Sunlight Foundation Announces 'Sarah's Inbox'

Eponymous Hero writes "In a sequel to elenasinbox.com, the publicly released emails of Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, Sunlight Foundation has unveiled sarahsinbox.com to offer you easy access and search to Sarah Palin's recently released emails. If that doesn't flip your bits, have a gander at some of the tools Sunlight Foundation offers relating to government watchdogging, like Poligraft, or Inbox Influencer."

Comments

First post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hit it.

Re:First post.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I think you are referring to "sarahsbox.com"

An honest mistake...

Re:First post.

[1_brown_mouse]

I prefer to hit the outbox just to hear the squeals she makes.

Re:First post.

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to hit blown-out, redneck vagina?

Re:First post.

[PopeRatzo]

I think you are referring to "sarahsbox.com"

If you think she's good at judo, you should see her box.

Re:First post.

[ArcherB]

You want to hit blown-out, redneck vagina?

You must be new here.

When the only other option is the palm... yeah, I'd hit it.

Re:First post.

[doomy]

Looks more like an advertisement for Yahoo! mail.

Re:First post.

[nospam007]

I'd actually prefer the outbox too, that's where the crazy shit likely is.
The inbox consists merely of spam.

Can we get access to Obama's info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, I guess he isn't newsworthy enough.

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info?

[chemicaldave]

IIRC, Congressional and Executive communication records are not subject to the FOIA. Governers', however, are.

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info?

[Anonymous Coward]

But all the records of when he was mob boss protection in Chicago should be...

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info?

[Jim_Maryland]

Might want to read up on Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. Most information will generally become available within 12 years (with several exemptions listed in the link, primarily for security reasons).

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info?

[interkin3tic]

Yes. When he leaves office.

If Ashton Kutcher isn't cool with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'm not cool with it.

Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep our attention off of what is really happening that could make a difference in our lives. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

Indeed. Call me when we have a similar facility for people on this list.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[operagost]

Why stop there? How about for everyone who makes over, say, $30,000/year?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

Because someone making $30,001/year almost certainly does not have the ability to make a seriously damaging impact on the world.

What an odd question. Were you trying to make some point?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm assuming he's wondering the same I am.. why do people have a hard on for reading email?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[datapharmer]

Because most of america prefers privacy... you realize that is below median income right? Or you haven't realized you are getting screwed by coding for minimum wage in your mother's basement?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[idontgno]

I'm pretty sure I want careful scrutiny of every other human being on Earth besides myself, because you can't trust any of them, rich or poor. (Of course, I'm trustworthy... just ask me!)

And, in your heart, you know you want exactly the same thing.

The tricky part is backing down from that very unreasonable desire and coming to some kind of reasonable compromise where, perhaps, the people with the greatest power bear the burden of the greatest transparency.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point was that you've chosen an arbitrary amount. You attempt to hand-wave it, but you have shown no more justification for your number than he does for his. There are people with a lot of power who are not on that list, and there are people on that list who are not much involved in politics. You need to show why the people on that list are lesser citizens than yourself, deserving of fewer rights.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Mister Whirly]

As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...?
What IS really happening? What else should the media be reporting on? Yet another story about Fukushima?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you don't see the difference between someone making $30k/year and a billionaire?

Note that I'm not arguing one way or the other on the issue of who should have their email in the public eye; I'm just wondering how far your mental deficiencies go. Reductio ad absurdum only works if you don't have to make incredibly stupid leaps to get there.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[ArcherB]

As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.

Are you saying that if you are not a citizen of Alaska, you have not business reading Sarah Palin's email?

If so, I agree. There is no reason for the governor of Alaska's email to be national news other than a classic smear campaign.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Mister Whirly]

No, I am saying if the subject is not an elected public figure, you have no business reading their mail. Seeing Palin was an elected public official (until she quit half way through) she certainly qualifies. If you think that a governor of a state only does business within their own state, you are either being ignorant or misleading.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[psm321]

Would you expect to have your work e-mail read by all the stockholders of your employer?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

I think his point was that you've chosen an arbitrary amount.

I've chosen the most appropriate starting place.

