybe we wouldn't have so much of this.

    55. Re:Too fucking bad.. by MisterZimbu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another benefit is, say you have them repairing buildings for the city or whatever; you're also teaching them a trade that they can use when they get out of jail.

      Good luck with the unions allowing that!

      Simple answer to that- outlaw unions, throw them in jail, then they can repair all the buildings they want.

    56. Re:Too fucking bad.. by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, do you even think for a second that this guy would be sitting in a federal prison if he had guessed your neighbor's Yahoo account security question?

      This is very much a case of a commoner being dealt a disproportionally harsh punishment because the victim is part of the ruling class.

      And Sarah Palin didn't even get a slap on the wrist for using her private email to shield government business from public scrutiny.

      I remember September 2008, wasn't this the time wall street bankers nearly crashed the world economy? Anybody charged, convicted or sitting in a federal prison yet?

      The system works.

    57. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded troll? Really?

    58. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

      If you're going to be stupid enough to do this to a very powerful person, then you deserve to be made an example out of so people are afraid to do it to the rest of us peons.

    59. Re:Too fucking bad.. by joeyblades · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if anything Sarah Palin should be schooled on password security and disciplined for sharing sensitive information over yahoo...

      I had a neighbor that was robbed. However, like many crooks, these guys were none too smart and got caught. They tried to defend their actions by claiming that the victim had left a window unlocked and therefore deserved to get robbed...

      Your argument sounds a lot like that...

    60. Re:Too fucking bad.. by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BBC News, however, reports that US government officials have intervened, and Kernell has begun serving time at federal correctional institute in Ashland, Kentucky.

      When most people think of an ideal criminal justice system, they think of judges and juries, not government officials. This system does not seem to be a well-oiled machine

      Then 'most people' need to get their heads out of clouds and learn a) the difference between an 'ideal' system and one that must function in the real world, and b) how the real systems works. (And it actually does work very well.)
       
      Not to mention the summary and article are vastly misleading - if you read just the summary or the first part of the article, you'll be wrongly outraged. The truth of the matter is, he was sentenced to imprisonment and (drum roll please!) he was duly imprisoned. The judge's recommendations ('wishes') that he spend his time in a half way house have zero legal force or standing. The only 'intervention' by the 'officials' was to obey the (legally binding) result and sentence handed down by the court.

    61. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there.

      Why would not being an American stop you from being prosecuted? In this case, the crime was against a US politician. If Julian Assange teaches us nothing else, it's that the US government doesn't especially care about where you're from if you annoy it badly enough.

    62. Re:Too fucking bad.. by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      This is probably one of the douchiest opinions I've seen voiced here, and that's saying something. Your lack of humanity is just appalling.

      Others have already made the common-sense rebuttals vis-a-vis proportionate response, lack of actual harm inflicted, unlikelihood of danger to society, etc, so I won't belabor those points.

      People like you need to step back and take stock of your philosophy on life and human society, because you're dangerously close to a belief that we're interchangeable automatons gliding through life on inflexible etched rails.

    63. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Yup the man was a retard.

      if you think you can get in, you do it from a public open Wifi point. you drive a city away and go to a starbucks to do it.
      then you sanitize the screencaps. Sanitize them hard.
      Finally you release the info 100% anon. from a different public wifi point.

      If you are going to do this kind of stuff, you need to CYA, this kid did not CYA in any way. In fact from what I remember, he was looking for some notoriety from it. A very dumb thing to do.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    64. Re:Too fucking bad.. by gizmonic · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? That would make sense, and we all know common sense has no place in American law!

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    65. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I like your plan.

      Let's start killing old Lawyers so that we can create 100,000,000 high paying jobs for kids going into college.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    66. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Most people say the prison system is to punish people who were being assholes in direct violation of the written rules our society has produced. So he belongs in fucking jail.

    67. Re:Too fucking bad.. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is it the case that if you happen to be ambivalent about Palin or *gasp*, even be a supporter, that your statements, which normally everyone would agree with, suddenly become inoperative?

      Yes, because you've demonstrated your stupidity by doing so.

      --
      That is all.
    68. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you have violated at least a dozen violations of the written rules your society has produced. Same with everyone else. Just put everyone in jail, for Chris'sake!

    69. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "no one was physically harmed or deprived of property, and he is no danger to society."

      Ok, so what in fact DID he do?

      - Violated someone's privacy. This is a harm, and if you think emotional harm is not as intense as physical harm, I encourage you to say that out loud. You are wrong on that count.

      - Oh, and this required the McCain/Aplin campaign to suspend use of email for a short period to reestablish security. How short a time? At the moment, even an hour could have had consequences. How about you giving up your email address and having all of your contacts notified of your new address. Much trouble for you?

      - HIPAA violations carry penalties also. Do we want to start qualifying the nature of the privacy violation? No, you don't want to do that.

      - Remember, his father was active in Democratic Party politics, he disclosed a fair amount of private information, and this was done at the 'height of the 2008 Presidential campaign'. This was not a random act of identity theft. Oh, and he did send stuff to Wikileaks. I'm not blaming Julian for publishing that, that's a separate issue, but Mr. Kennell knew what he waa doing, and it had an impact.

      Oh, and to add to my concern that we are not properly understanding the FBOP decision, the judge recommended that this young man spend his time in a 'halfway house'. Besides the reality that he would have been in a 'halfway house' with 'more dangerous individuals' (a qualitative assessment I'm not qualified to make), that is not the result required by Federal law. The law specifices incarceration, and perhaps FBOP decided that this convict should first serve time in an actual facility, and then qualify for the relaxed status, as other convict have to. Or more succinctly, like any other convict, he does time like they do, special treatment is unwarranted.

      Perhaps the judge should have sentenced him to probation? But that would open the judge to criticism of being improperly lenient, which is he is now getting a full dose of.

      A lot of the responses questioning the DBOP decision seem to be focused on minimizing this young man's crime based on his age, naivete, and *apparent* lack of harm caused. For those of you who forgot, some of the impacts of his actions:

      - 'Abusive' phone calls to most of the Palin family.
      - Disclosure of other email addresses against the wishes of those owners.
      - Disruption of communications with family, friends, co-workers, campaign staff.

      This whining is another case of minimizing a 'soft' crime. Not much different from trying to excuse any number of crimes committed by young individuals, primarily based on their age. Be careful. The next victim could be you. Will you be forgiving based soley on their age?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    70. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, some guy got sent to 5 years in prison for accessing his wife's email account with the password she had written down next to the computer.

      I'm sure some random person who actually hacked/social engineered his way into her account would get much worse.

    71. Re:Too fucking bad.. by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Bad analogy as nothing was broken. It's more like if someone enters through an unlocked window, and then just takes pictures of the inside of your house before leaving. It's some sort of crime, but most victims would be more concerned with making sure it can't happen again than with punishing the perpetrator.

    72. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      And hacking into someone's email box, whether Palin's or a Slashdot Slouch like mine's, is a federal offense.

      He shouldn't have been doing "this kind of stuff". This isn't white-hat/grey-hat stuff, this is cracking an account with bad intentions and result.

      I'm amazed that he got a low security prison. Would someone whose father was not a Democratic party functionary have received the same treatment?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    73. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I know it's a tired meme, but if he had done all of this "behind seven proxies" (or, hell, even behind just one), he would easily get away with it, even after posting the account's details on 4chan.

      Oh well... another case of lrn2tor.

    74. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Troll

      People with your low opinion of the sanctity of our Election Process. The crime is worse because he was trying to affect a national election by committing a crime. But if you're okay with it because it was Palin, then you open it up for everyone everywhere to try. What really must piss you off is that the guy didn't find any dirt on Palin.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    75. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems he's okay with not everybody being equal for the law.

    76. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Restil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure you don't get a say, but I find it a little surprising that the judge's recommendation was ignored.

      It wasn't ignored. However, it's just a recommendation, not a mandate. If the judge didn't want him in prison, he should have probated the sentence.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    77. Re:Too fucking bad.. by zonker · · Score: 0

      Good hackers are the ones that don't get caught because nobody knew were ever even there.

    78. Re:Too fucking bad.. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Great idea! Life before the unions was so nice! The bosses were all so sweet and kind! No one would be underpaid, overworked or hungry ever again!

    79. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC as http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=&cid=

      Don't be an ignorant twit. He 'hacked' her yahoo account. And by hacked, I mean looked up her security questions on the internet, and clicked on the reset password button. Then he posted the contents on the internets favorite asshole forum. Getting away with it wasn't on his mind at all. Embarrassing her was.

    80. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The password was not guessed, if I recall. Rather, he used social engineering to figure out those Security Questions ("Where did you go to school?") to reset the password, then used that to break in.

      It wasn't like the door was open, or the key left in the lock. It was like asking a neighbor to help you, telling them you were given a key but somehow lost it. It was done on false pretenses, which is pretty much breaking and entering. Yes, it's digital. Yes, people hate Palin. But a crime was committed. Regardless of whether it was done for the lulz, it's a form of identity theft. One that could have serious repercussions for the Palin family as a whole.

      People should be thinking twice about trying to break into another's e-mail account. Then a third time. In fact, they shouldn't be playing vigilante at all. They may be making an example out of him, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he did the crime. This is now him doing the time.

    81. Re:Too fucking bad.. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Funny but I feel the opposite way. This wasn't a celebrity it was a politician running on the presidential ticket. In effect it was an attack on the electoral process. I do not like Palin but to blame the victim also seems wrong.
      If someone gets mugged should they be blamed if they didn't park in a well lighted area or should the mugger get blamed.
      If someone's home gets broken into do you blame them for having cheap locks?

      Had it been Joe Lieberman that had gotten hacked I am sure that people would be after blood and sure that Bush was behind it. If the person that had done it was the son of a republican elected official then I am pretty sure we would see people with torches and pitchforks.

      It is really just not right to blame the victim. It is right to learn how better to protect one's self.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    82. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Tanktalus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he had hacked in to his neighbour's Yahoo! account and posted those details everywhere, his neighbour might not even find out because there would likely be no interested partisans wishing to harass him or his family. However, when you post private details of a famous person, the amount of interest goes up, and the harm follows the interest. A lot of people disagree with Palin, and, in any group of some size, there are wackos who take it too far, and that's what happened here. Wackos got hold of the information and started harassing Palin and/or her family.

      It's about the same reason why a DUI gets a lesser punishment than a DUI-causing-bodily harm which gets a lesser punishment than a DUI-causing-death. It's simple: the harm is different, thus the punishment is different.

      Should Palin be required to better secure her email? Of course. Her handlers are somewhat to blame here - much like Obama, I don't expect either of them to be IT experts, but I expect that they have some on staff. However, being large targets, with sufficient pools of wackos opposed to them, it's merely a matter of time before web-based email gets hacked for either one of them, regardless of the strength of their passwords or reminder questions/answers. In Obama's case, his accounts merely need to survive his one-or-two terms in office, then interest will wane. Palin's weak security just allowed it to happen faster.

    83. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh come now, party influence doesn't amount to much unless you are actually important. Even then, democrats on average don't do the same level of stuff as the republicans; they may be similar but they are not equal. Democrats even have a bit of a reputation of eating their own while republicans might just join in the condemnations at the time. Look at the new speaker-- caught handing out bribes (actual money) on the floor of the house for votes with only some minor words he turns around and gets the top spot years later. Go ahead find a counter example and use that to prove your inability to argue. (I didn't use universals so single counter examples do not disprove anything. That won't stop somebody from recalling the last outrage FOX Propaganda created about some democrat-- its never as bad as FOX "reports" it even when there actually is something there--- and when there is the democrats don't rally around the wagons to defend each other--- Dems act like cats and the Republicans act like dogs.. quite different, still pets to the same corporate masters who feed them.)

    84. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this guy wasn't charged with a felony for accessing his wife's email account? Or is Clara Walker a member of the "ruling class"?

    85. Re:Too fucking bad.. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what is hacking? when is your email 'inbox' private?

      its not so private as you think. if you are at work, your employer has the right (so they say and so they act) to look at your emails (live or on disk) all they want. they can tap your phone, too, at work.

      lets talk about the gov, now. all govs (world wide) want to have the ability to peer into your inbox. probably about half of them already can do this and the US most certainly can (it 'owns' the backbone router points and so it 'owns' the net for all practical purposes).

      federal offense only for peons to invade privacy.

      but if you're even slightly higher than a peon and have some official power or title, you can get access to email contents without a huge amount of effort.

      I don't agree with the hacking (so to speak) but I also see a huge mixed message about 'privacy' and the world, as it is, has not really figured out who GETS absolute privacy and who does not.

      why is it ok for all traffic in the US to be pattern sniffed, thresholded and triggered - yet one guy guesses a password and now he's being thrown into a bottomless pit?

      too many conflicting 'ethics' headaches with all of this. different rules for different ruling classes. yeah...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    86. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      " Guessing someones password to yahoo mail, does not seem like a severe crime to me"

      Actually that might not be a crime. But actually *using* it is a crime. So confirming that you guessed their password is the first crime.

      In the ancient days of amateur radio, it was law that while you could listen to other peoples' transmissions, you could not divulge the contents to others, nor take actions based on such eavesdropping. It's pretty easy to listen in to otehr peoples' conversations, and you might do so to tune your rig, test equipment, verify propogation, so outlawing that was pointless. But it was (and is) properly wrong to take advantage of the contents. This should be obvious. Same thing with guessing passwords and accessing email. Oh, and Mr. Kenell didn't guess the password, he guessed the security questions and changed the password. Overt and intentional.

      "if anything Sarah Palin should be schooled on password security and disciplined for sharing sensitive information over yahoo of all things"

      Fine. You're assuming, I think, that Yahoo Mail should be considered insecure. I work for a financial institution also, and I don't use external emails for business not because they are insecure, but because my employer wants me to use their system which they have control of and can take responsibility for. that's important - they don't declare other systems insecure, they just recognize they have no control over other systems, and so require empliyees to use systems they DO have control of. You're deciding that the Palins should be using a different system? Care to recommend one?

      "Making examples of people just because they have upset a celebrity figure is barbarian and i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there. Where i come from everyone is equal, a crime against a politician holds the same weight as a crime against your average citizen."

      Well, I think average citizens are charged with that crime,and some have faced civil actions.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    87. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are retarded.

    88. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Sure, habitual offenders might need something a little more tough but in this case we're talking about someone who never broke any laws before."

      Um, fix this:

      "Sure, habitual offenders might need something a little more tough but in this case we're talking about someone who was never caught breaking any laws before."

      There. More accurate.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    89. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Private communications with minor children.

      I hope they're not D minor children, they're the saddest of all.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    90. Re:Too fucking bad.. by ksheff · · Score: 0

      I agree that jailing "low impact criminals" is too expensive considering what they did. I suggest that we follow Singapore's lead and beat their asses to a bloody pulp with a cane. Then make them do community service.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    91. Re:Too fucking bad.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 0

      Aw man, why do you have to go disabusing people of their misguided self-righteous indignation? Don't you know everything is ok so long as it's done to people who are unpopular?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    92. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CIting exceptions doesn't make what he did legal or ethical at all, did it? Was Palin his employer? No. I'm self-employed. I own my own emails. Your circumstances may be different.

      If governments are looking into my email, it's without legal standing. Peon or not, it's still not legal or ethical.

      You may or may not be pattern sniffed; I operate within the construct that my actions are legal, and protected constitutionally. Ethics are real, and sadly absent. Reviving them is a way back to civility and the common good.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    93. Re:Too fucking bad.. by jahudabudy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reality is that the US prison system is formed around the principle of punishment.

      And profit. Prisons are sub-contracted to private interests, that are paid in part on a per convict basis. There are documented instances of judges being convicted of taking kickbacks to supply more "product" to the prison industry, i.e. prisoners. There are simply some functions in a civilized society that must be stripped of profit motivation in order to insure justice.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    94. Re:Too fucking bad.. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      That's not just some sort of crime. It's trespassing and it's absolutely punishable. And i think people do take it pretty seriously. Even in the event that there is no barrier, there are laws that govern if you can or can not enter an area. You can walk from federal land onto private land, and if convicted here, you could face jail time. There is nothing between the two parcels of land but an imaginary border.

      a password, no matter how flimsy, is a barrier that must be circumvented. It's in the victim's best interest to choose a strong password, just as it's in the homeowner's best interest to erect the proper barriers. it's better to not be a victim in the first place and all that.

    95. Re:Too fucking bad.. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that it's gone far from some idea of penance. It seems that it's merely about retribution, a model of justice that serves no one.

      I take that back; it does serve a few; the prisons and police get large amounts of taxpayer money, and the prosecutors and politicians get their "tough on crime" bona fides. The rest of us, though, suffer.

      --
      SSC
    96. Re:Too fucking bad.. by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      He didn't guess her password, he guessed the answer to the secret question used to reset her password. If I remember right, the question was, "Where did you meet your husband?" The answer –"Wasilla High."

      Coverage of this story would be much better if it communicated how terrible it is to secure an account with such un-secret "secret" knowledge.

    97. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Dammital · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they feel, as I do, that the punishment is out of proportion with the crime.

      Remember the "Disproportionate Response" episode of The West Wing?

      Bartlet: But they know we are going to do that, they know we are going to do that. Those areas have been abandoned for days. We know that from the satellites. We have the intelligence. They did that, so we do this. It's the cost of doing business, it's been factored in, right? Am I right or am I missing something here?
      Fitzwallace: No sir, you're right sir.
      Bartlet: Then I ask again, what is the virtue of a proportional response?
      Fitzwallace: It isn't virtuous Mr. President, it's all there is sir.
      Bartlet: It is not all there is.
      Fitzwallace: Pardon me, Mr. President, just what else is there?
      Bartlet: A disproportionate response. Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don't come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!
      Unnamed General: Are you suggesting we carpet bomb Damascus?
      Bartlet: General, I am suggesting that you and Admiral Fitzwallace and Secretary Hutchinson and the rest of the national security team take the next sixty minutes and put together a U.S. response scenario that doesn't make me think we are just docking somebody's damn allowance.

      (Dialogue lifted from http://intelcarpet.blogspot.com/2008/12/disproportionate-response.html)

    98. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you enjoy sucking Obama's dick?

    99. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The exact same thing happened in Greece 10 years ago. A prominent journalist hired a hacker to break into the account of the mother of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs G. Papandreou (now the Prime Minister of Greece). Naturally, a suit followed but the judge ruled the opposite; the judge ruled that since the emails proved that his mother was not only engaged in political life, but she was also instructing her son's decisions, there was a reasonable public interest for those emails and consequently the reporter did good to publish them, exercising her rights of informing the public.