There are people with a lot of power who are not on that list,

Yes, but let's start with those with the most power.

and there are people on that list who are not much involved in politics

Everything is politics. The extent to which you are involved in politics correlates with the amount of power you have.

You need to show why the people on that list are lesser citizens than yourself, deserving of fewer rights.

We all have the right to secrecy in matters of little consequence to others. None of us have the right to secrecy when making decisions which have the potential for great impact on others. A right doesn't necessarily affect each person equally: property law can only act to restrict the man without property, for example - such laws are of no benefit to the man yet they still apply to him because they are considered to benefit society at large. This is the basis for all law.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Sollord]

So we don't need to read any emails or have info on political appointees who aren't elected? Any and all public official of importance should qualify.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Toonol]

Think in principles. There qualitative issue is whether people with a certain level of wealth deserve to be stripped of privacy. The quantitative issue is what that level of wealth should be, and that's a far less important question.

I.E., the OP wants to strip rights based on wealth. The respondent was only haggling.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[atriusofbricia]

I think his point was that you've chosen an arbitrary amount.

I've chosen the most appropriate starting place.

There are people with a lot of power who are not on that list,

Yes, but let's start with those with the most power.

and there are people on that list who are not much involved in politics

Everything is politics. The extent to which you are involved in politics correlates with the amount of power you have.

You need to show why the people on that list are lesser citizens than yourself, deserving of fewer rights.

We all have the right to secrecy in matters of little consequence to others. None of us have the right to secrecy when making decisions which have the potential for great impact on others. A right doesn't necessarily affect each person equally: property law can only act to restrict the man without property, for example - such laws are of no benefit to the man yet they still apply to him because they are considered to benefit society at large. This is the basis for all law.

Really? So simply because they have over X amount of dollars you feel they should have no right to privacy? I'm sure in your role as mother, father, son, daughter, manager, supervisor or something you also make decisions that impact others. So, we can have all your emails, personal files and thoughts too, right? It's for the benefit of society at large!

I thought we should be protecting more people's privacy not trying to come up with more reasons to spy on them. Or is it that it's okay to spy on them because they're rich/different/gay/straight/christian/muslim/jewish/what-the-hell-ever-the-excuse-of-the-moment-is?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[ArcherB]

If you think that a governor of a state only does business within their own state, you are either being ignorant or misleading.

Well, if Alaska's governor and my state's governor exchanged emails, then I should be able to have access to those emails from MY state governor's email. I, as a non-citizen of Alaska, have no business reading the email from the governor of Alaska.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that those who elect public officials should have access to their work emails. I do NOT feel they should be available to people who are not the constituents of those officials. In this case, I feel that any Alaskan citizen should be allowed to go to the local courthouse and gain complete access to the emails on government servers. However, they should not be able to leave with a copy. If a news outlet wants to do a story on something in the email, they may take a copy of the email and reference it in their story. If there is no story, a reporter may NOT take a copy of the email.

Fair enough?

As for my boss reading my email, I fully expect it. However, I do not expect my boss to share my email with management of other companies or even the managers of another department within my company unless they have a need to know. And even in the need to know case, only the relevant emails should be exchanged. Just because I'm doing training in QA, the QA manager should not have access to ALL my email. Now, if I'm up for a transfer to the QA department, then maybe.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I feel that any Alaskan citizen should be allowed to go to the local courthouse and gain complete access to the emails on government servers. However, they should not be able to leave with a copy. If a news outlet wants to do a story on something in the email, they may take a copy of the email and reference it in their story. If there is no story, a reporter may NOT take a copy of the email.

I'm generally with you in principle, but the exact way you plan to control dissemination is horrible.

How do you prevent any arbitrary email of interest to be made into a nonstory and published, just to get the e-mail out in public? (e.g. to run a smear campaign by taking something more-or-less out of context.) What about a reporter looking to make a legitimate story by comparing different states' governors' approaches to $PROBLEM, but they don't have a story yet because they don't have the emails (and they're each individually locked up in their respective states, and they can't get copies because they don't have a story? (Or if you let them have copies, but then they realize there's no newsworthy story because all the governors said the same obvious things... do you punish them?)

Ultimately, I don't see any plausible way of controlling the information that doesn't unreasonably restrict the legitimate interest of the constituents (who we both agree should have access to it, and should be able to have their attention drawn to anything notable by the press). You don't have to make it easy for other people to access it, but if you make it publicly accessible to your state, it will get leaked. And to be honest, while it's certainly unpleasant to have the governance of my state and municipality criticized by people with no legitimate stake in it, I don't really see any concrete harm to be caused.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[SuricouRaven]

It'd also fuel lots of rumors - people spreading unreliable recollections of things they read in the courthouse, and which can't be easily verified or disproven.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

Really? So simply because they have over X amount of dollars you feel they should have no right to privacy? I'm sure in your role as mother, father, son, daughter, manager, supervisor or something you also make decisions that impact others. So, we can have all your emails, personal files and thoughts too, right? It's for the benefit of society at large!

In proportion. My mother/father/son/daughter/underlings should certainly have access to my communications where the communication has an impact on them. UK data protection law (see also EU relatives) considers this principle in the case of relationship between business and the individual: any individual has the right to make a subject access request to any firm for all communications concerning him personally (with only specific exceptions for law enforcement, etc.).

Not sure where you got the "thoughts" and "personal files" strawmen from. Neither are communications with others.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

The right to privacy is the right not to have intrusion into one's private life. It's certainly not the right for you to protect information about everything you say/do from everyone.

The haggling is over what counts as private life.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[brokeninside]

I would.

But I also expect that anything I put on e Internet, whether in email or through a search engine, might end up on the front page of the newspaper.

I seem to be in fairly small company on that, though. For some reason, most people seem to expect that unencrypted data sent over what is essentially a long chain of random machines belonging to other parties to be private in some meaningful sense.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Richard_at_work]

I'm afraid you are slightly off with regard to UK law - the Data Protection Act 1998 does indeed give individuals the right to request information from a company about themselves, this is called "subject access", but it does not extend to documents and communications, only the data itself and only if the request is valid (apparently, just being interested does not constitute a valid request).

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

I think you underestimate the power of the law.

In particular, you don't have to provide a good reason beyond "the law says I can have this information". (You may need to provide a good reason to ask them to destroy certain types of data held about you, e.g. to declare that the processing is causing you distress.) Nor do you get "only the data itself": the logic of any automated decision-making must be explained if requested and, per the link, "the purposes for processing the information and who the organisation is sharing the information with" must also be provided.

There are, of course, examples of data processing where the law must be interpreted to decide whether records must be released. For example, if two employees were to pass e-mail between each other about you in which they discussed your eligibility for something, would a SAR require you to disclose archives of those e-mails?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Richard_at_work]

Firstly, clicking in the comment box NINE FUCKING TIMES to add text, because each click causes another comment to load further up in the page, does not a good interface make - but is anyone at Slashdot going to sort their shit out? They haven't in the months since this issue was first noted...

Ok, on to the reply.

I'm afraid that the Governments guidance to businesses contradicts your interpretation:

Subject access provides a right to see the information contained in personal data, rather than a right to see the documents that include that information.

The above supports my refutation of your original point that communications were to be disclosed. I was not making any comment about other things required to be disclosed under the act - just that you do not get the email, you get the personal information within the email.

In your last example, the personal data would be part of the disclosure, but not the communications themselves - if there was a decision making process that needed to be explained, then that explanation would include the personal details, the decision and the reason for the decision, but again not the communications themselves.

Under the right of subject access, an individual is entitled only to their own personal data, and not to information relating to other people (unless they are acting on behalf of that person). Neither are they entitled to information simply because they may be interested in it.

This supports my original point about being interested not being reason enough for a valid SAR.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/access_to_personal_data.aspx

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

The above supports my refutation of your original point that communications were to be disclosed.

I asserted that "any individual has the right to make a subject access request to any firm for all communications concerning him personally". Perhaps you read that as "right to make a request for all communications". What I actually said was the right to make an SAR. Now:

1. A subject access request can, if you wish, apply to all communications concerning you;
2. The SAR entitles you to a copy of all personal data within those communications;
3. As the above link demonstrates, the definition of "personal data" is fairly broad, including, "any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual."