      An archived article is here (in Greek; couldn't find it in English): http://news.in.gr/greece/article/?aid=510755/

    100. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead find a counter example...

      Don't feed the AC troll.

    101. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guessing someones password to yahoo mail, does not seem like a severe crime to me, if anything Sarah Palin should be schooled on password security and disciplined for sharing sensitive information over yahoo of all things. I work for a bank, and if i had emails on yahoo related to my work and got caught, i would be dismissed, end of story.

      This is the problem with the moronic "secret question". They should just ask for two passwords if it is so f-ing important (e.g., an account password and a customer service password). I don't expect the average person to know just how fucking moronic Yahoo and Bank of America and others are for their "secret question" bullshit.

    102. Re:Too fucking bad.. by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      If someone guessed the combination of my lock to my writing shed*, walked in, took photos of my private correspondence, and posted them on the internet in an attempt to discredit me, I'd sure as hell want them punished! And rightly so!

      You would to, and you're a dirty rotten liar if you say otherwise.

      *I don't have a writing shed, but I was trying to think of something you might protect with a combination lock.

    103. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God.

      A more Christian thought regarding penance is "Go, and sin no more." the roman catholic version of penance is not Christian in origin.

    104. Re:Too fucking bad.. by he-sk · · Score: 1

      "Sure, habitual offenders might need something a little more tough but in this case we're talking about someone who never broke any laws before."

      Um, fix this:

      "Sure, habitual offenders might need something a little more tough but in this case we're talking about someone who was never caught breaking any laws before."

      There. More accurate.

      In the eyes of the law both statements mean exactly the same thing. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    105. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      This system does not seem to be a well-oiled machine:

      Not well oiled, just well greased.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    106. Re:Too fucking bad.. by operagost · · Score: 2

      Like the democrats are going to screw their base like that.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    107. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Zomalaja · · Score: 1

      If you are at work, it's not your inbox.

    108. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Committing a crime in order to manipulate an election isn't something you'd send someone to jail over? You sure? It's much more obvious that what he did was against the law then what Tom Delay did; the difference is that you've chosen to take political sides.

    109. Re:Too fucking bad.. by he-sk · · Score: 1

      I understand that breaking into someone else's email account is illegal, but I don't get this influencing-the-election angle. Isn't this what typically happens during an election? Journalists, competitors and other parties exposing information about the candidates? His actions exposed that Sarah Palin -- a politician campaigning for an elected office -- was also breaking the law. Isn't this information highly relevant in an election?

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    110. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this society I don't think there is much (if any) room for prison labor to benefit society; however, in the past it was beneficial to do so; to the point where the south was shipping in Africans. Also at that time prisoners in that economy worked hard and were almost as low as the slave labor.

      What was discovered by thinkers of the day was that a non-slave can be worked harder and exploited more by letting them be "free" but by economically enslaving them (more like a serf.) This way you give them a little hope and less resentment while you put them in a bind using indirect methods-- so there is less hatred focused upon a single master. This abstraction does wonders and it also allows the masters to get larger and more powerful.

      If you don't look at the whole picture, prison creates jobs--- the prison system, especially the private one-- wants to create more prisoners and lobby heavily-- politicians think of filling their local prisons -- they boost the economy while looking tough on crime - win/win --- nevermind the fact it hurts the society who is too stupid to realize what is going on. SAME WITH THE MILITARY!!! The military does no good unless you are under attack; yet we count the military as employed when they are a leach on society-- thanks to Carter (full time navy captain).... Until Carter made military employed, the prior hundred years considered them as part of the unemployed - not because they literally had no job, but because their job was NOT part of the economy and shouldn't be in the statistics as a positive contribution, they are an overhead cost not an asset. Of course it didn't greatly undermine the numbers to do this because the USA was already cooking the books on unemployment for decades and now its ridiculous what they call unemployed --- its about half what it should be. It is "juking the stats" is what it is...actually its worse, its just fucking them up. If they ever wanted real numbers they'd go to the IRS who knows exactly who's employed and/or making income.... Like functional governments do---Canada for example.

    111. Re:Too fucking bad.. by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God

      Yah, which is why Muslim, Jewish, and communist/"atheist" nations use the same model. Because they've all been influenced by christianity.

      I'm not one to defend christianity, but if there's one thing I dislike more than religion it's dumb arguments which baselessly attack religion. Christianity does enough stupid shit without you having to make up things to blame on it.

    112. Re:Too fucking bad.. by operagost · · Score: 1

      So, is our system formed around the idea of punishment, or of "penance"? They aren't the same. Punishment is intended to prevent a second offense, and to dissuade others from committing the same crime. So, with your system solely based on "threat isolation", does this mean that a hacker will get a lifetime ban from all devices attached to a network?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    113. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 0

      This is Sarah Palin. I imagine she gets so many abusive emails, she has a secretary dedicated to deleting them.

    114. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He found dirt. It just wan't very good dirt. As scandals go, it was uimportant, and almost insignificent beside more serious concerns.

    115. Re:Too fucking bad.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      except he wasn't convicted of that. He was convicted of obstruction of justice because he panicked and tried to cover his tracks.

      So his treatment his actually harsher then it would normally be. If you are going to cast suspicions, then it's would be far more likely a supporter of Pail is involved in the placement process and decided this guy should be unduly punished.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    116. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      Well I suppose you're right. Any prison system that can successfully hold a full tenth of a population without raising eyebrows is pretty disturbingly successful.

    117. Re:Too fucking bad.. by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that they are making an example of him seems to reinforce the view that an individual invading the privacy of a political figure is somehow worse than the reversed situation. Sounds like a very bad message to be sending, to me.

      That's precisely the problem. I doubt I could get the cops to even talk to me if I said someone hacked my account. We have a case of a bad divorce and a guy reading his wife's email getting a felony conviction. I wonder just who her daddy is.

      When justice is not applied equally and fairly, we have a serious problem. Someone steals my car, the cops aren't likely to ever catch him. Someone steals Palin's car, he's probably going to get 20 years in supermax.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    118. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Hypothetically, what would have happened if he has hacked into the account of some unimportant person without governmental connections? I imagine absolutly nothing. The police wouldn't consider him worth the time to investigate, and the feds wouldn't consider him worth the effort of prosecuting. The worst he'd get is the loss of service from his ISP if they recieved a complaint - and probably not even that, as ISPs ignore most complaints due to the cost of investigating them. This is why there is so much anger at the jail time. It's percieved as an example of people being unequal under the law - of Palin's place in the spotlight and friends in government ensuring that even her personal, non-government email is more protected. Of the nobility warning the surfs to keep their heads down do as they are told.

    119. Re:Too fucking bad.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewert, really? yeah, rich people come out relatively fine.

      Wow, you're a genius.

      I know that, it's still a waste of resource, and a more likely chance to be worse coming out and going in.

      You look like a simpleton when you cherry pick. I suggest you learn to look at the large data set. Not just now, but with all future discussions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    120. Re:Too fucking bad.. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      I work for a bank, and if i had emails on yahoo related to my work and got caught, i would be dismissed, end of story.

      Well, yes, you or I should be dismissed for being reckless with sensitive information. But in Palin's case, you can't fire a quitter!

      ...i'm not an American... Where i come from everyone is equal, a crime against a politician holds the same weight as a crime against your average citizen.

      You caught the difference already - things are different for us, and the American justice system is not fair or equal for all. The system greatly favors those who wield political power, have powerful friends, or are rich. There is a real disparity between how minorities and poor people are sentenced compared to wealthy or otherwise notable white people. The statistics don't lie, and poor minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison population, to a great degree.
      Folks who can't afford their own lawyers are found guilty of crimes at a much higher rate than those who have money, and they are also sentenced more harshly. Even some laws are skewed as they exist on the books, before court even comes into play, such as the way possession or sale of crack cocaine (a drug whose users are disproportionately black and poor) often carries much heftier penalties than a similar crime involving powder cocaine (which is effectively the same drug but used mainly by whites and has been considered glamorous at times). Even the pre-trial bond release system is unfair, as it places an unrealistic burden on people of meager means.

      Considering past precedent (which our justice system claims to rely so heavily on), guessing a password and publishing someone's email without permission should probably warrant probation and a small fine for anyone without a lengthy record of prior criminal activity. Federal prison is completely out of line with normal sentencing, and the BoP's curious decision is quite ridiculous when our prisons are already filled to capacity and community-based sanctions have been proven to work reliably and efficiently.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    121. Re:Too fucking bad.. by raddan · · Score: 1

      When you're at work, you're using someone else's computer on someone else's network on someone else's time, and you're probably using a business email account that represents a business. A business has every right to read that email.

      Now, a company might decide to be nice and let you check your own email and make phone calls (using their telephones) on their time, but they don't have to. I don't have any problem with this. Now if they want to look at my email on my home computer when I'm not at work, well, that's a different story.

    122. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it isn't so bad, why don't you go post the last year or so of all your emails, unedited, on all of your accounts online for the world to read.

    123. Re:Too fucking bad.. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Yea, that would teach him his lesson, and teach everyone else that all they need to do is act dumb and they can screw with the communications of an election campaign in a hope to influence results and break into peoples emails and all they will get is "the lightest of punishments" in order to "rehabilitate" them. Sentences are always meant to be both punishment to the offender and deterrents to the rest of society. Rehabilitation is tertiary and should never be used as the main objective of sentencing. Once a person has been sentenced THEN the systems goal should be rehabilitation while they serve their sentence.

    124. Re:Too fucking bad.. by ddt · · Score: 1

      Much as I disapprove of Palin, I have to admit, if you only fine and don't imprison, then during the next election, you're going to get people hacking into accounts because it's just smart campaign warfare, and there's a simple, measurable cost to it instead of incarceration.

    125. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Celebrity brings money. Money brings lawyers. Michael Jackson is a good example - he had multible children testify that he molested them, and he actually admitted to sleeping with them in his bed (Though denied anything sexual) and giving them alcohol. Can you imagine anyone of normal funding and status possibly getting away with that? And he almost mocked the court throughout the trial too, making it into a media circus. Yet he managed, through the power of super-lawyers who had the skill to endlessly cross-question witnesses until the children remembered a few tiny details differently and use that to call their testimony into question.

    126. Re:Too fucking bad.. by xero314 · · Score: 0

      He was actually protecting the sanctity of our Election Process. Most candidates spread negative advertising about there opponents instead of revealing the truth about themselves. This kind of negative campaigning is against the sanctity or our Election Process. So this hacker was just trying to help Palin get her own words out to the people, directly, without spin doctors. The actual words and thoughts of our Elected officials is exactly what we need in our Election Process (I'm sure we could have avoided Dubya if we had been able to here him speak directly, before the election).

    127. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      This is one of the charges that stuck, as the others didn't. If he's becoming a poster boy, my comments still stand. Probation for obstruction doesn't fit the crime, it seems to me. I don't think that Palin has any control whatsoever over the DoJ's recommendation. Heaven help us if she ever does.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    128. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this crime is that we don't really know the extent of the harm. The primary harm from an invasion of privacy comes from someone getting information that other's would rather they not have. As it turns out, I have very little private information in my email inbox, so there would be very little harm to me for someone hacking it. But, others might have very private things there, in which case there would be significant harm.

      In determining how "dangerous" hacking into someone's email is, we have to assign some default degree of harm.

    129. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are completely retarded, as other anons point out, I'll also point out that they DO tear down houses and other old buildings, and it DOES in fact, help out the areas it's done in.

      TL;DR: you're retarded.

    130. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, the ease of committing a crime shouldn't absolve the person who committed the crime. There should be no difference between me kicking in your front door, picking the locks, or you leaving the door unlocked and making copies of your personal and confidential information then using it against you.

      And seeing how this is somewhat related to politics as the motive was connected to her run for vice president, I'm not sure how this is much different from the Watergate hotel break in's in which many of the participants were sentenced to 5 or more years in pound me in the ass prison.

      Second, given the political connections of this story, I would claim that the reason he got such a light sentence in the first place revolves around the fact that his daddy was a politician himself. If history is an indicator of punishment for breaking into something in order to gain political advantage over a candidate for federal office, he should have gotten 5 years minimum instead of the one year with a recommendation to make it as painless as possible.

      Finally, something I think many people are missing in this in some sort of effort to associate blame for disregarding the judge's recommendations with Palin despite their being a democrat executive at the time, is that currently the US is dealing from damage over leaks of confidential and secret information on several fronts. There is the wikileaks issues with Bradly Manning, there is the over the holidays, I'm in charge of security but I'll click this link anyways situation, and there are known breaches in US government networks that are attempting to be patched right now. So making this an example is something that's within the government's interest right now. They feel the need to send a message that if you do the crime, you will do the time. I doubt many people convicted of similar crimes when remotely connected to government or political candidates for government offices, will get such a light sentence in the future. They will likely get a sentence that they normally would have got if daddy wasn't a politician or they will get the max in every time because the government needs to send a message.

    131. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I just entered 'palin residential address' into google. The second hit not only gives her address, but an overhead photo showing exactly where to find it.

      http://alaskareport.com/news109/x71361_sarah_palins_home_address.htm

      So anyone who wants to harass Palin in person doesn't need compromised emails. There she is. Go for it.

      Though for someone of her prominence, I imagine there is a razor-wire fence, alarm system and a few guards to stop that happening.

    132. Re:Too fucking bad.. by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      One percent. Only about one one-hundredth of the people in the US are incarcerated currently.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    133. Re:Too fucking bad.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Everyone has broken a law. I'm sure you too. Ever dropped a crisp packet in the street?

    134. Re:Too fucking bad.. by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      What country has 1/10th of it's population in prison???

    135. Re:Too fucking bad.. by twright0 · · Score: 2

      He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.

      The wisdom of Office Space seems applicable here.

      Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. Why do you ask, anyway?

    136. Re:Too fucking bad.. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yeah we should definitely base criminal justice on a crappy TV show. And btw that attitude of disproportionate response is one of many reasons why people fly planes into your buildings.

    137. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Graff · · Score: 1

      I understand that breaking into someone else's email account is illegal, but I don't get this influencing-the-election angle. Isn't this what typically happens during an election? Journalists, competitors and other parties exposing information about the candidates?

      There's a difference between illegal influence and legal influence. The legal system is put into place to curtail abuses and circumventing it opens us up to increased abuses. This is not to say that there can't be legal abuses, just that the legality of actions will tend to curb abuses.

      If there isn't a serious threat of imprisonment for abusing the system then we quickly degenerate into any action being justifiable in the repudiation of a candidate. Person A thinks he has good reason to destroy a candidate and thus breaks into an account owned by them and plants false information or simply releases true information in a damning pattern. The laws and the penal system constrain this sort of behavior because they regulate how personal information can be controlled and released by all parties, hopefully in a fair manner for all sides.

      There's also the factor of major verses minor players. Major players will usually have more assets who are able to perform hacking and data mining than minor players. The laws serve as a balancer between the major and minor players because the minor players can usually rely on the authorities to protect them to some extent. If the laws are subverted then this situation degrades even further.

      No system is perfect but at least some protection is better than none, clearly there has to be a serious threat of punishment for subverting the system of laws in order for the system to have a chance at working.

    138. Re:Too fucking bad.. by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Prison should be for violent offenders. This person didn't run through a shopping mall with an uzi gunning down families.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    139. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Americano · · Score: 1

      You're right - because a low-budget 90's comedy about office drones is guaranteed to be a factually accurate representation.

    140. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Ohh yea lets get rid of all unions, cause the works should have no rights!! /sarc

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    141. Re:Too fucking bad.. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      What, and you find 1% acceptable? That is still a huge number of people!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    142. Re:Too fucking bad.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

      Amen. Since when do we get to select the location of our prison? As to the severity of the crime/punishment cycle, he selected his target based on her visibility, now he gets punished based on her visibility. Where's the problem?

      --
      Organization? You must be joking..
    143. Re:Too fucking bad.. by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the flip-side: we also let celebrities go free. Like OJ Simpson. The US justice system participates in the cult of personality just like the rest of the country.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    144. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot. If you want more intelligent discussion, try YouTube.

    145. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. And all the people who got busted in watergate should be vindicated too. Cause they never would have gotten those 5 and 10 year pound you in the ass prison sentences if what they did happened to any other person.

      It's not like we don't have a history of people breaking into things they shouldn't have been into in the first place and taking private information for political use hoping to effect the outcome of a US election. I mean seriously, the only thing that's different is the means to the end. Are you suggesting that when the watergate criminals assumed the identity of workers in order to gain access, they violated no laws or shouldn't have been held accountable?

    146. Re:Too fucking bad.. by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      you got the order wrong and you were trying to be sarcastic but you are mostly correct in saying that :

      Muslim, Jewish, and communist/"atheist" nations use the same model. Because they've all been influenced by Christianity.

      The correct way to state it would be : Muslim, Christian, and communist/"atheist" nations use the same model. Because they've all been influenced by Judaism.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    147. Re:Too fucking bad.. by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      Do you know what statute she broke? I tried to google and found nothing. If she broke any laws they wouldn't be US they would be Alaskan. I don't think her email account was 'highly illegal' at all.

    148. Re:Too fucking bad.. by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      just 1/100, just 1/100, it is worse than fascist China for Christ sake !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    149. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well he also exposed that palin was using a personal email account for public business. Shall we call him Assuange Jr.?

    150. Re:Too fucking bad.. by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      Guessing someones password to yahoo mail, does not seem like a severe crime to me,

      moosehunter2 ?

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    151. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      was never caught breaking any laws before."

      Prove it.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    152. Re:Too fucking bad.. by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

      ohh, so he's getting tutored by all the fraudulent investment bankers and upper management staff from Enron and the like?
      This kid as a bright future ahead of him then.

    153. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      He is convicted and sentenced. The law doesn't really care about any potential and undetected criminal behavior, and the judge seems to have sentenced him to the minimum necessary to ensure a felony, but no more.

      We, however, are unfettered by such limitations, and can speculate on his past acts and potential future acts.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    154. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      CIting exceptions doesn't make what he did legal or ethical at all, did it? Was Palin his employer?

      No, but as a public official she was in a sense his employee. His intent was to find evidence of criminal and ethical violations - which he did. He found and posted evidence of Palin conducting government business (correspondence with other public officials) via a private email account that was not subject to public archival. She was even charged as a result, but she was found not guilty due to the law in alaska being too vague.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    155. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't click through any of the links I offered.