So, while you don't have the right to the full and exact wording of a whole document containing personal data, you have the right to the substance of all personal data within the document. This is obviously open to abuse in practice, but the principle is clear.

This supports my original point about being interested not being reason enough for a valid SAR.

Erm, of course you can't ask for arbitrary information stored by some firm just because they're interested - but you can ask for all personal information (in the sense covered by the DPA) just because you're interested.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal

[Hazel Bergeron]

FWIW, I had a battle with my old university a few years ago re the e-mail example I mentioned - they'd decided that the DPA meant that they would copy-paste chunks of text written about others in certain e-mail archives if a SAR came up. I was not a happy bunny and whined loudly.

Then I thought about it a bit and realised that the DPA effectively says that you must release the substance of what has been said about that person. There are only two (legitimate) ways of doing this: (i) releasing exactly what was said; (ii) rewording it without actually changing any of the meaning of what was said. But (ii) is merely an effort-wasting version of (i). So we have the options of an easy (i), a difficult (ii), or breaking the law (perhaps by appearing to do (ii) but not actually doing it) - it's no wonder many businesses simply send you copies of database entries / communications.

Re:No thanks

[uncanny]

Being convinced and being educated are two totally different things. I'm not saying i want to read through all her mumblings, but if you really have a theory about her, prove it.

What's the point?

[ShavedOrangutan]

It's public information. You can FOIA Jerry Brown's email. Are we uncovering a scandal here or are some libtards trying to be funny?

Re:What's the point?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'd like to see the email headers myself... the question is not whether you are paranoid, it's whether you are paranoid enough. :p

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Jerry Brown using a Yahoo account to try to sidestep state open records laws?

The guy who brought this information to light is in jail.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

dunno.. is obama using his personal blackberry to side step something? remove your tin foil bennie..

Re:What's the point?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Only Score:0 Troll? Can't we go for -1?

This whole article is a troll.

Anybody who has ever had a mail account on a government system knows that all email is archived specifically to comply with the FOIA. It's not like some savvy whistleblower stumbled across Palin's personal emails.


Let's try an experiment:

BUSH IS EVIL!

Now the lemming liberal moderators will blow a fuse trying to figure out which way to mod this.

Re:What's the point?

[Mindcontrolled]

Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.

Re:What's the point?

[Lunix Nutcase]

BUSH IS EVIL!

True. Everyone knows that shaved is much better.

Re:What's the point?

[UnknowingFool]

The point has not been that people wanted access to records that are allowed under FOIA. The point is that it took 2 years to get them and the state made it more difficult than necessary.

Re:What's the point?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Sounds like a certain long form birth certificate. And equally unimportant.

Re:What's the point?

[Pollardito]

That's the point. People assumed that she was using this outside email service to avoid having her conversations archived, so they are anticipating finding something in the emails that she didn't want made public. Still, since 4% of the emails weren't released, even if nothing is found in this 96% people will wonder about the rest.

Re:What's the point?

[UnknowingFool]

No that story was that the long form was not required but people made up all sorts of stories why it wasn't released and questioned the existence even though the state legally could not release it but acknowledged it existed.

Re:What's the point?

[ArcherB]

Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.

If that research is funded by tax payer dollars or is used to form public policy, shouldn't those emails be public? Also, isn't science supposed to be open?

Re:What's the point?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Umm, how are the official emails she used to conduct business as the governor not important? And how is that even remotely comparable to someone's birth certificate?

Re:What's the point?

[ShavedOrangutan]

Umm, how are the official emails she used to conduct business as the governor not important? And how is that even remotely comparable to someone's birth certificate?

Are you from Alaska? Would you consider voting for Palin if she ended up on another national ticket? If you answer "No" to both of those questions, then please explain why you would have the slightest interest in her emails?

As for comparing it to Obama's birth certificate, the point is how absurd both of these issues are. The vast right wing conspiracy was harassing Obama for the birth certificate. Left wingers are doing the same with Palin's emails (or anything else they can come up with).

Re:What's the point?

[interkin3tic]

Only Score:0 Troll? Can't we go for -1? This whole article is a troll. Anybody who has ever had a mail account on a government system knows that all email is archived specifically to comply with the FOIA. It's not like some savvy whistleblower stumbled across Palin's personal emails.

The Streisand effect is working here. By delaying as long as possible, then refusing to provide the e-mails in an easy to search format, whoever was in charge of this made certain it would be a big deal.

And transparency in government, especially among (ahem) potential presidential candidates, is a big deal.

Let's try an experiment: BUSH IS EVIL! Now the lemming liberal moderators will blow a fuse trying to figure out which way to mod this.

If you're upset by the troll moderation, here's the lesson: try not typing "libtard" into your post. Maturity and all that.

Re:What's the point?

[SuricouRaven]

The major fuss about those emails isn't that they were leaked, but the way in which they were reported upon. A lot of extracts were taken out of context, or scientific statements presented in a way that a layperson would misinterpret, in order to make it sound like the climatologists of the world were in a grand conspiracy to make the whole climate change thing up. It's just the nature of reporting - various media sources looked at the emails, considered what it was their readers would like to see there, and searched for the juicy bits.

Re:What's the point?

[SuricouRaven]

Also rather pointless to release, as they'd already released the legally-binding standard certificate - and there was even a note in the local paper at Obama's birth declaring it publicly. It should have been, and was, obvious that even if the birthers got the certificate they would remain unconvinced. Which they were and are. WND, the site largely responsible for fanning the birther movement, continues to maintain in no less than eight front-page stories right now that the birth certificate is a forgery.

Re:What's the point?

[tehcyder]

If you're upset by the troll moderation, here's the lesson: try not typing "libtard" into your post. Maturity and all that.

Indeed, "libertaritard" is the correct term, I believe.

Re:What's the point?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Are you from Alaska?

What does that matter?

Would you consider voting for Palin if she ended up on another national ticket? If you answer "No" to both of those questions, then please explain why you would have the slightest interest in her emails?

Yeah, how dare someone actually want access to public records of someone running for a national office (which she was at the time of the FOIA request 3 fucking years ago). Now, it's all just some librul conspiracy!!!

As for comparing it to Obama's birth certificate, the point is how absurd both of these issues are. The vast right wing conspiracy was harassing Obama for the birth certificate. Left wingers are doing the same with Palin's emails (or anything else they can come up with).

How was it absurd? One is a matter of public record relating to a politicians elected position. The other one had absolutely jack and shit to do with an election. That you think they are even remotely comparable shows that in fact you are the one with the major bias.

Re:What's the point?

[Eponymous Hero]

actually, i would agree that the previous story about palin's emails was a troll, since it stated that you would have to travel to alaska to purchase a 24k pg. hard copy. but my story is not trolling anything. i think it would be awesome if you saw the other tools available by the group that's putting out her emails. Poligraft attempts to parse any news story, recognize famous names and companies, and then offer background information on their connection. kinda neat, i think.

i thought these were interesting tools based on my enjoyment of this crazy site that shows a filtered list of companies and who is on their boards (of directors, not bbs), allowing you to spider out to other boards they serve on: theyrule.net

Is Palin in the govt?

[CLaRGe]

I can understand govt watchdogging; we need that. But she's not even in the govt.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[NeutronCowboy]

But the emails stem from a time when she was in government. Just because of that, I say that they are fair game. Now.... if people would stop reporting on her every waking minute (and don't watch it, for god's sake!), she would disappear into the night. She is nothing without publicity.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[smelch]

Don't you know We don't like her so its big news when something you can use to make fun of her is released. I mean, in all honesty this is probably reasonable in aspects that it will not be used for. Really it'll be used for making fun of a dumb girl. Its what the internet is for.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[Mindcontrolled]

The FOIA request for the mails was put up when she actually was in the government. They just managed to drag the process along until these day. Telling in itself.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[UnknowingFool]

It wouldn't have been much of a story had Alaska released them 2 years ago when the first requests were made. The story is it took this long.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[interkin3tic]

I can understand govt watchdogging; we need that. But she's not even in the govt.