      This issue of accessing peoples' email accounts is a significant issue in civil cases, and is rarely but regularly prosecuted in relation to divorces, identity theft, and other fairly low-profile cases.

      Just because it's not widely reported doesn't mean it's not happening.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    156. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're ok with Hilary Clinton telling her underlings to steal email account information from their contacts. I don't see her on trial or being accused of the crimes. Don't forget it's not success, but intent in the eyes of the courts. Strange she isn't behind bars isn't it. She'd be doing life x 2000+ if this case was applied to her.

    157. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way beyond that is, 'Why would a judge not want this hacker in jail'? That's most disturbing.

    158. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I sure have, and paid the fines.

      I just haven't committed any felonies that I know of.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    159. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Not even close. I'm not, you're not, and he's not a government employee. He was not an investigator. He had no warrant. He had no probable cause. This is about him, not her. Do you want everything you write scrutinized in emails? You have a right to privacy, so does she. That she was doing evil stuff is not the issue here-- the ends don't justify the means.

      I don't care for Palin at all, but her email is private, and so are the rest of emails save for the employee relationship mentioned upthread, which can't be applied here.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    160. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he an Alaskan? No. So she was not "his employee" any more than, say, HITLER!

    161. Re:Too fucking bad.. by quadelirus · · Score: 1

      Your employer has the right to look at whatever you do with _their_ computers. They cannot come to your home and look at your gmail account or use your company email password to get into your gmail account. This is obviously different. Your gmail account is private in that sense.

    162. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a fucking spy. He should be shot.

    163. Re:Too fucking bad.. by digit1001 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he should be out pending an appeal like Tom Delay. I guess he can now claim he was convicted in "one of the most conservative districts in the country..." I thought the guy's dad was connected. I'm surprised he's serving time at all.

    164. Re:Too fucking bad.. by bwintx · · Score: 1
      Obligatory My Cousin Vinny quotes from IMDB:

      [Vinny is the lawyer, but Stan thinks he is there to sodomize him]
      Vinny Gambini: Look, it's either me or them. You're gettin' fucked one way or the other.
      [Stan tries to get up]
      Vinny Gambini: Hey, relax, I'm gonna help you.
      Stan: Gee thanks.
      Vinny Gambini: Excuse me, I think a modicum of gratitude would not be out of line here.
      Stan: You think I should be grateful?
      Vinny Gambini: Yeah, it's your ass, not mine. I think you should be grateful. I think you should be down on your fuckin' knees.
      Stan: I didn't know it was such an honor to get a visit from you.
      Vinny Gambini: I'm doing a favor, you know. You're gettin' me for nothing, you little fuck!
      Stan: That's one hell of an ego you got.
      Vinny Gambini: What the fuck is your problem? I did not come down here just to get jerked off.
      Stan: I'm not jerking you off. I'm not doing anything.
      Vinny Gambini: That's it. You're on your own. I'll just take care of Sleeping Beauty.
      [Wakes up Bill]
      Bill: Vinny. Vinny bag o' donuts.

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    165. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You've shown your utter lack of policy and reading comprehension as well. It was spelled out twice to you, so I'm not going to spoon-feed the community service ideas again.

      Go look up the definition of clunker. (Hint: It's not "a perfectly good car.") The problem with Cash for Clunkers was a lack of available funds, coupled with the program allowing what *were* perfectly good cars to be considered clunkers.

    166. Re:Too fucking bad.. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Had it been Joe Lieberman that had gotten hacked I am sure that people would be after blood and sure that Bush was behind it.

      Terrible example. Everyone hates Joe Lieberman.

      Anyway, no, the election process was not subverted. And I don't like paying taxes to house and feed non-violent criminals.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    167. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that while an individual invading the privacy of a political figure isn't worse than the reverse situation (a political figure invading the privacy of an individual), it *is* worse than an individual invading the privacy of another private individual. Invading the privacy of a political figure doesn't just hurt the person whose privacy you invaded; it helps destroy the democratic process.

    168. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but as a public official she was in a sense his employee. .

      In no way was she an employee. She was his just and lawful ruler. A person who you did not hire, cannot fire, does not do what you ask, who you do not set compensation for and who can have you thrown in prison and subjected to thousands of dollars of legal costs with a phone call is not your employee. Treat them as such at your peril.

      We really should recognize 'public servants' are simply American aristocracy but I guess they'd rather we didn't.

    169. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dipshit, community service as in "Pick up trash along the highway for 100 hours." It's a standard punishment, like fines or imprisonment.

    170. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Prove he was never caught? Gee, by all accounts he did not have a record. That was partly my point. Are you expecting me to prove he WAS caught?

      Focus. It's pretty common to claim that perpetrators of certain crimes are inevitably guilty of previous offenses, but not others. No proof was implied by me, just noting that the assumption of no previous acts was probably as unwarranted as your claim that we should not assume he WAS guilty of any previous acts.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    171. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then 'most people' need to get their heads out of clouds and learn a) the difference between an 'ideal' system and one that must function in the real world, and b) how the real systems works. (And it actually does work very well.)

      You have no clue about working well. Please define well?

      It costs to imprison. We pay. I am for a restitution model for non-violent offenders.

      There is a federal commison that has been formed to define how broken the system is and to make a plan to fix it.
      This is done so politicians can get cover and blame the commison for being "soft on crime".

      We can not lock up our way to a productive safe society, hasnt worked yet and we are real good at locking people up.

      Why is it great to pay for a criminal, but not so much for the impoverished? Seems prison is our new poor program.

    172. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spagheti Monster bless America.
      Do you see the irony? I didn't see any politician or policeman who urged spying on citizens go to prison. But these are for security reasons, right? It is not the same! Palin has a right of privacy but not an ordinary citizen.

      If a politician/policeman had done such a thing here, the next day the goverment would collapse, and the relevant party would get negative votes.

      Have a nice day, though.

      -

      I post as anonymous coward because I am afraid of America (only few Americans - Palin for example).

    173. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Americano · · Score: 2

      His dad's a congressman.

      I'd say his chances of being corrupted by his surroundings are pretty much even.

    174. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many laws carry a 'heavy' penalty. For example stealing someones mail that is up to a 500,000 dollar fine and up to a 10 year trip in federal prison. The idea is that it is not really 'that big of a deal'. But the punishment for doing it is so big the 'no big of a deal' becomes one. Some people take their privacy a bit more seriously than you do. For example say Steve Jobs. I bet people would love to rumage thru his mail/email. But he takes his privacy very seriously. You probably could rummage thru my junk mail and I wouldnt care much. But other people do not even like you doing that. Otherwise you would have people digging thru everyone elses mailboxes as 'its not that big of a deal'. People are snoopy, even when it is none of their business.

    175. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a fine were the only thing levied, then he would declare bankruptcy, it'd go away without him paying hardly anything, and he moved on as a "winner"

      Nope, sorry, put his ass in jail.

    176. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Usagi_yo · · Score: 1

      The problem then is political opponents at the national level are all too happy to pay fines for breach of campaign laws and soft laws, It becomes a numbers game. Does the fine buy more political hay then say a valid expenditure? I don't know if anybody has mentioned it, but the hackers father Mike Kernell is a Democrat and politician from Tennesee, you don't have to stretch your imagination too much to see the point I'm making.

    177. Re:Too fucking bad.. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why.

      In what way is "making an example" out of someone consistent with the concept of fair and equitable justice?

    178. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you enjoy sucking Obama's dick?

      You don't have to be in love with Obama to realize that Palin's a twit.

      Personally, I think there are many, many people who would be better presidents than Obama. But I'd rather have a burlap sack of dirt in the White House than Sarah Palin.

    179. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the case, then why not a simple beating? Quick, cheap, usually effective.

    180. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like reporting the illegitimate child of a VP candidate? No, that was the Enquirer, reporting about Edwards and the MSM ignored it forever. Like Having $90,000 of bribe money in your freezer and keeping your House seat? No, that was a Democrat and largely ignored by MSM, it was real and it was reported by FOX. Like reporting the DUI of a presidential candidate the day before the election? That was FOX reporting on Bush. Like making up lies about popular conservative radio hosts, Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, even accusing them of complicity of murder? That was MSM and the Left in general. The term MSDNC is more accurate than their common abbreviation.

    181. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we still have the death penalty, too, while most other developed countries do not.

      It seems that it's merely about retribution, a model of justice that serves no one.

      Clearly neither of you have had the pleasure of seeing convicted criminals appearing in the coliseum. No matter if they are fighting each other to the death or facing vicious beasts from exotic lands, either way it is a most glorious spectacle and besides serving as punishment for the wrongdoers it also has the benefit of providing a multitude of benefits to society.

    182. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      No, you insinuated he had been a criminal and had never been caught. Prove he broke laws previously, or your talking out your ass.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    183. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      OJ was found innocent (not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), if you want to make a comparison, look at Lindsay Lohan, she got probation where most people would have, then continued to screw up so got smacked down.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    184. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Or outsourcing non-violent hacking crimes. Say, sending to a small village in Siberia where the only way out is a bus once a month and boarding is supervised by a cop. Certainly, no Internet for a thousand miles around.

      No way to walk away due to marches, woods and wolves.

      To survive in such a village during winter one has to work a lot outdoors while preparing firewood for a stove. Very healthy and could clean a head.

      I heard Germany and Russia did something like this in the field of a penitentiary outsourcing for young criminals.

    185. Re:Too fucking bad.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Yeah but don't be, it was a non-violent crime, low escape risk so there was no need to go to medium or higher security facility for incarceration, they are going completely by the book simply because his Dad is connected. He'll do 6 months, then they'll wave the parole carrot under his nose and he'll be on parole for another year and be in the halfway house for 6 months of that year.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    186. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few federal or state prisons are privately operated. Private sub-contracted prisons are the exception, not the rule (unless you live in Texas or Arizona). But you are correct that profit is the motivation for just about all prisons. In California, the highest paid state employees are "public safety" classifications, which includes prison guards. The most powerful union in the state is the prison guard's union and the most powerful department in the state government is the Department of Corrections. They are the ones whose campaign contributions elect most of the politicians.

    187. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Making examples of people just because they have upset a celebrity figure is barbarian and i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there.

      It's not acceptable to anybody but those in power. We have no recourse but revolt, and we're all still fat enough that it's "just not worth it" yet.

    188. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      It's not up to the DOJ, it's not up to the judge. The judge determines how much time you'll spend, but the only organization that decides where a federal convict spends their time is the US Bureau of Prisons. There are guidelines, such as being housed near your family so that they can visit and considering the elements and nature of your crime and placing you with like convicts. However they are guidelines and they only do their best to meet them. I have personal experience with an ex-girlfriend who got in trouble and after violating her probation, based on her non-violent record they decided she should be in a minimum security prison camp (club fed as it were). However the nearest such facility was over a thousand miles away. So that's where they sent her.

    189. Re:Too fucking bad.. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2

      I don't see this as much different than the cash-for-clunkers program. The idea is that after rendering all moving parts inoperable so they can't be sold as used replacements, you smash what was a perfectly good car.

      "Clunker" == "perfectly good car"? No...you miss that the main stated purpose of the program was to get old, poor mileage, highly polluting vehicles off the road in favor of newer less polluting vehicles. In order to qualify, your old car had to meet certain specifications as "clunker" (see here).

      That said, I think in the end the main purpose of the program *was* as a sop to the ailing auto industry. However, the logic of your rant implies that the justification for the program was simply an application of the broken window fallacy, which is clearly not true.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    190. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      The judge was likely able to suspend most or all of the sentence, or make it all probation, but half-way house was chosen, thus dictating the USBoP decision. So it goes.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    191. Re:Too fucking bad.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My county frequently charges the inmates for room and board while they are incarcerated. We just built a new Jail and built it big enough for not only our needs but big enough to rent out cell space to other counties and the feds. We are surprisingly close to being profitable, especially when you factor in the value of the work done by the inmate work crews.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    192. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The account in question was not an official campaign email account. It was Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo account. What Kernell did was demonstrate that she was using her personal email account for Alaska state government communications to bypass public scrutiny. All email sent from government servers is public information and subject to legal investigations. The Yahoo account was not. In fact, that is exactly what she asked one of her staff in the email thread. She didn't want her staff communicating with her from their state-issued Blackberry smartphones because that account could be subpoenaed in the event of an investigation. That is why she asked her staffer if the Yahoo account was subject to subpoena. When they thought it was safe, she suggested that they use the Yahoo account to exchange messages that might be inappropriate (i.e., the on-going investigation of her dismissal of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner after he refused to fire her brother-in-law who had filed for divorce from her sister and was in an ugly custody battle for their children).

      While Kernell did commit a crime, his exposure of the emails revealed a different crime perpetrated by the Palin campaign. It is just as abhorrent for a young college student to hack into someone else’s email account as it is for Uncle Sam to hack into mine. Likewise, it is unacceptable for a governor to use a commercial email service such as Yahoo mail to conduct government business out of the subpoena reach of her justice department, which is investigating her alleged ethics violations. Thus, when government officials do such things, they shouldn’t be at all surprised if someone they least expect, say a curious college student, does the same thing to them, but brags about it to let all the rest of us know about their dirty laundry.

      And it abundantly illustrates why they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. After all, if you have nothing to hide. . .

      Two wrongs do not make a right, but both of them ARE STILL WRONG. There is nothing “alleged” about Palin’s criminal acts—since the Yahoo messages are acknowledged by her staff to be genuine, the evidence is right out there for everyone to see.

    193. Re:Too fucking bad.. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't click through any of the links I offered.

      Err, unless my brain is misfiring to an unusual extent today, I don't see any links in your GP post.

    194. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the judge sentenced him to PRISON, not a half way house.

    195. Re:Too fucking bad.. by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      My county frequently charges the inmates for room and board while they are incarcerated.

      Interesting. But I have to wonder (without trolling, I swear) how far beyond the payroll of the accounts receivable department does your income for said customer-inmates go? I would suspect that you are susceptible to a recursive loop as people are sentenced for not paying their previous jailing fees and end up incurring more fees as a result.

    196. Re:Too fucking bad.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Eh, if you want to play that game, you can trace the roots of it all the way back to the ape and the monolith.

    197. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself. I think it's a great use of tax dollars to imprison someone who committed a crime in order to steal and release a politicians personal email during an election, then committed a few more to try and hide it. If his daddy wasn't a Congressman he would have been punished much worse.

    198. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You would feel better about it if I recommended 'never accused'?

      Truth is, the original statement: "someone who never broke any laws before" is less accurate than "someone who was never caught breaking any laws before".

      But I see that the latter statement offends you. You have a right to be offended by the facts.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    199. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "And it abundantly illustrates why they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. After all, if you have nothing to hide. . ."

      In what way might you be implying that Mr. Kernell accessed Sara Palin's email account to look for potential evidence of any behavior at all? My impression is that he did it just because he COULD.

      As if the motive justifies the act. Wrong. Alerting the authorities, that tney could undertake an investigation, would make sense. But remember, Mr. Kernell is the son of a Democratic state legislator. He should not be presumed to be naive about the political issues involved. The legal issues, we know he wasn't unaware of.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    200. Re:Too fucking bad.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Woops, much further up the chain. In limited context:

      "Making examples of people just because they have upset a celebrity figure is barbarian and i'm glad i'm not an American if this sort of thing is acceptable there. Where i come from everyone is equal, a crime against a politician holds the same weight as a crime against your average citizen."

      Well, I think average citizens are charged with that crime,and some have faced civil actions.

      Sorry for the mixup.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    201. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      No he didn't. That was already known.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    202. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC News, however, reports that US government officials have intervened, and Kernell has begun serving time at federal correctional institute in Ashland, Kentucky.

      When most people think of an ideal criminal justice system, they think of judges and juries, not government officials. This system does not seem to be a well-oiled machine

      Then 'most people' need to get their heads out of clouds and learn a) the difference between an 'ideal' system and one that must function in the real world, and b) how the real systems works. (And it actually does work very well.)

      Not to mention the summary and article are vastly misleading - if you read just the summary or the first part of the article, you'll be wrongly outraged. The truth of the matter is, he was sentenced to imprisonment and (drum roll please!) he was duly imprisoned. The judge's recommendations ('wishes') that he spend his time in a half way house have zero legal force or standing. The only 'intervention' by the 'officials' was to obey the (legally binding) result and sentence handed down by the court.

      Functions well, huh? Tell that to the guy in Texas who was just freed after being wrongly imprisoned for 30 years. Or any of the innocent and executed from the same state. Or anyone freed via the Innocence Project. Or any time a known killer/drug dealer/child rapist walks on a screwed up conviction. Or better yet, pull your own head out of your ass and realize that the system in the US is VASTLY broken in places, that it places a HUGE disadvantage against 'the accused' in resources and ability to actually defend themselves, and then once convicted you basically become property of a state that has no interest in rehabilitation or the future of the HUMAN BEINGS that it incarcerates.

      Works pretty well , my granny's ass. If you think that you're either part of the broken system or an idiot. Either way, YOU telling anyone else to pull their head out of the clouds on this is fucking laughable at best.

    203. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this one made the list of the top 12 places to go to prison:

      http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The12BestPlacesToGoToPrison.aspx

    204. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Take heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him." [Lk 17,3]
      "Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein were done the most of his miracles, for that they had not done penance." [Mt 11,20]
      "Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes." [ibid, 21]

      Just look up the word "penance" in any bible, it is obviously Christian in origin.

    205. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The system we have is descended from the mode of Christian thought that when a sin(crime) is committed, penance.is needed in order to make the person right with God.

      That's not Christian thought, although you could be forgiven for thinking such. Actual Christian worldview states that sin cannot be atoned for through *anything* a person can do, and they therefore require Christ as an intermediary.

      What you've described is what a lot of self-professed Christians would tell you, but you won't find anything like that in the New Testament.

    206. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Not even close. I'm not, you're not, and he's not a government employee.

      I see you are unable to get past your backwards phrasing of the situation.
      Politicians are employees of the public, full stop.

      You have a right to privacy, so does she. That she was doing evil stuff is not the issue here-- the ends don't justify the means.

      Nobody has a right to privacy in order to commit a crime. That he didn't follow official procedure does not change the moral nature of his act. Like you said he is not a government employee, he's not morally bound to follow official procedure. What he did may have been illegal, but the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    207. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The influencing-the-election angle is the whole committing a CRIME in order to steal someone's PERSONAL email so you can release it during an election. The fact that his father is a Democrat Congressman might play into that a bit too, but this is not what typically happens in an election. Journalists and opposition don't typically break into personal email accounts to get a scoop.