But she and at least a few other people would like for her to be. I'm not optimistic enough to say for sure "America would not vote Sarah Palin into the white house," so the more insurance we have that she won't get there, the better.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a honeypot for pathetic losers.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[SuricouRaven]

She isn't in any elected office any more, but she remains to some extent politically active - giving speeches, endorsements, etc. She is by no means the first to make a successful career of being an ex-politician.

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, this is the first of the groups I have heard of that is trying to get people to look through her email (and they don't seem to be really trying that hard, they are just making it available) that I do not have an issue with. They did the same for Elena Kagan (Supreme Court Justice), who is much more relevant currently (and politically further out the other end of the spectrum than Palin). Unlike the other groups pushing people to look at Palin's emails, this does not appear to be politically motivated. It appears to be partially an attempt to garner publicity and partially a fulfillment of the groups agenda (opening up government officials to public examination).

Re:Is Palin in the govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

She is nothing without publicity.

Well, that's a truism and applies to anyone. In the case of Sarah Palin this is a symptom of a derangement syndrome on the part of the media.

Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[RobotRunAmok]

...this ...this ...what do they call it? "Palin Derangement Syndrome." Yeah. "PDS." But I see it now, with this whole e-mail witch hunt, and man, is it ugly and perverse. And from the people who typically whine the most about "privacy," no less!

Pathetic.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Public servants do not have an expectation of privacy on their official e-mail accounts. In fact, public access and scrutiny is essential to validate that they are behaving as the public wishes in their official capacity. Your concern is invalid.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Except Palin isn't in public office (at least not at the moment), so your response is invalid.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Microlith]

"Palin Derangement Syndrome."

Ah yes, I have seen this brought up before. Instead of wondering WHY people are intensely looking at what the politician in question has done, both now and in the past, they immediately start attacking those who are inquiring, calling them "deranged." It couldn't be because her political history is sketchy. It couldn't be because a woman who was almost VP and is still adored by the Tea Party, has made many statements that draw her value as a representative into question.

People want to see what she has said and done, in public office, before. But hey, she's a popular Republican politician so any inquiry or criticisms are just deragement. Time for congress to go on another $40 million dollar witch hunt again against whatever Democrat they can.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[what2123]

I thought it was Palin Misguided Syndrome..You know PMS.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait ... did I miss something, are these CURRENT emails, or when she was in office? No, so your point is moot.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[robot256]

Which is why we aren't demanding to see her emails from least week. These are emails she sent while in public office, so they are fair game. You can question the motivations all you want, but it's perfectly legal, and frankly, an awful lot of corruption goes unnoticed while the official is in office only to result in charges brought years later after the investigation is complete. I am not implying there is any evidence of wrongdoing in this case; I am only pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that these emails are irrelevant because Palin is no longer in office.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[TubeSteak]

But I see it now, with this whole e-mail witch hunt, and man, is it ugly and perverse. And from the people who typically whine the most about "privacy," no less!

If you don't want the public looking through your work related e-mail, don't get elected to public office.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Except Palin isn't in public office (at least not at the moment), so your response is invalid.

She was in public office. These emails are from the time she was in public office. It took a while to get them, because forwarding emails is beyond the capability of her IT people, or they were just stalling.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you just defined "witch hunt" as intensely looking at what a politician in question has done, both now and in the past... So how is that any different?

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[SengirV]

So you are in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's subpoena to get the climate research data from Michael Mann then.

Good, because Mann received funding from the state of Virginia.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[NonSequor]

They also have no expectation of privacy for what they put in the dumpster behind their office, but people generally don't sift through public figures' trash. There's little reason to expect to find anything of interest and this is the FOIA equivalent of a fishing expedition.

Of course FOIA fishing expeditions aren't illegal and you're welcome to sift through her trash. However, I can also exercise my right to tell you that you're sifting through trash.

I can't stand the woman but this whole thing is petty.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen this brought up before

The fact that you think you're actually saying something there is telling. This particular meme is difficult to miss for those that haven't confined themselves exclusively to self-affirming punditry.

intensely looking

The emails produced nothing. Several news organizations employed teams of journalists to rapidly examine every word. That is pretty intense.