      This whole Palin-is-a-criminal thing is a myth perpetuated by people trying to defend the behavior of this convicted felon:

      http://www.adn.com/2010/01/22/1106051/judge-sides-with-state-palin-in.html

      Problem is Sarah Palin wasn't breaking those laws. When you think someone is breaking the law you don't start breaking some yourself, you call the police.

    208. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Your "full stop" is a product of your imagination, and has no basis within the legal system, only your mind.

      This person has no legal basis to hack the account of Sarah Palin. Information garnered under such circumstances had at most, dubious value as evidence. He is bound to follow the tenets of the law, as we all are. Moral sway means nothing as the constitution is based on the rule of law. Illegally obtained evidence is usually thrown out. There are several federal guidelines that are rules of the federal courts that must be followed. About six of them could be successfully argued, although IANAL.

      It is NOT the moral imperative of individuals to do illegal actions in the hopes of catching a criminal. It is the civil mandate of an individual to respect the civil right of others, even if they're the rights of Sarah Palin.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    209. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attempt to tie a rotten penal system to Christianity is tenuous at best.

      1. The death penalty for "sin(crime)" pre-dates the birth of Christ -- cf. The Old Testament
      2. A truly Christian response to sin would be: "Hmm, so you say you've repented? Ok then, on your way. Oh ... and sin no more!" -- cf. John 8:10-11

    210. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Maskull · · Score: 1

      I think that a retributive model would serve better that any purely utilitarian model. Any kind of degree of punishment can be justified as being "useful" (for some definition of useful); it is only the idea that "the punishment should fit the crime" that allows us to say that this or that punishment is excessive.

      For example, under a model where deterrence is the primary goal of punishment, if the actual perpetrator of a crime cannot be found, the model demands that someone be found and punished, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent. Indeed, it is questionable whether the words "guilty" and "innocent" have any meaning outside of a retributive justice system. In a utilitarian system, the only distinction is between punishments that are useful in some context and those that are not. The degree and target of punishment need not have anything to do with innocence or degree of guilt.

      But then again, I don't think we actually have a retributive system in America. Our justice is utilitarian, based on (as you said) making money for police and private-run prisons, and "protecting" society from the objects of their fears. As long as punishment makes somebody money, and helps the masses relax, it is deemed acceptable.

    211. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      IIRC the hacking part of the crime wasn't that big of a deal. Since he was not charged with identity theft, it was a simple misdemeanor. What got him in big trouble was his lame attempt to cover up his crime. Obstructing justice is a big no no.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    212. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries

    213. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is legion, but on occasion, some Anonymous are very, very stupid. When Anonymous ceases to be anonymous, Anonymous thinks it's pretty funny.

      They eat the young who make themselves obvious to maintain the average status of anonyminity. It's interesting to see natural selection work on information in such a unique way.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    214. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Assuming you don't look at logs, and they aren't closing your session on you, Would you even suspect something?

      Whenever someone says something like this I suddenly want to change all my passwords for some reason...

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    215. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you got to get sent to a slam, where they tell you you'll never see daylight again. You dig up a doctor, and you pay him 20 menthol Kools to do a surgical shine job on your eyeballs.

    216. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Your "full stop" is a product of your imagination, and has no basis within the legal system, only your mind.

      What part of "in a sense" did you fail to understand?

      This person has no legal basis to hack the account of Sarah Palin.

      What part of "the moral nature of his act is entirely distinct from the legality of it" did you fail to understand?

      Illegally obtained evidence is usually thrown out.

      Illegally obtained evidence is thrown out when it falls afoul of the exclusionary rule - as in it was illegally obtained by the police or someone working under the direction of the police. Independently acquired evidence is plenty admissible.

      It is NOT the moral imperative of individuals to do illegal actions in the hopes of catching a criminal.

      It is in lots of cases, especially when the criminal is of the group of people that are shepherds of the law. By virtue of that position they have the least moral claim of anyone to a right of privacy to hide their criminal actions.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    217. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I ask what punishment was handed out to these crooks?

      I'm betting it was nothing like what this guy has ended up with, and they actually invaded your neighbours home (invaded their privacy) and deprived them of their property. If they found your neighbours secret bondage chamber, they would have probably had a laugh with their friends about it, too.

    218. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Make sure you also change the security question, because thats likely what they're using.

    219. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      Mmm, which would be nice if there weren't a double standard, but this case would not have been pursued nearly as much if Sarah Palin weren't famous. Had he done this to some unimportant person, he probably could've gotten off with a slap on the wrists.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    220. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I realize conservatism provides a substantial INT debuff, but you should be able to realize that (#34877780) was referring to the punishment being a net gain to society, that is, rather than spending tax money giving low level criminals free room, board, gym and cable TV, have them out doing useful things for society, like painting over graffiti and digging out clogged drainage ditches. Nobody was suggesting that crime would be a good thing.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    221. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the US prison system is formed around providing campaign contributions from prison companies and guard unions to "tough on crime" politicians in exchange for continuing the "war on drugs" and ignoring the massively disproportionate conviction/incarceration rates for poor minorities.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    222. Re:Too fucking bad.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I remember September 2008, wasn't this the time wall street bankers nearly crashed the world economy?

      No, this was September 2008, the time that Barney Frank nearly crashed the world economy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    223. Re:Too fucking bad.. by ErikJson · · Score: 1

      Why?

    224. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the guy was lucky to not get boned for the full four crimes he was initially charged with... He committed a crime

      Funny, I thought the Constitution strictly prohibited incidences of double jeopardy; yet you think charging someone on four accounts for a single act (and ultimately convicting them on two) is okay? I realize violating this seemingly unimportant aspect of the Bill of Rights is the norm for securing a conviction these days, but it's sad to see that people condoning this type of abuse of power. The reason that provision is in there is to prevent the government from stacking dozens of charges against a person (which is all too conceivable these days, given the thousands of ill-conceived and vaguely-worded laws present in our legal system) for what really amounts to a single act of wrongdoing, in this case gaining unauthorized access to someone's e-mail. I agree that he broke the law, but if you think that the punishment for a single instance of such law breaking is too light, then work to change the law. After all, without the protections of the Constitution, it would theoretically be possible to send someone away for many years for something as minor as shoplifting, simply by charging them with multiple violations of applicable municipal, state, and federal laws. I certainly hope that isn't the type of country we're heading towards just because people are too apathetic to realize what a threat to liberty this is.

    225. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      I make the answers junk, never needed that particular... Security unfeature

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    226. Re:Too fucking bad.. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Retribution in general compensates the victims, who get to feel better in many cases (though not all). Which in a sense is the point, namely to try to redress the balance between victim and assailant.

    227. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed that he posted all her emails online. Do you have a reference for that?

    228. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I agree that the guy broke the law and should be punished for it, but the fact that such a harsh punishment was applied given the circumstances of his acts are indicative of many of the failings of our legal system.

      The whole attitude of people who are willing to point at a law book and some rules about mandatory minimum sentences and say, "this is why, end of discussion," implies that world is a place of black and white and right and wrong; the real world, however, is composed of various shades of gray, and there often isn't an easy or right answer to every question. To act like there is one is not only supremely naive, but implies that we need not think critically about any situation, after all, the law has been recorded and is there for us to read: There has never been and will never be any situation where breaking the law is justified or ought to be treated with leniency, and there are no situations where thinking carefully about the issues presented is needed because the law has already thought for us.

      If you think the punishment is appropriate, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But if the only justification you can come up with for your opinion is a reference to the United States Code, without any consideration at all of how this actually exposed Sarah Palin's wrongdoing (ie. using personal e-mail for government business), and whether or not you think that should be a mitigating factor in sentencing, then you are really contributing nothing to this discussion.

    229. Re:Too fucking bad.. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      one's e-mail inbox should be considered fairly private.

      Then use encryption on your email. I mean it's not that hard to do, much like putting a letter in an envelope. Until then all you are receiving in your inbox are postcards not actual mail. Until this distinction is actually made you are still treating your inbox with the assumption of privacy and reading someones inbox could be as accidental has hitting the back button on someone's gmail session or some other scenario. Subverting encryption on an email takes a deliberate, pre-meditated act, like opening some one else's snail mail

      Sure the guys was stupid but at the same time Palin is a public official, her advisors should have advised her to protect her information assets with a strong enough password at the very minimum. If there is no excuse for his stupidity then there is no excuse for hers. Certainly there is no excuse for people whining about privacy for their email communication and then not encrypting their email.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    230. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is legion, but on occasion, some Anonymous are very, very stupid. When Anonymous ceases to be anonymous, Anonymous thinks it's pretty funny.

      Anonymous are a mutated form of Marklar.

      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    231. Re:Too fucking bad.. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If you are going to do this kind of stuff, you need to CYA, this kid did not CYA in any way.

      I'm sure they'll be lining up in the prison to cover it.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    232. Re:Too fucking bad.. by drcheap · · Score: 1

      ...I'm sure there are some downsides, like this might not work for violent criminals, etc.

      That would explain why the GP said:

      A much better punishment for nonviolent crimes...

      I realize that this is /. and we can't be bothered to RTFA, but you can at least have the decency to RTFR before replying. It's too bad I posted this, now I can't mod you -1 Obvilious :(

    233. Re:Too fucking bad.. by wzinc · · Score: 1

      I repeated his point to emphasize that he had a good idea. Don't mod me.

    234. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the national political consequences (which could affect who becomes the leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth) of your neighbor's e-mail being hacked are...?

    235. Re:Too fucking bad.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the County's idea of profit isn't really the same as a business's idea; a lot of the revenue probably does stay on the accounts receivable for the average Joe. Still what they do collect is more than if they didn't charge at all.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    236. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law-abiding citizens, that's who.

    237. Re:Too fucking bad.. by capnkr · · Score: 1

      Hypothetically, if he had hacked into Baracks email, or Pelosi's, or {insert_major_political_figure_of_choice}, pretty much this same thing would have happened.

      Face it - Palin or Pelosi, we're not. Especially not in this overly media-driven culture. It's not that way now, and never really has been, despite the best intentions and ideals of our Founding Fathers.

      Most of the righteous sounding rhetoric that has been posted on this topic in all the reports here are nothing much more than thinly veiled expressions of Palin-hate. It's just one ridiculous and oh-so pathetically predictable product of the (D) vs (R) blinders the media has put onto the largely idiot-box-worshiping US public. If the people of the US don't soon get objective about what is really going on with the government - and how badly *all* of these politicos are fucking The People over - we are going to stay in this death spin all the way until we crater.

      Sad, that. The remnants of a once-great nation finished off by a bunch of lacquered-hair, mascara-wearing talking heads spouting off at the behest of their bosses, telling the sheeple what to believe and how to think, who's wrong and who's right. All the while, the ones who might have saved it were otherwise just too damned busy-busy, poking holes into each others strawmen...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    238. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this woman is a known terrorist. It's like collecting data from Twitter accounts.

    239. Re:Too fucking bad.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is legion, but on occasion, some Anonymous are very, very stupid.

      This is the Internet. Here, they are referred to as Anonymii.

    240. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think you are wrong. His actions interfered with an election. His attack was not just on Gov. Palin, but rather on my rights to hear from a candidate in the election.

    241. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      "Don't go to bed, with no price on your head No, no, don't do it. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time, Yeah, don't do it

      Fuck him, If it was the government cracking your email, how would you feel?.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    242. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of a few reasons. His crime exposed wrongdoing by Sarah Palin (about which of course nothing was done), his father is a polititian (which shouldn't matter, but we all know it does), and he is a young person whose crime neither profited himself nor hurt anyone.

    243. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      The judge sentenced incarceration, and recommended that the time be served at a halfway house. Instead the sentence will be served in a minimum security facility. The judge felt that time served at a halfway house, plus the fact of the conviction, was punishment enough. I don't know enough about Crime and Punishment (tl;dr) to say one way or the other.

    244. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      He shouldn't have been doing "this kind of stuff". This isn't white-hat/grey-hat stuff, this is cracking an account with bad intentions and result.

      Palin lost the privacy rights of her personal e-mail account when she tried to use it to conduct official business, in order to circumvent the openness requirements of official records. This was ham-fisted and poorly done, but it was white- or grey-hat work.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    245. Re:Too fucking bad.. by berzerke · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that he got a low security prison...

      It's not as good as it sounds. I have an idiot brother-in-law that's done federal time, and some of it in a low security prison. He claims the low security is actually more dangerous than the high security he also spent time in initially. The prisoners have more freedom in the low security, and some of them use it poorly.

      Mind you, he also said the private prison they put him in was the worst, a sentiment the judge sentencing him echoed.

    246. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Actually, she didn't. There still needs to be probable cause, and just being Sarah Palin doesn't fit the definition. If someone knew that she was doing it, and then told someone, the information would become probable cause; than an affidavit is filed, and a warrant obtained. That's how due process works. It's blackhat to simply crack an account without a court order based on 'gut' feelings and in lieu of a warrant. This protects her, you, and I.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    247. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, I was there when the thread ran on /b/. There were literally dozens of people logged into that account; this guy was just dumb enough to get caught. A serious investigation would have caught a *lot* more people than it did.

    248. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Actually, she didn't.

      She most certainly did, and that fact has been public knowledge since before the crack. "Palin also routinely does government business from a Yahoo address, gov.sarah@yahoo.com, rather than her secure official state e-mail address, according to documents already made public." -- Washington Post, September 10, 2008. The e-mail crack occurred days after that story was published, on September 16.

      If someone knew that she was doing it, and then told someone, the information would become probable cause; than an affidavit is filed, and a warrant obtained. That's how due process works.

      Warrants restrain governments, not private individuals. Due process protects individual citizens, not government agents in the course of their jobs. If this was a government agent, or a person working on behalf of government agents, investigating a private citizen, I'd agree; but this case was the exact opposite, a private citizen investigating a government agent's execution of her duties.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    249. Re:Too fucking bad.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Your link says 'sources' say, which until it's an affidavit, is hearsay. "Public knowledge" is a pretty nebulous sort of term. If this was sworn evidence, then the government has probable cause, but a civilian doesn't-- they're not an agent of the government. Bound by the terms of a government agent?

      Yes and no. As an example, if you believe I have drugs in my home and you take it upon yourself as a civilian to break into my home to find them, you may find unintended consequences. The police have the same problem, which is constantly brought before the SCOTUS to define what's actually probable cause.

      Bounty hunters, private detectives, and other individuals who tried to crack Sarah Palin's account are likely still violating federal statues, and perhaps those in states as well. He tried to destroy the evidence of what he'd done, and that's what he was convicted for.

      I don't believe the individual is granted transitive 'permission' of any kind to attempt to crack someone's mailbox without a warrant or probable cause that evidence might be in the process of being destroyed, just as a police officer does. Worse, individuals that make 'citizen's arrests' are way out on a limb legally. Getting evidence in such a manner is likely highly illegal, and at best, would jeopardize the admission of the evidence.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    250. Re:Too fucking bad.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Many of the cars that were turned in were not "clunkers", they were perfectly good vehicles - hence the comparison to the broken window fallacy. The two things they really did wrong was making the rebates far too big - people were turning in cars that were worth $2-4k as a trade-in (something like $3-7k retail). The other problem was that in order to participate you had to purchase a new car. The real clunkers you want to get off the road are owned by people who couldn't afford to participate in the program. Generally people who can afford a new car may drive an older, low value car, but won't put up with something that most would consider a "clunker".

      Besides, the requirements were pretty broad as for what can get turned in. Basically the vehicle had to get 18 MPG or less, and was 25 years old or newer. The only lasting effect of the program was to further drive up the price of used vehicles, further squeezing the people that depend on them.

    251. Re:Too fucking bad.. by richlv · · Score: 1

      no true christian...

      --
      Rich
    252. Re: Too fucking bad.. by gidds · · Score: 1

      None of the translations I've checked (KJV, NKJV, YLT, NIV, NLT, ESV, ASV, NASB, CEV, Message, NCV, CEB, etc.) mention 'penance'; most use the word 'repent' instead (and the rest are equivalent).

      In fact, the only one I could find which mentions doing 'penance' is the Wycliffe version, right back from the 1300s. Perhaps the meaning of that word has changed since then; certainly, it means something different from 'repentance' to today's readers.

      The emphasis in those passages is on a change of heart, not on serving time or suffering punishment. So they don't really support prison terms or similar.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    253. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need to remind you that ALL email is not private. It is sent in plain text, hence it can be intercepted and read at will if you have the knowledge, let alone cracking user credentials. Government officials at any level should be trained and held accountable for the security of data. I.E. email encryption, data encryption and not store anything any other way unless they want it read. Sure the guy that hacked her account did something wrong, but I'd need more technical details BEFORE I render a judgment on whether he serves time. I.E. if she used a weak password that's her fault! Any hacker in China could gain access to her email and may do a better job of covering tracks. This is a huge issue with far reaching affects to anyone here in the U.S.
      I think the point of the article is to point out that the judge did not see a reason to send him to jail, but it was overruled at a higher level. I.E. if you have money and clout you can put the screws to anyone below your stature. I would estimate that the blame is on both sides and I think the hacker learned a real valuable lesson that just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.

    254. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an accurate statement. Child support is based upon the same principal. Federal funds go to states that enforce I.E. collect and collect they do regardless of any rights you think you have......you do not.

    255. Re:Too fucking bad.. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      He committed a crime, one that I personally feel has far-reaching effects as one's e-mail inbox should be considered fairly private.

      I just wonder what would have happened if he'd been a normal person. Politician or not, this is insanely biased.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    256. Re:Too fucking bad.. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I take it you've never gotten a phone call at 4:00 AM on an "business use only" line saying "you're a worthless sack of shit and I can't wait to see your death on the news". Four days and zero hours of sleep later, there's definitely "physical harm" involved.

      I truly did not realize that words could physically harm someone! Here I thought that you are by no means forced to get offended or frightened by mere words, and if you did get offended or frightened, it would be because of the actions that may have followed those words, not the words themselves. Silly me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    257. Re:Too fucking bad.. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      This is a harm, and if you think emotional harm is not as intense as physical harm, I encourage you to say that out loud. You are wrong on that count.

      Emotional harm is entirely self-inflicted. You don't have to get angry or sad about anything.

      -Oh, and this required the McCain/Aplin campaign to suspend use of email for a short period to reestablish security. How short a time? At the moment, even an hour could have had consequences. How about you giving up your email address and having all of your contacts notified of your new address. Much trouble for you?

      Because politicians are the only people (sometimes I doubt this) that matter, correct? If this had happened to a normal person, absolutely nothing would have been done.

      - 'Abusive' phone calls to most of the Palin family.

      Wow, yes. Words. How harmful.

      Will you be forgiving based soley on their age?

      Did he ever mention his age?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    258. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      The real issue is rule of law. Why can a bureaucrat overrule what a judge says? Saying "it's a recommendation" is semantics and misses the point. Judges should be the ones making justice related decisions, such as type of imprisonment. Faceless office drones shouldn't be able to reverse these because they think they know better.

    259. Re:Too fucking bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Exactly, do you even think for a second that this guy would be sitting in a federal prison if he had guessed your neighbor's Yahoo account security question?

      Your neighbor was not the current vice-presidential candidate. There's a big difference between guessing your neighbor's email password and tampering with a federal election.

  2. He's Getting Off Easy by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    People still know where he is...

  3. Not "hacked" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not even cracked. Please stop talking about this guy like he has some computer wiizardry - he guessed at recovery questions. If I leave a riddle taped to my safe that gives the combo when solved, how angry can I be when somebody figures it out?

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Not "hacked" by jeffmeden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not even cracked. Please stop talking about this guy like he has some computer wiizardry - he guessed at recovery questions. If I leave a riddle taped to my safe that gives the combo when solved, how angry can I be when somebody figures it out?

      If my car has only a thin, brittle piece of glass protecting it from being entered into and driven off without my consent, how angry can I be when someone figures it out?

      Bad analogy, meet car analogy. Hoyoooooo!

    2. Re:Not "hacked" by JustOK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      was there a pizza in the car?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Not "hacked" by Americano · · Score: 1

      I see, so if it's easy to break into someplace, it's legal to do so?

      If that's the standard of privacy and property you want to go with, then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody bugging all your phones, and tracking your every movement, right? After all, its pretty easy to do. How angry can you be about it when somebody does it?

    4. Re:Not "hacked" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 0

      If I leave a hundred dollars on my desk and you take it, I may be careless but you're still a thief.

      And if I'm the most powerful woman in the Right Wing of the United States and I leave a hundred dollars on my desk and you take it, you're a thief and a friggin' idiot with a death wish.

    5. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you had a safe with the combination etched into the side of it, it still wouldn't make it legal for someone to open the safe and take shit out of it. Taking stuff that isn't yours is illegal, period, the ease of doing so is irrelevant. Just like you can't rape an invalid just because they're too weak to fight back.

    6. Re:Not "hacked" by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more like having a spare key taped to the sub-frame. Her 'security questions' all had answers that were public information.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:Not "hacked" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      That's different. Cracking the window glass is more like cracking (heh) since it's unauthorized by design. It may have been a bad analogy but the point stands.

      Consider those cars with the entry code buttons - you punch in the code and the door unlocks. What if, on an old car, three of the buttons were very worn and the rest untouched? Sure, getting into my car by trying any of the 6 combinations would be wrong, but you wouldn't be a master thief.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    8. Re:Not "hacked" by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I think he meant to say "How surprised can one be" instead of how Angry. I mean, my car getting stolen? Yeah that would definately get me angry, but considering how easy it is for someone to steal a car, it wouldn't surprise* me.

      *I mean it would catch me off guard, but I wouldn't be completely dumbfounded on how the theif managed to get past the lock.

    9. Re:Not "hacked" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not what I said. But if somebody robs my house if I leave it unlocked for a week while away, and I tell them "a maaster robber took my stuff", I'll get some funny looks.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    10. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in so much as I have the ability to take your stuff, you won't press charges or be upset?

      Might makes right, I suppose...

    11. Re:Not "hacked" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      If my car has only a thin, brittle piece of glass protecting it from being entered into and driven off without my consent, how angry can I be

      Hmmm... In that case you should be pretty angry at your car's manufacturer, because apparently they neglected to include a keyed ignition switch.

    12. Re:Not "hacked" by cosm · · Score: 1

      Not even cracked. Please stop talking about this guy like he has some computer wiizardry - he guessed at recovery questions. If I leave a riddle taped to my safe that gives the combo when solved, how angry can I be when somebody figures it out?

      If my car has only a thin, brittle piece of glass protecting it from being entered into and driven off without my consent, how angry can I be when someone figures it out?

      Bad analogy, meet car analogy. Hoyoooooo!

      Parent was complaining that the term 'hacker' has been spun by the media and is flagrantly over-used for even the simplest minute mischief on a computer. Somebody who breaks glass and jacks the car is like a script-kiddie (akin to our friend David Kernell), and equating him with true hackers, say, like the people who wrote Stuxnet or people who hack an ECU to bypass electronic ignition, well, there are different echelons of knowledge required to cross that gap.

      Parent, like many of us here, deep down in our hearts cannot fucking stand that the media lumps everybody in one big giant stereotype, because by doing so the commoner hears the word hacker and immediately has about twenty preconceived notions about the individual. Same thing for words like 'Tea-Party' or 'Socialist', or 'Activist'. There are good and bad of both, but stereotypes take independent analysis and critical thinking out of the reporting equation because just using the stereotypical word removes half of the breaking stories exposition, and usually unfairly against the reportee.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    13. Re:Not "hacked" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Well put. After all the responses, I wish I'd put it that way... I was addressing the 'hacker' designation mostly.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Not "hacked" by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      That's different. Cracking the window glass is more like cracking (heh) since it's unauthorized by design. It may have been a bad analogy but the point stands.

      Consider those cars with the entry code buttons - you punch in the code and the door unlocks. What if, on an old car, three of the buttons were very worn and the rest untouched? Sure, getting into my car by trying any of the 6 combinations would be wrong, but you wouldn't be a master thief.

      Er... it has occurred to you that a button could be hit more than once?

      My combination could very well be 123232131221... if it'd let me enter a code that long.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    15. Re:Not "hacked" by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2

      In English, words can have multiple meanings. "Hack" is such a word.

      The word "hack" in this context means "circumvent computer security." He clearly 'hacked.' As one who hacked, he was a 'hacker.'

      There is another definitions of the word "hack:" to cleverly use something in an unintended way. This may be what you are thinking, but this is not the definition being used in the article. Remember back to grade school and "context clues?" Use your context clues in the future to figure out which "hack" is intended by the author.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you accidentally leave your car door unlocked, or perhaps, in some strange situation, need to leave a key for someone to grab (a tow guy, whatever) and then if someone takes your car you won't care?

      After all, you left it unlocked or left the key taped to the sub frame. How can taking the car be a crime?

    17. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine has a CAT1 immobilizer and CAT1 alarm, despite being 7 years old. Try driving that away without the key.

    18. Re:Not "hacked" by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Of course there are differences, I don't entirely disagree with you. I was mostly just trying to play up another angle on the argument. This conversation is all the more epic considering your handle is "slimjim"...

    19. Re:Not "hacked" by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I had a Ford "Exploder" that had this exact "problem". Five keys on the keypad. Only three of them used for my combo became visibly worn within a few years. Four digit combo. Not too hard to figure out how to get into my car for a determined mathematically literate thief. (Dumber thief would just break the window.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    20. Re:Not "hacked" by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      If I leave my car unlocked, with the key in the ignition, and someone steals the car then the car was still stolen, regardless of how careless I may have been. Just because it is easy to commit a crime does not make it less of a crime.

                The real issue here is that when David Kernell hacked into one of Sarah Palin's e-mail account was treated very differently than he would have been if he had done the same thing to your e-mail, or my e-mail accounts.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    21. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best analogy I can think of: If the front door to my house is left unlocked, it is still illegal for you to open the door come in without my permission.

    22. Re:Not "hacked" by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      More like:

      If I leave a hundred dollars on my desk and you take it, I tell my manager a hundred dollars is gone and I think you took it. He calls you into his office and yells at you. You give back the hundred dollars. Depending on the manager you may or may not be disciplined, and you may or may not be fired.

      If Sarah Palin leaves a hundred dollars on her desk and you take it, you go to federal prison for a year.

      Does that seem right?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    23. Re:Not "hacked" by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      You can always replace those you know, even with keys with no markings.

    24. Re:Not "hacked" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      If I left my keys in the car 100% of the time (a proper analogy to Sarah Palin having a publically solvable recovery question on her account) I would be a whiny ass to complain when someone finally stole it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:Not "hacked" by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Let me amend that. Nobody stole anything. Nobody lost anything.

      If I break my company's rules and use my company issued cell phone for personal calls and you catch me and play my voicemails over the P.A. to embarrass me, *I* may get disciplined or fired, you probably won't.

      If Sarah Palin breaks the government's rules and uses her government issued cell phone for personal calls and you catch her and play her voicemails over the P.A. you go to federal prison for a year.

      Now how fair does it sound?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    26. Re:Not "hacked" by lgw · · Score: 1

      Are you still surprised that the media misues the word "hacker", or that /. repeats the misuse? I thought we stopped being surprised about that years ago ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Not "hacked" by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      haha . Where is BadAnalogyGuy anyway?

    28. Re:Not "hacked" by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      But you're not a master thief who pulled off some great robbery. You're opportunistic. This guy is not a cracker in any sense of the word. He guessed a password

    29. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on.. Hitlary Clinton's email account was hacked?

    30. Re:Not "hacked" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I've given up on "hacker" vs "cracker"... but this guy is neither.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    31. Re:Not "hacked" by shentino · · Score: 1

      If a burglar finds my hide-a-key because I left it somewhere obvious that does NOT give them the right to break into my house.

    32. Re:Not "hacked" by eepok · · Score: 0

      This. He committed unlawful entry or trespassing. There was no breaking and entering (hacking) and there was no force or fear. Regarding the car analogies above:

      If you leave a key in a box magnetically stuck to the undercarriage of your car and someone steals your car with that key, they're only guilty of that theft... nothing about damage of your property or breaking into it. The thing about the email is that nothing was even stolen... so it's not even as bad as car theft *in that regard*.

      What this is, though, is a breach of privacy-- something I consider beyond heinous.

    33. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't saying it wasn't a crime, he was saying it wasn't an impressive feat. Much like stealing a car when you have the key in your hand doesn't require nearly as much skill as stealing it when it's locked and you don't have a key.

      So yes, the car analogy works, but not quite the way it was meant.

    34. Re:Not "hacked" by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, only your car analogy is the bad one.

      Consider the nature of a security question. You forgot a password, and you need a way to remind yourself.

      Consider the nature of a riddle taped to a safe. You forgot the combination, and you need a way to remind yourself. ...seems like a sound analogy to me.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    35. Re:Not "hacked" by sjames · · Score: 1

      If someone finds your car unlocked with keys in the ignition and the engine running and they drive it away without your permission, they certainly did steal your car. They did NOT break in, hot-wire it or hack the alarm, now did they? Meanwhile, if you left your car in that condition in the middle of a bad part of town, your insurer will surely claim that you were negligent and refuse to pay any claim you file.

      If the thief just takes a joyride and then leaves your car more or less in the same condition it was in before, he will likely get a very light sentence for that (if the police bother to look for him at all) in view of you doing everything short of actually inviting him to take it for a spin.

      Meanwhile, people will have a rather limited amount of sympathy for you if you tell them the whole story.

    36. Re:Not "hacked" by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      Especially when they don't take your car, they just turn it on to listen to the radio and see what mix CDs you have, take a picture of the CDs with the cell phone then leave everything as it was.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    37. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, but the "car" was not stolen... it would be the equivalent of you leaving your car door open, and someone sitting in the drivers seat for a few minutes listening to the radio, then telling the internet what music you listen to. Not such a big deal now, is it?

    38. Re:Not "hacked" by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Well, imagine he was a car...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    39. Re:Not "hacked" by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Changing the combo isn't rocket science. Guessing a 5-digit sequence using only 4 unique digits is nontrivial, but doable. Changing your combo after the keys are worn will complicate the 'clever' thief's work by misleading them.

      Of course, my Explorer has a PATS key, so getting into the car solves the easy problem. Just as easy to crawl under and snip the battery, then jimmy the door and slipt it into neutral - tow it away to do your work in relative security. Breaking the window is at least as obvious as crawling under the front.

      And look for the Lojack box. Gotta get that too.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    40. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacked? Cracked? 99% of the world doesn't understand the distinction between the terms. What he did was illegal, plain and simple. And to the 99% of the world that isn't the /. crowd, doing something illegal on the computer to assume another persons identity makes him a hacker.

    41. Re:Not "hacked" by Americano · · Score: 1

      Go look up the definition of "hacker," and realize that the language is larger than your particular limited worldview.

      "Hacker" is used, especially in common usage - such as you would read from a non-technical journalist - to describe someone who gains unauthorized access to a computer or computer service.

      It doesn't matter what you WANT the term to mean. Your objection to one of its most common uses is duly noted, and has been discarded as irrelevant pedantry.

    42. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but the person stealing the car is going to get thrown in jail just the same.

    43. Re:Not "hacked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it would still be theft.

    44. Re:Not "hacked" by lgw · · Score: 1

      Try next to give on on "hacker" vs "script kidddy" vs "my cat sat on the keyboard and got access". The media will never, ever, get it, and of course the /. janitors aren't going to clena up the usage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. It's for his own protection... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... lest Palin draws a gunsight around his head...

    1. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Ugh, I'm pretty sick of references to that map. How come nobody is talking about the DLC bullseye map in 2004? Exact same concept, but the media didn't seem to take issue with it.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:It's for his own protection... by Winckle · · Score: 1

      Because nobody got shot as a result of it?

      Also the map in 2004 used archery or dartboard style targets, not rifle crosshairs.

    3. Re:It's for his own protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the lack of "let's take them out!" and other aggressive verbiage, along with actual reps NAMES listed, instead of just a state with a bullseye style target on it? And the fact that it had Palin's name all over it? If the same thing had happened to something/someone related to the DLC map, it just wouldn't have had nearly the same ring to it.

      And to anyone who doesn't know the difference between a bullseye and a cross-hair, please just stop talking. I am not going to listen to you.

    4. Re:It's for his own protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, I'm pretty sick of references to that map. How come nobody is talking about the DLC bullseye map in 2004? Exact same concept, but the media didn't seem to take issue with it.,

      Haha. www.Dailykos.com, a very left-wing pro-democratic party website, put a bullseye targeting Gabrielle Giffords as well.

      But since www.Dailykos.com is a lefty website, that's ok. Of course, www.Dailykos.com has taken down the bullseye, but there are many screenshots available.

      (Incidentally, did you know www.Dailykos.com takes payola to endorse candidates?)

      Look it's very clear what caused this massacre:

      1. The guy what a nutcase.
      2. Despite being a nutcase, he wasn't being treated.
      3. Despite being a nutcase, he was able to purchase a firearm.
      4. It is very difficult to protect yourself from crazy people doing crazy things.

    5. Re:It's for his own protection... by Americano · · Score: 1

      And let's be clear: nobody got shot "as a result of" Palin's map either. I'm no fan of Ms. Plain, and I mourn the tragic deaths of the people killed, and sincerely hope all the people injured make full, miraculous recoveries. Calling this anything other than a tragic crime by a seriously mentally I'll individual is stupid.

      Argue lax gun law enforcement all you want, I'll agree with you on that one. Argue insufficient mental health coverage for citizens, I'll agree with you on that one too. But if you're going to suggest that a campaign ad is "the reason" for this tragedy, you're off your fucking rocker. Let's also dig into what type of music, movies, and books he liked - maybe we can get eminem, slayer, Quentin Tarantino, and clockwork orange banned too, right?

      If violent imagery were all that was needed to touch off an event like this, our streets would be awash in blood. And Ms. Palin's map, as "violent" imagery goes, is pretty fucking tame compared to an Eminem song. I'll give you one guess which of the two he was probably far more often-exposed to, as well.

    6. Re:It's for his own protection... by MWDrexel · · Score: 1

      Whoah! Someone got shot as a result of it? This is extraordinary. Please provide details.

    7. Re:It's for his own protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because nobody got shot as a result of it?

      Also the map in 2004 used archery or dartboard style targets, not rifle crosshairs.

      And Palin's map used surveyor marks. What is your point?

      Funny that after the initial finger pointing was over, we found out Loughner did not listen to the news or radio talk shows, and found Zeitgeist the Movie to be particularly influential.

      From Wikipedia: "It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the Christ myth theory, alternative theories for the parties responsible for the September 11th attacks and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power."

      Sounds like a real right-winger to me!

    8. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh, there's the speculation that's ruining objective journalism!

      Where's any proof at all that she was shot as a result of the Palin map?

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    9. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a way I could agree with you more, but only football coaches get to suggest people can do something at more than 100% capacity.

      Politicians, pundits, "journalists", etc... will always use something like this to trump their political views. Had the roles been reversed the right would be doing the same thing.

      It's disgusting, and I hate to see it perpetuate among what I view as my peers.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    10. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I figured I'd leave out of my reply the fact that, strangely enough, a bow and arrow are also considered a weapon. The person who replied obviously has their political views to sell, and drawing the same conclusion from extremely similar maps doesn't help that cause.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    11. Re:It's for his own protection... by Americano · · Score: 1

      And to be clear, the Palin ad was tasteless, over-the-top rhetoric. It was dumb, and lacks a critical element of civility that our politicians, who should be leaders and role models, should always exhibit.

      I don't like the ad at all - I just don't think you can attribute the actions of a delusional psychotic to it. If that ad had never been printed, this kid still would have hurt someone, and it's entirely likely, given his "anti-government" nonsense on YouTube and elsewhere, that Rep. Giffords would still have been the target.

    12. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there too, on both the ad and the propensity for violence out of this guy. Unfortunately for Congresswoman Giffords, she was the most easily accessed high profile person. Please don't take that as any justification though, what happened to her was tragic and wrong.

      Sadly, politics is more about getting the gold ring (and doing whatever it takes to get it) than doing the right thing. One side does something to gain advantage, the other side responds. It's been going on since the dawn of politics. People should call them out on it rather than follow along in cadence.

      The shame is that nothing was done, or in some cases could have been done, leading up to this to prevent it. The school could only recommend he receive treatment and I don't think I like the idea of schools being able to force it. He was 19 so his parents couldn't do much at that point. There's nothing illegal, nor should there be, about voicing your opinion on politics, currency policy, etc...

      As a gun owner and a believer in the 2nd amendment I will say not checking for weapons at a political event is a bad idea. I'm not familiar enough with the laws there to know whether or not it would have been possible to, or if the venue of choice prevented the ability to.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    13. Re:It's for his own protection... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Actually, I read somewhere (not sure of accuracy and can't find the link right now, so take it with a grain of salt) that the school could have forced him into an assessment, at least. I don't know that I would necessarily object to schools having that authority, either. Locking someone away because the school says so is too much power, but I don't think it would be unreasonable that the school could require an assessment by a licensed mental health professional.

      As far as checking for weapons, I believe az is fairly permissive in terms of carry and concealed carry regulations, and I think the venue probably didn't lend itself to much "crowd control" - a supermarket is usually designed to get people in and shopping. Perhaps they could set up metal detectors and the like, I don't know.

      I think the unfortunate upshot of this is that the politicians are going to become more inaccessible and remote from their constituents, which is not a good thing. Meet and greets will be held only with carefully-vetted audiences in secured locations, which is just going to result in a political class that's more out of touch with the people.

    14. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      They are one of three states that allow concealed weapons with no license. The other two are Alaska (kind of makes sense to me) and Vermont (not sure I get that one). They have two bills on the floor to allow teachers and students to carry concealed weapons in schools (colleges only for the latter I'm sure due to age restrictions) which I think is a horrible idea. Not because of guns on campus, but because of the age, maturity, and environment in colleges.

      On schools and mental health assessments, I think their responsibility and jurisdiction end with the campus itself. However, it's probably not unreasonable to think they could report the incident(s) to a higher authority that could pursue it further though.

      On your last comment, I've viewed most politicians as relatively inaccessible regardless of whether or not you can shake their hand at a public gathering. You and I don't have the influence PACs do (which I think should be outlawed, but that's WAY OT here). I'm sure they'll be less likely to put themselves out there as much though, so I agree with that.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    15. Re:It's for his own protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wants proof of causality? That is not, and never was the issue. The issue is that Palin and her ilk (Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, etc), talk a big tough-guy game, and propose violence, but when it comes calling, they're ducking their responsibility for their own vicious tone.

      Heck, they're not just ducking, they're coming up with specious lies and accusations about the other side, just so they can not look so bad.

      Sorry, but I don't think it's a blame issue, it's a character issue.

    16. Re:It's for his own protection... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      I heard many of the districts she targeted were also hit with heavy snowstorms. Coincidence? I think not!

    17. Re:It's for his own protection... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Is there a law similar to Godwin's in use for HAARP? :)

      And is it just human nature to use whatever is around you at the time to try to sell a point you're trying to make rather than be reasonable and factual?

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    18. Re:It's for his own protection... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Well said. I have been amazed at many normally intelligent people who think the way the poster that you responded to thinks. When politics enters the discussion I'm almost certain that most peoples IQs drop by half that instant.

      Trying to blame anyone except the whacko who did the shooting is complete intellectual dishonesty.

  5. Palin was the one breaking the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Palin was conducting government business in that personal yahoo email account. So what does she get for doing that?

    This kid exposes her wrong doing and he goes to prison? Did we become soviet during the 2008 election?

    1. Re:Palin was the one breaking the law... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      It's no different than a police officer illegally entering your house, finding the huge bag of weed and bong you keep in your bedroom, then trying to bring you up on possession charges. It would get thrown out, because the evidence was obtained illegally (or something like that, IANAL so I don't know the "official" wording of such a thing.)

    2. Re:Palin was the one breaking the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't evidence that was gathered by someone who is not an agent of law enforcement admissible even if it was gathered illegally?

    3. Re:Palin was the one breaking the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually VERY different:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule

      A private individual can break the law to gather evidence. They get in trouble for breaking the law but you go down too.

    4. Re:Palin was the one breaking the law... by zeroshade · · Score: 2

      Technically since he was not law enforcement, it wouldn't get thrown out.

      It's like if a burglar breaks into your home and finds your weed stash and you call the cops. You can still get arrested for that bag of weed, even though the burglar obtained it illegally.

  6. yeah...if you piss someone off.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I speak from first hand experience that even if you're innocent, the system will do their best to get their hands on you in the worst possible way if they want to make you pay for something, possibly unrelated. For me it was a friend who did stupid stuff and I was trying to talk him out of it. The caught me on a technicality and got me in jail and then "accidentally" shipped me off to a medium security prison where I stood toe to toe with a guy who was facing 246 years(that is not a typo). All just to make me talk. I never did..fuck 'em.

    1. Re:yeah...if you piss someone off.. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Sir, we are coming to your house. Place your hands in the yellow circle. If you state you are a meat popsicle, you will be arrested.

    2. Re:yeah...if you piss someone off.. by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      so since I know everyone else is already wondering what exactly was it that you were trying to hide from them?

      --
      once more into the breach
    3. Re:yeah...if you piss someone off.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you state you are a meat popsicle, you will be arrested.

      Just to nitpick, when Korben Dallas tells the police that he is not human, but a meat popsicle, the police leave him alone and arrest some troublemaker. The police, after all, were there to arrest a human, so meat popsicles would all be free to go.

    4. Re:yeah...if you piss someone off.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you!

  7. Punishment - Crime by symes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the sad thing here is that this guy's future is pretty well screwed for what was (from memory) a fairly impetuous and unsophisticated crime. Sure he should be held accountable, but sending the kid to an institution where he is more likely to be released into a world of criminality with contacts that may like to exploit his rudimentary skills is probably not serving the best interests of his community.

    1. Re:Punishment - Crime by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      His mad skills at answering security questions based on public information? I agree with you though, that kid should have gotten at most several months of public work.

    2. Re:Punishment - Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true, but on the other hand, being repeatedly gang raped by Leroy and his crew would make one think twice about email hacking again.

    3. Re:Punishment - Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure he should be held accountable, but sending the kid to an institution where he is more likely to be released into a world of criminality with contacts that may like to exploit his rudimentary skills is probably not serving the best interests of his community.

      Posting anonymously, for obvious reasons. According to the BOP's inmate locator, David Kernell is at FCI Ashland, which has an adjoining camp (FPC Ashland). He's almost assuredly at the camp since he's a non-violent criminal with less than a year until his release. I don't believe you can be at a camp if you have more than 5 years until your release.

      I spent a few months at a camp and it wasn't too bad, for being prison. Everybody was just trying to do their time and get home. No gang fights. I never once had people asking me how to pull off some new crime. We played a lot of cards, and I read a lot of books, and played a lot of piano and guitar. It was a learning experience, seeing that we were all just a bunch of normal people who made some bad choices and who wanted to get home.

    4. Re:Punishment - Crime by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      [quote]When Kernell was sentenced last November, Judge Thomas Phillips said that the the son of state democratic representative Mike Kernell should serve his 366 day punishment at a halfway house, describing it as "a sufficient restriction of the defendant's liberty".[/quote]
      Unfortunately, we as a country have no sense on perspective. Some people get a whopping 7 years for killing someone and this guy is getting 1/7 of that. If he broke into a house (something more serious), he probably would have gotten less as a first offense. These long punishments are expensive to the taxpayer!

      And look how long it took to get to sentencing, it's been over 2 years! Twice the length of his sentence! Punishments are more effective if closer to the crime to reinforce what they are for. Can't imagine what costs were involved in this relatively open and shut case.

      It should have been a 3 month misdemeanor served in 2008 and forgotten about.

    5. Re:Punishment - Crime by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      His mad skills at answering security questions based on public information?

      You'd be surprised how well that works.

      No, its not particularily difficult, but it takes some effort to wade through the junk and sit there and try word after word.

    6. Re:Punishment - Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It should have been a 3 month misdemeanor served in 2008 and forgotten about.

      He committed a "crime" against the political caste. He has to be made an example of to the fullest extent possible. It's as simple as that.

    7. Re:Punishment - Crime by Graff · · Score: 1

      I think the sad thing here is that this guy's future is pretty well screwed for what was (from memory) a fairly impetuous and unsophisticated crime.

      We all make our choices and have to live with the consequences. If there aren't any consequences for what are obviously illegal and immoral actions then we all might as well just do anything we want and anyone can do anything to us that they want. I don't know about you but I don't think anarchy is a fun or rewarding state in which to live.

      Yes, he is getting punished. Is his life ruined? Hardly. He'll have a harder time getting employment or being trusted than if he hadn't gone to prison but you know what, he's proven that he's untrustworthy! I mean he invaded someone else's privacy and published it across the internet, what company is going to want that kind of security risk?

      What will happen is he'll do his time and then he'll have to re-build his reputation. Get a job at a company where there's a low risk of him giving away inside information and then work up to better and more trustworthy positions. It's definitely not the end of everything for him, lots of people have gone through similar situations and come out ok. It's a good life lesson for him and a good example to other people: don't engage in breaking other people's privacy or you'll have to suffer consequences.

    8. Re:Punishment - Crime by Arterion · · Score: 1

      How can I get the homeless folks that beg me for money out there? It sounds like a pretty good operation.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  8. Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by celticryan · · Score: 5, Informative
    FTFA:

    "The judge can give either incarceration or probation, but if it's incarceration the state gives power to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the nature of incarceration," said Professor Robert Weisberg, director of the criminal justice center at Stanford University in California.

    If the Judge didn't want him to go to prison maybe he shouldn't have sentenced him to prison time...

    1. Re:Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it almost always does especially when the prosecution agrees. Fed prisoner placement is almost always about risk and resources.

      Dollar to donuts, the Judge would have chosen probation had he know that some one would have done this.

      Just probation would have marked him for life.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Dollar to donuts, the Judge would have chosen probation had he know that some one would have done this.

      That's the same bullshit excuse we heard from Obama on his voting for bailouts. Oh, we can vote this rider in to fix it. Except, the rider had no chance of passing, and everyone knew it from the beginning.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by Tom · · Score: 1

      Due to the ways the US "justice" system works, judges don't get to decide freely. It was all done in the name of fairness and equality...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by geekoid · · Score: 1

      what you are missing is that this is abnormal. It's not how things normally happen. Even the prosecution was fine with the judges recommendation.

      AS far as your Obama rant, it has not relevance here what so ever. Stop trying to poison the well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Judicial recommendation =/= prison placement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge may not have had a choice. The minimum sentance may have been some kind of jail time.

  9. Does prison get worse with distance? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    Is there some law of prison quality that states the comfort of prison is inversely proportional to the distance from the prisoner's home? A small enough data sample sort of points to this as house arrest is probably the most comfortable, but i think the hypothesis falls apart after that. Many people who are in prison might not even have a good home.

    For me, I'd think it would be the opposite. I think if i land in prison, i'd rather not have a steady influx of family visitors. I'd hope i was as far from home as possible.

    1. Re:Does prison get worse with distance? by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      I think if i land in prison, i'd rather not have a steady influx of family visitors. I'd hope i was as far from home as possible.

      You'd rather be completely isolated??

    2. Re:Does prison get worse with distance? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      i'm not sure if you are asking if i want to be put in solitary confinement or not. Obviously i wouldn't want that.

      I imagine i would be sufficiently ashamed to not want my mom coming to prison to check up on me. plus what would the other prisoners think?

      I'm pretty sure i'm not doing anything i'm going to go to prison for though.

    3. Re:Does prison get worse with distance? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I would want to be in Solitary. I know I would not want to be in general population.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  10. In case anyone forgot by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Informative

    The account he broke into was being used by Palin to conduct state business that she wanted to hide from being recorded in her official state email account.

    Just a reminder.

    1. Re:In case anyone forgot by DesScorp · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The account he broke into was being used by Palin to conduct state business that she wanted to hide from being recorded in her official state email account.

      Just a reminder.

      And whether or not that's true, it's completely immaterial to the facts of his prosecution. Just a reminder.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:In case anyone forgot by wh1pp3t · · Score: 1

      As my father used to tell me as a child, "two wrongs != a right"

    3. Re:In case anyone forgot by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      Salvador Allende would be proud!

    4. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this up.

    5. Re:In case anyone forgot by wh1pp3t · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin.

    6. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was she punished for doing this?

    7. Re:In case anyone forgot by lingon · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no, it's absolutely not, have you ever heard of attenuating circumstances (or at least I think it's called that in the US)? Guessing the answers to security questions to access a state officials e-mail account in order to show that the official in question is using it for illegal purposes should be a helluva lot lighter than hacking an e-mail account in general using any sane interpretation of the law.

    8. Re:In case anyone forgot by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ...And that somehow makes it better that he accessed someone's email account without authorization?

      The people executed in North Korea are convicted criminals. Just a reminder.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:In case anyone forgot by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      Yes; she was sentenced to writing a bestselling book and having her own TV show.

    10. Re:In case anyone forgot by binarylarry · · Score: 0

      hahahaha

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    11. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The account was Palin's account and she had no reported wrongdoing with her account exposed by this incident. Predominantly, it was indeed personal communications. Additionally, David Kernell is the son of politician for the party that opposes Palin. David Kernell was specifically looking for dirt to damage Palin politically, and came up empty. Mike Kernell, David' father, had a strangely lawyerly and political stance on the matter.

    12. Re:In case anyone forgot by jbssm · · Score: 2

      The account he broke into was being used by Palin to conduct state business that she wanted to hide from being recorded in her official state email account. Just a reminder.

      Yeah, and very awakwardly, I didn't notice Palin going on trial about this. Hum, I wonder where all those equallity principles that USA constitution talks about do lie.

    13. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get what you mean. I'd really like to, so if you could spell it out for me, I'd be grateful.

      (I'm thinking it has to do with the CIA-orchestrated coup being secret and exposing government secrets even through "wrong" means such as in this case with Palin, would be right?)

    14. Re:In case anyone forgot by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      To expose a corrupt official? Absolutely!

      If your opponent is cheating but you say you are above that, you will lose every time!

    15. Re:In case anyone forgot by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Which means that this was a political dirty trick. The guy in question is the son of a high ranking Democrat. What are the chances his father was the instigator of this "hack"?
      I have yet to see anyone post any of the emails that were released through this that actually showed any wrongdoing by Sarah Palin.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    16. Re:In case anyone forgot by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Not true. Palin had two Yahoo accounts. After this account was hacked and found to be innocuous, crazy lefties said "Well then it must have been the other one." (Of course, there was never any evidence of this.) Because God forbid a government official may want an off the record account (or several) specifically so private, non-state related business remained private and non-state related.
      Let's also remember that the kid's father is a Democrat state congressman.
      Just a reminder.

    17. Re:In case anyone forgot by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Mike Kernell (D-93rd District, Tennessee House of Representatives), David' father, had a strangely lawyerly and political stance on the matter.

      Fixed that for you.

    18. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. She actually DIDN'T conduct state business. If there was, this guy would have been the "whistleblower". That's merely what she was accu

    19. Re:In case anyone forgot by roccomaglio · · Score: 1

      This is not true. There were accusations that she was using it for state business. People reviewed the emails and did not find that she was using the account for state business. There were a few emails that were questionable, but nothing that was far over the line.

    20. Re:In case anyone forgot by JSBiff · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Where's the proof she was conducting state business with an unauthorized account? If she was breaking the law, by all means, indict her. Just because *you* say she was breaking the law doesn't mean that, absent any proof whatsoever, she actually was. There's no actual evidence she broke the law.

      I tremble at the thought of the injustice which would be prevalent in a society if it were run by people who think like you. You claim to wish for justice while simultaneously contradicting yourself, by demanding that an injustice be done (i.e. indict Sarah Palin without any evidence just because you don't like her).

    21. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And whether or not that's true, it's completely immaterial to the facts of his prosecution. Just a reminder.

      And she was never prosecuted for her own illegal actions in the slightest.

      Just a reminder.

    22. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the real issue (supposedly resonponsible people) is that she is a clueless person that is a danger to America and it's national security.

      Given the others in charge, I'm sure she'll do well as she sucks up to the right people. I bet she had a say in if the lad went down, she seems a proper nasty piece of work to me.

    23. Re:In case anyone forgot by Tom · · Score: 1

      btw - did she get any punishment for that? AFAIK it was also a violation of the law.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually, it wasn't. She was keeping work and political email separate, as legally required.

    25. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      absent any proof whatsoever

      Um, leaked email inbox contents from a personal, non-governmental mail address where she was illegally conducting governmental business? You know, the governmental business that she's legally required to conduct exclusively through the government provided/sanctioned/monitored email account? That she was side-stepping? Illegally? Which she then confirmed as actually being her mail, thus proving that it was her illegal actions being documented?

      Oh right. She's a rich politician. If she'd just been some schlub, she'd already be in jail for it. Being caught red handed and publicly admitting that yes, that was you, isn't proof when you're a rich politician. Society would crumble in it's entirety if the laws actually applied to the people who make them.

    26. Re:In case anyone forgot by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I believe that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. If the leaks did show she was breaking the law, then that's a shame that this guy screwed up what could have been the evidence needed to indict and convict her. But, again, justice demands that courts should use legally obtained evidence. Which, in a way, makes this guy doubly at fault - illegal entry into the account, and interfering with evidence.

    27. Re:In case anyone forgot by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1, Informative

      This isn't informative it's just plain WRONG. Please, post an email that shows the conduction of official state business rather than private personal communication. And not just the names on the emails, but the actual content as coworkers are sometimes friends that have personal discussions too. As far as I remember all the emails shown were of a personal nature but the idea that she was using it for official correspondence pre-dated the leak so people just up and decided that the leak confirmed what they already beleived despite every major news outlet and the actual leaked emails contradicting them.

    28. Re:In case anyone forgot by Noren · · Score: 3, Informative

      You believe a falsehood. Evidence unlawfully obtained by a private person is admissible, and Kernell wasn't a government employee. The Fourth Amendment protects against actions by government officials, not other private individuals. See BURDEAU v. MCDOWELL where a thief stole private papers which were nevertheless later used to prosecute the owner of the papers.

    29. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never forgot!

      Yet, did Palin get in any legal trouble because she actually broke the law? (as I understand it, it was illegal for her to use an 'public' account to conduct state business) NOPE! It was pleasantly brought to light in the media, and the briskly brushed aside and the focus diverted to the evil hacker~. Hacker my ass .....

    30. Re:In case anyone forgot by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      First, you keep moving the goalposts. Stick to one argument; it at least gives you *some* credibility.

      I believe that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.

      Applies to government investigations. This guy was not a government agent.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    31. Re:In case anyone forgot by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Umm, if I recall there was at least some email in the lot that involved discussing business in her role as governor in some way, and doing that on a private email account so you can't be held accountable for the communication in question is illegal, as I understand it.

    32. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stopped short suggesting he be punished by forcibly watching the TV show. You are a kind soul...

    33. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, life is so much easier when we dispense with all that 'laws' and 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'evidence' crap and just declare that 'she actually broke the law'.

    34. Re:In case anyone forgot by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I'm not moving the goalposts. I've tried, in the little bit of time I had available, to research this, and I find multiple sources saying there was no smoking gun in the emails indicating Sarah Palin had misappropriately used her yahoo email.

      I was also raising the point, which appears to be incorrect (though it seems strange it would be allowed for a court to use illegally obtained evidence) that *even if there was*, I think it is unjust to pursue justice using illegally obtained evidence. Why? Because there was no reason to believe, before breaking into her account, that anything illegal was happening, and we should NOT allow people to break the law just because *after the fact* they find some evidence of illegal activity.

      In any case, there can be more than one point in a logical debate - more than one important criteria which need to be satisfied. Point one: where are the 'smoking gun emails'? Point two, it happens, may be invalid, I'll have to research a bit more about that, but I'm willing to concede it for now. It's not 'moving the goalposts' to try to enumerate multiple problems with an argument. Only when all potential problems are resolved, can you say you've reached the 'goal'.

    35. Re:In case anyone forgot by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Nothing was exposed though, except personal information. Palin's use of personal email accounts had been known for quite a while before the account was hacked, and was already under investigation.

      All this guy did was cause trouble, criminally.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    36. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are complaining about something that actually happened:

      http://www.adn.com/2010/01/22/1106051/judge-sides-with-state-palin-in.html

      She did go to court. She won. She didn't do anything wrong. That must be awkward for you.

      The kid on the other hand was found guilty because what he did was actually illegal.

    37. Re:In case anyone forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin.

      As Sarcasm would say, "I may be ugly, but you're dumb. Phthtpt!"

  11. No, he got what was coming to him by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    For as much as I agree with the judge (and am an anti-Palinite), I'm not so sure why he should be an exception.

    1. Re:No, he got what was coming to him by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      He shouldn't, but it's a ridiculously harsh sentence. Community service would have been appropriate. 366 days of prison? That would seem excessive even for a first time DUI conviction.

    2. Re:No, he got what was coming to him by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Straw man. No one says he should be an exception to punishment.

      Everyone is saying "this man is not a danger to society and does not belong in prison with violent criminals"

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:No, he got what was coming to him by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Given that he's going to a minimum security prison camp he's not going to be in prison with violent criminals. Also he got one year plus one day, which is the magic threshold for being allowed good conduct time.

      I'd say that anyone saying "does not beling in prison with violent criminals" is likely right on the money, but they are completely missing the point and exposing their ignorance.

    4. Re:No, he got what was coming to him by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Point taken on the prison camp. Pardon my ignorance for being a law-abiding citizen who had not previously had the need to learn such details about how our prison industry works.

      However, I still stand by the belief that a young man with no prior criminal record, who engaged in "hacking" that resulted in no monetary damages and minimal emotional damages does not need to be removed from society, even if it is a minimum security prison camp. I believe the judge in this case agreed when he recommended a halfway house, which I believe is more like probation.

      Had this been his second hacking, or had his hacking resulted in actual monetary damages, then perhaps I can see sending him away. However, he is no Kevin Mitnick or TJX Hacker.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  12. Heck, if you have known bad locks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, if you have known bad locks on your house and you get burgled, your insurance won't pay up.

    So, yes, the ease of break-in DOES make a difference.

    PS what about Palin's abuse and hiding of government email, avoiding (and DELETING!!!! cf CRU "deleted my data!" complaints, esp. from Palin and pals) the freedom of information act and hiding her actions illegally?

    1. Re:Heck, if you have known bad locks by Americano · · Score: 1

      No, the "ease of break-in" doesn't make a difference, except where you have *contracted* to take certain precautions against theft as a risk mitigation factor, and then you fail to fulfill your obligations under that contract.

      The police don't let a thief go because he took stuff from an unlocked house. The ease with which the thief broke in has no bearing on whether or not he committed a crime.

      And in response to your P.S.: http://www.adn.com/2010/01/22/1106051/judge-sides-with-state-palin-in.html

      A judge has ruled that she did nothing "illegal" in using personal email as she did. Is it sloppy? Sure. Is it a gray area? Sure. Is it something where she complied with the letter, but not the obvious spirit of the law? You betcha. Could she have shown better judgement? Absolutely. But when a judge issues a ruling that she didn't do anything illegal, and you continue calling her actions "illegal," well... it just suggests that you're blinded by partisan hatred for the woman, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.

      And let's be clear about one other thing: as governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin is subject to the ALASKA state laws that govern email retention. If she had been elected to federal office as our Vice President, *then* she would have been subject to FEDERAL email retention requirements.

    2. Re:Heck, if you have known bad locks by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Maybe some insurance policies won't pay, but police will still investigate and arrest anyone caught with some of your stuff.

  13. Eh? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    I know very little about American law, but if the judge recommends a particular sentence, who has the power to change that?

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Eh? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      RTFA!

      I know this is Slashdot, but before you start making questions, you can at least try reading the available info. Otherwise, just start commenting right away, but making statements, not questions!

    2. Re:Eh? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Recommendations is not the same as Sentence.

      The judge sentenced the guy to serve time but recommended immediate parole.

      The judge is not an arbiter of parole, which is the authority of the parole boards.

      As someone else already said.. if the judge didnt want this guy to serve time, he should not have sentenced him to jail time. But the judge did want him to serve time, just not hard time.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Eh? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      The USBOP - US Federal bureau of prisons.
      Yes they are making an example out of him. Some one should spike them for it all over the media.

    4. Re:Eh? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way it worked out is this. . . the judge sentenced him to prison. The USBOP has different prisons available to them. The judge cannot determine *which* prison he gets sent to - that's at the discretion of the USBOP. The judge recommended that the prison he be sent to be one of the 'halfway houses' which the USBOP runs, but the BOP decided to send him to a more traditional prison. Basically, a judge can determine if a felon goes to prison or not, but cannot choose the prison.

      Do I have the gist of the situation correct?

  14. He got off easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have had longer sentence.

    1. Re:He got off easy. by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Actually, your sentence should have been longer, specifically, by just one letter: a.

    2. Re:He got off easy. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually his sentence should have been longer by an "a" and a space.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  15. Don't simplify the crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. He didn't break into "someone's account. He broke into a governor and VP candidate's account.
    2. He didn't stop at breaking into the account and reading the data. He passed the password onto others. That's like the difference between stealing a set of keys and simply entering the house versus giving the keys to someone who's going to steal things.

    1. Re:Don't simplify the crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps is she wasn't breaking the law by using said email account for government purposes it'd be no different from any other schmuck.

    2. Re:Don't simplify the crime by cjcela · · Score: 1

      You just don't get it: It does no matter who the victim was. Law should apply the same for all citizens.

      Also, I see a tendency in the comments here where the ones that tend to sympathize with Palin post as Anonymous Cowards. Why is that? Are you guys ashamed of showing your name next to your ideas?

    3. Re:Don't simplify the crime by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're afraid someone is going to hack into their slashdot account. After all, if there's a significant body of commentors stating that it's just fine that this guy hacked her account because they happen to disagree with Sarah Palin politically, then why wouldn't they hack anybody's account that they happen to disagree with? There seems to be a certain lack of respect for privacy, civility, respect for others, and the rule of law here on slashdot.

      It's somewhat unsettling.

  16. They were both breaking the law! by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    The kid got caught breaking the law and goes to prison for the crimes he committed. What's so wrong about that part of the whole story?

    1. Re:They were both breaking the law! by Capt_Morgan · · Score: 1

      Going to speeding for something less serious than speeding is ridiculous.. that's the problem. If you hacked my e-mail you would never go to prison

      --
      It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
    2. Re:They were both breaking the law! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Probably that the law is one sided. It's difficult to get a universal respect for the law if it only applies to "the little people".

      I have to say, with Obama's decision to focus on criminalizing whistleblowers and protecting governmental torturers, killers, and kidnappers, I can't say I see respect for the law increasing over the next few years. About the best we can hope for is that the Teabaggers will actually come up with something concrete that is (1) illegal, (2) something they oppose and (3) something Obama has actually done, and that they force Boehner to actually act. I don't see that as particularly likely though, as that particular trifecta is going to be hard to come by.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:They were both breaking the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lopsided? You mean like famous NFL star Lawrence Taylor getting probation for statutory rape while this kid gets a couple years?

      http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-lawrencetaylorindicted

      No chance the Tea Party changes anything. They all agree with torture and don't care about anyone's rights except their own. Beck likes to claim he's a modern Thomas Paine, but Paine endorsed defending your enemies rights as a way to defend your own. That's a pretty significant difference with Beck who only cares about himself just like the rest of the Republicans (I can't tell what the Democrats care about).

  17. He was convicted of... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    obstruction of justice
    Maximum 20 years in prison
    $250,000 fine
    5 years supervised release

    Basically he panic and tried to cover his tracks. Sure he was found guilt and punished, but this punishment is stupid, spiteful, and harmful to society as a whole.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:He was convicted of... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Yes yes. A fine example of what our judicial system produces.

      Stop talking to lawyers. Stop calling the police every time you see something "wrong". Start talking to your fellow human beings and work out your problems.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:He was convicted of... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      actually,, this is an exception. Normally the judges recommendation would have been accepted.

      And I don't understand why you think I call the police every time I see something curious, and don't talk to my neighbors.

      You're post is pretty useless.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:He was convicted of... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      You just listed what the maximum allowables for sentencing are, not what he was actually sentenced to, which is 366 days in a minimum security prison, dorm style, little to no fencing, low worker-prisoner ratio, and a focus on job skills and work development. How is that stupid, spiteful and harmful to society as a whole?

    4. Re:He was convicted of... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      It's useless because you think I'm talking to you, instead of commenting on the state of the Judicial system.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  18. Why is Palin using a Yahoo account? by digitaldc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is there something she wants to hide from the public?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Why is Palin using a Yahoo account? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there were job-related e-mails in there that according to the law have to go into a government repository and for some reason she didn't want those messages to go on record. She was not punished for this.

      Likewise she will not get punished for inciting violence and shootings, for being just plain dumb or for the air time she squandered with her show.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Why is Palin using a Yahoo account? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1
      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Why is Palin using a Yahoo account? by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Please post a link to some. I'd like to read them.

  19. Oblig Office Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison.

  20. INDIA vs USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INDIA: offend some stupid politicians, and his cronies/goons will beat you up pretty bad. that too will be a crime.

    in US, too, offend some stupid politicians, and while his cronies will not beat you up, (hey it's the civilized first world), his real cronies, the system,feds cops etc will actually send you to jail for some reason like breaking some 300 year old law. Or for committing mail fraud. or something. And that action will not be a crime.

    Wonder which is better..

  21. Parlin marked the comment as the "losing reason" by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    So first of all - please do not say her name - she is like Beatleguice and will continue to stick around as long as you talk about her.

    However, I have to chime in and say that I believe this to be an absolute travesty of our justice system... Thousands of people get their email's "hacked" daily, so why would we give one person special treatment? This is democracy inaction.

    I'm still up in the air about which one is the anti-christ... Oprah or Miss Alaska... remember, don't say her name!!!

  22. Seems fitting by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    To everyone saying he "shouldn't be locked away in a hole with more dangerous people", this kid's being put into a "minimum security resort", not a "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison", to quote Office Space. The worse people he'll run into are probably embezzlers.

    1. Re:Seems fitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when he goes for revenge, he'll have the knowledge to hit her where it hurts the most, her funding. Brilliant!!!!

    2. Re:Seems fitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And other white collar criminals that might know ways to hone his skills? It still makes no sense!

    3. Re:Seems fitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a perfect world, he'd run into Palin.

  23. If he's guilty, he faces the law. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    First, I acknowledge that there are inequalities in our justice system, that some people who have done more serious crimes, sometimes face lesser penalty. Also, not all those convicted are guilty.

    But, just because the email account belongs to a politician *you don't like*, doesn't make it legal for someone to hack their email accounts. Do computer accounts deserve legal protection from people breaking into them? I think the answer is yes, and I believe most people would agree you have a reasonable expectation of legal protection for your private or business (if you own a business) computer accounts.

    Just because not everyone who hacks into accounts is caught, doesn't mean that those who *are caught* and convicted by a jury should not face the punishment for their crimes. Now, perhaps it was a mistake for whoever sentenced this fellow to ignore the judges recommendation. However, if the judge only *recommends* a sentence, but is not tasked with actual sentencing, then it is ultimately not his decision. His decision is guidance, not binding.

    When you hack into other people's accounts, you're committing a felony. There's nothing unjust about sending a felon to prison.

  24. don't mess with the grizzled woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Palin's rabid these days and she's just dumb enough to call in a favor and get the guy locked up. Wonder if she called in the favor using Yahoo Mail?

  25. another part of the story is missing here by zuki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another potential crime which is not often spoken about was that in doing so, he also inadvertently managed to prove that the then-governor of Alaska was using her private email account for conducting state business, something against which there are very strict compliance rules, and that according to many was a clear breach of protocol on her part. These emails are supposed to be archived and later visible to anyone who wishes to see how state business is conducted, but cannot if she used a private account. In a similar vein, the Republicans in power during the Bush years suffered an unfortunate and accidental 'total erasure' all their emails from the White House servers including any backups there may have been for a period of well over a year, which only the more cynical among us would link to the possibility that this may just have been done so that no incriminating evidence could ever be found with regards to what was really discussed when the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses, and other trivial, inconsequential matters. "Real Americans" would far more readily accept the idea that the government losing all of this data and never keeping a single backup of it was a totally unexpected thing, and that's that.

    Yes, I think that what this young man did is reprehensible, but so are the other points above, none of which ever got pursued (to my knowledge). That stinks of a real and pretty obvious double-standard of accountability. Sweeping them under the carpet by employing some other distraction was the only magic trick required...

    No wonder they hate ***leaks so much. The sort of action which might just begrudgingly force them to come clean about their own practices and start having to play by the rules themselves. For that reason, expect stiffer sentences for similar crimes in the future, to prevent anyone from ever seeing all of this dirty laundry being aired.

    1. Re:another part of the story is missing here by morgauxo · · Score: 0

      Come on!! Somebody mod this up!

    2. Re:another part of the story is missing here by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Another potential crime which is not often spoken about..

      Ah, no. That topic has been beaten to death in the blogosphere. There's a reason no charges were ever filed for a few emails that touched on official business, get over it.

    3. Re:another part of the story is missing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another potential crime which is not often spoken about was that in doing so, he also inadvertently managed to prove that the then-governor of Alaska was using her private email account for conducting state business, something against which there are very strict compliance rules, and that according to many was a clear breach of protocol on her part.

      That's irrelevant to this kid's case. As a general rule, you don't give someone a pass for criminal activity just because, in the course of it, he unintentionally revealed someone else's criminal activity. The only exceptions are when suspects have very specialized knowledge needed to prosecute a conspiracy that would be very hard to crack open without that knowledge--for example, when a District Attorney cuts a deal with a mob hitman in exchange for information to take down the rest of the family.

    4. Re:another part of the story is missing here by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Can you post this proof? From what I remember it wasn't inadvertent, it was one of the reasons he hacked her account in the first place (the accusations already existed) and when he did nothing that was released looked like official correspondence conducting state business but simply private personal conversations between friends. Of course that didn't matter to the people making the claims in the first place because they just shout "leaked emails prove wrongdoing!" and everyone like yourself keeps repeating it years later without ever bothering to check for yourself or listen to ANY of the news reports at the time which contradict your point of view.

    5. Re:another part of the story is missing here by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, you're an idiot who is not fact checking what they've been told.

      Those emails didn't prove anything like what you're claiming and the fact that you're STILL claiming it is slander.

      Doesn't matter whether you like Mrs. Palin or not, THE TRUTH SHOULD BE IMPORTANT.

  26. Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's in that for government? By throwing non-violent offenders in a cage, we can grab power and revenue, and precedent for the next power and revenue grab.

    You're not in the business of government, are you?

  27. Cue the violins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the violins for the criminal.

  28. Why is.... by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Why is the US Bureau of Prisons deciding the punishment instead of a judge?

    1. Re:Why is.... by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      As I understand from the article, the judge did decide the punishment -- that this person deserved to be incarcerated. The problem is _where_ the person will be incarcerated, and in the US the BoP decides that.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  29. The Rule of Law. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    Please, protecting people and businesses from having others illegally gain access to their private accounts is not some obscure, ridiculous 300 year old law. It's completely reasonable for it to be a felony to illegally access other people's accounts. It's also completely reasonable to send someone who broke the law by hacking into someone else's account to jail for doing so. You do the crime, you do the time.

    We're not talking about one of those legal technicality laws that make criminals out of almost everyone. We're talking about purposely using technical features to gain access to an account which you have not been authorized to access by either the person who 'owns' the account, or by a court through a search warrant. (Yes, I realize that there are issues of the federal government itself doing warrantless wiretapping of the Internet, but that's another issue; yes, it's hypocritical, but at the same time, just because the government is violating our rights, doesn't mean it should be ok for everyone to violate our rights - you don't solve problems by creating additional problems).

    1. Re:The Rule of Law. . . by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Please, protecting people and businesses from having others illegally gain access to their private accounts is not some obscure, ridiculous 300 year old law. It's completely reasonable for it to be a felony to illegally access other people's accounts. It's also completely reasonable to send someone who broke the law by hacking into someone else's account to jail for doing so. You do the crime, you do the time.

      ...except that he got hit with a misdemeanor for accessing the account. He got hit with the felony for wiping the data from his computer when he found out the FBI was looking for him.

  30. Jail is not prison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is not jail is not prison is not jail.

    Am I making myself clear enough?

  31. Means one thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A privately-run prison needs a hand-out.

  32. Uncreative justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pffft.

    He should have been forced to continue reading her e-mails instead.

  33. It's not so bad by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know someone who went to a minimum security prison. I suppose they might not all be alike but if they are sending him to one anything like my friend went to he has a year vacation to spend playing playstation games and/or in a gym occasionally interrupted by a class or two.

    Now.. trying to find a good job with a conviction on his record once he gets out... That's the part which will suck for him.

    1. Re:It's not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now.. trying to find a good job with a conviction on his record once he gets out... That's the part which will suck for him.

      he could always run for congress,or perhaps the senate.

    2. Re:It's not so bad by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      There's always Goldman Sachs jobs available!

  34. Don't call him a hacker by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    He just reset a yahoo password without taking any precaution.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  35. NIce way to spin the same libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Because nobody got shot as a result of it?

    There isn't a shred of evidence that the shooting by this deranged individual was "a result of" of this map or anything similar. This is not even the famous "after X does not mean as a result of X" fallacy, because there is no evidence that this particular individual ever saw this map or similar electoral materials.

    He also known to have read Karl Marx. Want to deftly pin this on Marxists? No? I thought so.

     

  36. HP spying and pre-texting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember when HP hired goons to spy on board members, and media, via pre-texting.. Was anyone prosecuted for that? Did anyone go to jail?

    That seemed like a far more calculated and serious invasion of privacy. Especially since it was done for money/gain, even if indirectly.

  37. Justice much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justice should be about well... justice. Not about

    making an example out of this guy

  38. Selectively Enforced BS by thefixer(tm) · · Score: 1

    The tragedy here is that no private citizen can ever hope to be protected with this vigor. They've crucified someone because of who the crime was committed against, not based on the crime. It's a tragedy of our legal system, which is no longer even remotely about justice, the good of the people, or reforming criminals. It's about money and power. (Making money for those in power.)

    I would whole-heartedly agree with "if you can't do the time, don't do the time" if there were a snowball's chance in hell that when my private accounts were hacked, there would be similar penalties. What do you think would happen if any one of us were to call the police and say "my email account was hacked"? I bet we'd be lucky if they didn't try to press charges against us for wasting their time.

    1. Re:Selectively Enforced BS by thefixer(tm) · · Score: 1

      Sorry, typo, I meant "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

  39. Oh Palin.... by ProfessorKaos64 · · Score: 0

    "Sarah Palin has suggested the incident was the reason she failed to reach the White House" Are you serious bitch? You actually think it was because of this and not because your the dumbest broad to run for any office in decades?

  40. Country Club Prison by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1
    Ashland is indeed what's sometimes called a "country club prison," described by the Bureau of Prisons as "dormitory style" without fences."

    I think the "300 miles from home" observation is misplaced. Prison is never fun, but better to do your time with white collar criminals than with habitual sadists, rapists, and murderers who've spent most of their lives behind walls and gun towers. I think the BOP cut him a huss.

    Even so, the sentence was disproportionate for young first-time offender. Its only purpose is an attempt to deter computer crime. If it does that, then the young jailbird will be a martyr to a good cause.

  41. Cry Me a river by Biggseye · · Score: 1

    This person hacked someones email, I don't care that it was a public official or not. Prison is right where he belongs. I am not advocating a huge sentence, a 2 year stay would be enough. Minimum Security, no computers, no access to the net in any way. That would be enough I think.

  42. Palin and Whitehouse by ArmchairGeneral · · Score: 1

    And Palin believes the e-mail issue may have caused her the Whitehouse? Lipstick on a pig indeed.

  43. U.S. Declaration of Independence. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    While the Declaration of Independence does not have the weight of law, exactly, it very much informs our national laws.

    From the document:

    The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. . .

    . . .For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

    While that just deals with the issue of the locality of trial, it does present an idea that justice should be relatively local. Trial should be local, and probably, incarceration should be local. You probably shouldn't incarcerate felons from California in, say, Maine or Florida.

    For one thing, we try not to punish the families of criminals. This is why we allow family visitation rights. If you deny the criminal visitation rights, even if you think that's appropriate (say for someone convicted of murder, where the victim's family is cut off from the deceased), the problem becomes that you punish the innocent along with the guilty.

    Relatively local incarceration means that you allow the innocent family members of the guilty to still be able to visit.

    That said, this being a Federal crime and a Federal prison, it's not unreasonable that a convict would serve his term at a facility a few hundred miles away - I don't expect the Federal government to maintain a prison even in *every* state, let alone multiple per state. You commit a federal crime, it's not unreasonable for you to end up in a federal prison maybe one or two states away, if that's the nearest suitable facility for you to serve your sentence at.

    1. Re:U.S. Declaration of Independence. . . by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      That is a good point. Even though i would be too ashamed to want to see my mom, she would probably want to see me and shouldn't be punished as part of my incarceration.

      my other thought, that i didn't bring up, is 300 miles isn't that far. My family has a cabin 300 miles away from home. we regularly drive up there. i've been known to make the trip there and back in 1 day. it's roughly a 5 hour drive.

    2. Re:U.S. Declaration of Independence. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, tech has made the world smaller. In the 1700's or 1800's, incarcerating someone 300 miles away probably meant that the family either never could visit, if they were too poor, or might only see you once or twice a year. With planes, trains, and automobiles at prices that most folks can afford, 300 miles, while still inconvenient, does mean you can visit a bit more frequently.

      It's still somewhat of a burden - I live about 300 miles from my parents (because that's where I found a job). I visit them maybe 5 or 6 times a year. It's a long enough drive that I don't really want to visit them more often than that, because if I'm going to visit them, I'm going for the entire weekend (you don't drive 5 hours to just visit someone for an hour or two, then drive 5 hours back home. . . well, ok you might if they were in prison, because you might only be allowed an hour or two to visit, but in general that's true).

  44. Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Folks, take a look at the charges he was convicted of. Then think about this sentence.

    Mr. Kernell was convicted of two charges. For breaking into Sarah Palin's email account, he was convicted of a misdemeanor for unlawful computer access. But a misdemeanor isn't enough payback for embarrassing one of the political elite. So he was also charged with a felony account of obstruction of justice. The FBI says that he erased data off of his computer. Specifically, he deleted his copies of Palin's emails, and then defragged his disk. He also cleared his browser history.

    Well, duh. The kid did something stupid. When he saw what an uproar he had created, he tried to make it all go away. Wow, that really is grounds for a federal felony charge.

    This isn't justice folks. This is payback for embarrassing one of our betters.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, he obstructed justice. He was convicted; however because it was such a minor issue, the judge saw no reason to put him into a prison.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obstruction of justice charge is interesting. I'm kind of uncomfortable with it, but you did miss a point. The guy wiped his computer _after_ he _thought_ the FBI was coming after him. If he had wiped his computer clean before hand... I guess there would be no crime? Still seems silly.

      Another interesting thing is even though the computer was clean, the guy got caught because he had a virus that was also tracking his browsing habits. Would using a virus scanner also be obstruction of justice?

      I guess the lesson is to use linux and incognito mode.

    3. Re:Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the lesson is to use linux and incognito mode.

      Or stay the fuck out of other people's email accounts.

    4. Re:Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the moron did something illegal. Then he started committing other crimes to try and hide his previous crime. Yes, that IS grounds for a federal felony charge. Lookup what "obstruction of justice" is. This isn't some trumped up charge, it is the precise scenario the law was created for.

      You know the old saying: it's not the crime, it's the cover up. This idiot just learned what that means first hand.

      Apparently there are a number of people who have convinced themselves that destroying, publishing, and stealing others property doesn't matter if you are sitting behind a computer. They are wrong.

    5. Re:Grrr, growf, we're gonna get him!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't justice folks. This is payback for embarrassing one of our betters.

      Except that it's not unusual to see people get hammered by obstruction of justice charges like this. Trying to cover up a crime can get you in worse trouble than committing the crime in the first place. Hell, in some cases, they can't even prove the initial crime but can still get you for obstruction: Just ask Martha Stewart.

  45. Palin failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sarah Palin has suggested the incident was the reason she failed to reach the White House" (the quote underneath the picture in the story) I would say the reason she failed to reach the White House is A. because she was running with old man winter ala chipmunk cheeks who didn't have one good thing to say while he was running for President, and B. Because the trees of Alaska each have more intelligence than she has.

  46. Justice for all huh? by McTickles · · Score: 2

    So this is what it all comes down to ?

    The "greatest" country in the world found to be run based on the tantrums of an elite few ?

    Who would have thought...

    If the elite doesn't like you, it doesn't matter what the judge say, they'll get rid of you anyway.

    It seems more and more obvious that the Ameritards are simply bullies who like to boss people around.

    Europe and Asia should really cut relations with them soon because no matter what they'll be always the school's bully.

    Can we please free ourselves from the american-spread misconception that they are the best ? Can we please stop handing them over whatever they like ? Can we please stop bending over backwards for them ?
    We are only feeding their endless greed and tantrums by giving in to them.

    --
    http://www.twilightcampaign.net/

  47. you're just demonstrating that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some victim is more equal than others. hack joe blow down the street, probation. hack a (retarded bitch) politician, a years.

  48. contrariwise by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    Looks like the majority opinion is that Mr. Kernell (what a cool last name for a hacker) deserves punishment. I don't agree.

    What of Yahoo, for screwing up and making it so easy to crack email accounts? If the hacker deserves punishment, shouldn't Yahoo be punished also?

    And Palin? Shouldn't she bear a little responsibility too? I don't like those "security" questions. You shouldn't use publicly available information like the actual date of your birthday for any security purpose, though we're all pushed to do so. If Palin didn't know that, she should now. But using a different date is not much help. Dates are too weak.

    Suppose the hacker had been a nation, like, say, China? How do you punish China? Trade sanctions? Maybe even... war?? Ludicrous. Shows how petty this crime is.

    Everyone ought to be grateful the security hole was revealed. Otherwise, this could have gone on indefinitely. Now any governments that were using this to quietly spy on Yahoo email accounts may no longer be able to.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:contrariwise by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Screwing up and making it easy to crack email accounts is not a crime, nor is there any reason it should be. Choosing weak passwords is also not a crime, nor is there any reason it should be. To say otherwise would be like saying 'making it so you can close a car door without having it lock', or 'leaving your car unlocked' should be a crime. However, accessing someone's email (or taking their car) without permission IS a crime, and the sole responsibility for that crime belongs to the person who committed it. Quit trying to play the play the victim game.

  49. Part of the basis of Social Security by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    Social Security was founded in part to clear the way for younger workers.

    So many old dudes were working until they dropped, youth and vigour was flailing for social security was founded to get a lot of people out of the working category

    now that so many people on social security are again working until they drop-- whats the government to do?

    hmmm.. I like your plan

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:Part of the basis of Social Security by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There was, and remains, only one reason for Social Security: political power for Democrats. Everything else is window dressing.

      The idea that there was a significant number of old people working (and that their retirement would make way for youth and increase the "vigour" of industry is simply laughable, and an example of the falacy that the size of the economic pie is static.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Part of the basis of Social Security by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      I remembered 5th grade history correctly
      it was an Issue.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#Initial_opposition
      " However, proponents argued that there was in fact an advantage: it would encourage older workers to retire, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate. While most economists attribute the recession of 1937 and 1938 to other causes, historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession"."

      Now we HAVE social security, and the same problem rearing its ugly head--

      this is what sparked my comment.
      perhaps the solution will be-- kill the old workers...

      Think about it, social security formation DID wipe a lot of people out of the workforce, people that then retired.. now people on social security are staying in the workforce (where they can) and there is no 'program' to recreate the same changeover of workforce.. so now we need a "Final Solution"

      (not that I am a proponent of such)

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  50. WTF? by bussdriver · · Score: 0

    Palin's personal email had nothing to do with the "sanctity" of the election process! I object even to the use of sanctity, the election process is a joke and is so violated he could have hacked some voting machines and not lowered it much.

    Reporters looking for a meaningless scandal or Fox "news" trying to wreak the opposition are doing the same thing with the same intent as much as possible within the law --- following around politicians with long range mics trying to record something -- "reporting" anything they happen to pick up instead of chucking the footage of a candidate farting or tripping as being irrelevant.

    Palin's inability to secure her own email with a decent password was her fault. They should be glad he didn't just watch and inform the democrats what she was up to (nothing, she wasn't doing 'strategery' so not likely much there.)

    What about comedians? or interviewers? They didn't even have to try to make her look stupid but when they did--- they had huge results--- possibly trying to affect the national election (or get ratings.) For example, the Canadian radio show that committed fraud in the name of comedy by calling Palin as the president of France and making her look bad (which again she helped.)

    This kid should have been treated like anybody else messing with a public official-- the fact Palin was running for a high position shouldn't matter. If he broke into YOUR email account you'd be lucky if the police even bothered to visit him.... or even his boss's email for that matter.

    1. Re:WTF? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Reporters looking for a meaningless scandal or Fox "news" trying to wreak the opposition are doing the same thing with the same intent as much as possible within the law "

      I wonder why people like you have a bad view of FOX while completely ignoring CBS and Dan Rather. When you start bashing CBS (MSNBC and the rest) for their clear bias towards the (D) as much as FOX has bias towards (R) then I'll listen. It is pretty transparent bias.

      Remember, it was the MSM that blamed SP for the recent shooting in Phoenix. The Shooter was just nuts, and not part of anything related to SP, but I don't see any of them making apologies for jumping the gun there.

      Bias? NOOOOOO /sarcasm'

      BTW, I have no use for SP. She is just an amusing foil for the leftwing MSM press who are just as stupid as her.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:WTF? by moortak · · Score: 1

      If you want to know why people harp on FOX instead of CBS and Dan Rather there is a really simple explanation. When Dan Rather's whole mess came up he resigned and others were fired. When Olbermann made a donation to a candidate during a race he was suspended. When similar issues arise FOX does nothing. Are the other stations angelic arbiters of some perfect neutral truth, no, but they at least make an effort to keep up appearances.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  51. And this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA is in debt because America likes to make examples of people by spending your spending tax dollars.

    Good show.

  52. What about the CIA? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I don't have a problem with him serving a little time. What worries me is all those CIA agents running around completely free.

  53. Best use of the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personal opinion:

    After reading -- and experiencing -- how unjust law can be, I feel even more respect for the Solomonic decision to cut the baby in two.

    By applying the law and hearing which of the mothers complained about it being unjust, he could determine who was honest.

    Can we be as wise nowadays?

  54. Re:Parlin marked the comment as the "losing reason by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    So first of all - please do not say her name - she is like Beatleguice and will continue to stick around as long as you talk about her.
     

    Beetlejuice. Betelgeuse. Please pick one.

  55. No, they don't. by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    its not so private as you think. if you are at work, your employer has the right (so they say and so they act) to look at your emails (live or on disk) all they want. they can tap your phone, too, at work.

    If you're referring to accessing your private e-mail from a work computer, you are not correct. At least, depending on where you are, you are probably not correct. There will probably be more battles fought over this, but there's a sensible precedent to draw upon.

    I'm also pretty sure that unless you sign something agreeing to have your phone calls monitored, or you are otherwise told beforehand, standard wiretapping would apply in listening in on your personal phone calls, even if placed from a work telephone. They can certainly tell who you called and when, but not what you're saying, without agreement beforehand or a subpoena.

    Can they monitor this stuff? Sure, just as you can go get your neighbor's snail mail out of their mailbox and pore through it. They can't can't do it legally.

  56. You give the govt too much credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... where all his network access has to be reviewed by a parole officer...

    You've assumed a typical parole officer can tell the difference between a mouse and a dildo.

  57. This. .. isn't fucking reddit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't perpetuate the useless meme of "This." to slashdot.

  58. he didn't "hack" into her email account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He guessed her password.
    Just wanted to get that off my chest.

  59. I wouldn't give him credit for "hacking" by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

    If I remember the story correctly, he correctly guessed 3 security questions that were on her wiki page. Like "Where were you born?" "Name of your first daughter" etc... I take offense that such an act is considered "hacking" in the eyes of the public. This term sure has devolved since phone jacking decades ago.

  60. A pretty light sentence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for attempting to influence a Presidential election.

    Had he not published the emails, he wouldn't be in prison.

  61. Prisons are military-rule, by a standing army. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, you remember that bit about a standing army not allowed to be around except in times of war, well it's always been a war hasn't it?

    As well, nothing is good about being a "civilian", because that is Roman Civil Law jurisdiction, whereas the 48 States of America are Common Law "non-system" original root. To be a civilian means someone ruled you as mediocre or obsolete, and therefore "domesticated" you like a pruned wild bush to uproot from the calm glens and fens and into some royal yard. Prisons don't necessarily do any of that because they PREVENT you from repaying your debts or trespasses you caused onto others. Prisons are a political nuisance, in that some or other of your competitors thought isolation as a menes of distracting you for them to retain political advantage in your absence. In effect, Prisons are utilized by every mother-f*cking government agency and administrative body to isolate and destroy anyone that disrupts them from progress that they have no authority to commence or are preparing in anticipation that one day their current unlawful preparations will allow them to implement the new rule with little resistance. An example of that is how Clinton became president is when Americans scrambled to buy their Beans and Bullets and Ammunition; realy, every president has caused a spike in Arms sales because Americans simply know that a political platform is only an example of where the wiser investments (high return/yield) should be sown while the government is about to turn it's back to full-face. Of all the dismal presidencies, Bush sold the most drugs and Obama has sold the most Arms. There is no overlooking it. People vote for political changes based on their US Dollars, and to my comprehension of the monetary system means that every presidency in existance of the United States has all been a sham: people prove their political standing in where they spend their money, and none of these presidents were chosen. If voting was outlawed, and no offices were filled, the people will live better to their conscience, yet it is my informed opinion to let you know that the mercenaries and dirtbags that prior habitted those offices will no longer be disguised by such a political presumption. The United States is a sham perpetuated against the people inhabitting the 48 States of America.

  62. Why are we assuming anybody's is private? by grikdog · · Score: 1

    My working presumption since I learned Eudora has been that the 'net is inherently -- and more to the point, OBVIOUSLY -- insecure. When my email traffic isn't scanned automatically by the NSA, the KGB, Mossad, MI6 and all their various subclients, maybe I'll believe some kid isn't reading my stuff.

    The only real preventive measure against email surveillance is glasnost -- be open, be boring, be unafraid.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  63. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I'm seeing as funny here is that you guys are so concerned about how much it costs to keep people incarcerated when your country is spending trillions on wars around the world. Wouldn't jail be just a drop in the ocean. Actually come to think of it - whats NASA's budget compared to Iraq and Afghanistan?

    I think the dude did wrong and deserves punishment, but I also agree that Sarah Palin should be charged for using a Yahoo account for state business for the sole purpose of hiding things.

  64. Before we get outrages by moortak · · Score: 1

    Before everyone jumps to conclusions shouldn't we know how often these recommendations are followed. If the BOP usually ignores judges this is nothing. If they almost always go along with judges there might be a reason to be concerned.

    --
    Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  65. Isn't that contempt of court? by Kennita · · Score: 1

    When you ignore the justice system and do whatever you want, isn't that contempt of court (or criminal behavior, depending who's doing it and when)?

  66. To what end? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    There are only 3 reasons:

    1) Correction
    2) Prevention
    3) Punishment

    It kind of sounds pretty much like a vindictive #3 to me.