Nothing of note emerged. This must be because the incriminating bits were withheld, or the nitwit somehow miraculously avoided exposing her criminal enterprise throughout years worth of correspondence, right? The possibility that she was merely an honest and possibly even competent (!) governor that stayed inside the lines while doing her duty must not be entertained.

There is precious little genuine examination of what actually occurred or what was actually said. While you may be among the few exceptions, the others are just parroting their favorite pundits; malcontent lefties immersed in an echo chamber of pure bullshit.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mann wasn't elected or appointed to serve in a political office. He is an employee of a public university which happens to receive a portion of its funding from the Virginian government. The two are only superficially similar.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah publicly elected and received state funding are equivalent. You are functionally retarded.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

She was when she sent and received these emails.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, Privacy is for one's personal life. Government Emails should belong to the public record to keep it accountable.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[drinkypoo]

I can't stand the woman but this whole thing is petty.

You are being the stereotypical useful idiot, unless you're being paid, in which case you're a ham-handed shill. Every public figure's communications are sifted through any time it's possible to lay hands on the material. The only difference about this particular media event is that it has been made into a media event specifically to provoke the kind of reaction you are demonstrating here.

I only hope you are using me and don't really believe this shit...

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

False equivalency.
People who "whine" about privacy don't want the government illegally and secretly snooping around in their private communications.
Palins' emails sent and received as part of her public duty as governor are legitimate public records the public have a right to see.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Nursie]

Why would his college papers tell you anything useful?

I'm ten years out of college and a completely different person.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool... Where can I get Barack Obama's? Nancy Pelosi's? Harry Reid's? Anthony Weiner?

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between personal privacy and opaqueness of government.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would explain the very popular website, ObamasInbox.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this ...this ...what do they call it? "Palin Derangement Syndrome." Yeah. "PDS." But I see it now, with this whole e-mail witch hunt, and man, is it ugly and perverse. And from the people who typically whine the most about "privacy," no less!

Pathetic.

The access is for government records, which should always be a matter of public record since the government IS the public itself.

And it's not like they've exactly been forthcoming, they keep stalling. The most recent was the decision to only release them in hardcopy, for a hefty per-page 'fee' of course, because using electronic reproduction was (and I quote) "Too Difficult". They are making a mint off those emails.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[NonSequor]

I don't doubt the value of citizen investigation, I just think it's quite apparent that it's better to apply it more deliberately rather than scattershot. It's silly to think you'll find something in a information dump like this that you haven't already caught a whiff of elsewhere.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This...

[drinkypoo]

I'm not making judgements about the value of snooping through Sarah Palin's email. I'm making the statement that everyone's email is snooped through as a matter of course, and this is only in the media because they want it to be.

can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to vote for Palin in 2012. she might be the catalyst to bring down this outdated empire.

Re:can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of one black President who certainly hopes she runs again.

Can we please...

[mattgoldey]

Can we please stop paying attention to this nitwit? Wasn't her 15 minutes up a LONG time ago?

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

Its not people that support her that are calling all this attention to her, its the people that have the irrational dislike/hatred of her.

Re:Can we please...

[mibalzonya]

She is doing her fair share of keeping herself in the spotlight.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not people that support her that are calling all this attention to her, its the people that have the irrational dislike/hatred of her.

What scares me the most is there are people that does support her. She is horrible for government!

(and funny enough. My word validation is "cringe")

Re:Can we please...

[Microlith]

Can we please stop paying attention to this nitwit?

Until she's assuredly NOT a presidential candidate, she will be in the public eye. The best thing to do is expose her for who she truly is, and make her go away sooner.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

She did a decent job in Alaska. Is she Presidential material? No, But did she do a better than average job as governor? Yeah. So "horrible"? meh.

Re:Can we please...

[sl4shd0rk]

People are drama addicts. Palin's 15 minutes was just enough time to launch a whole new domain of reality TV. It's a brilliantly manufactured PR campaign. no less.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this nitwit that drives the leftwing moonbats insane. Thank you Sarah!

Re:Can we please...

[bmo]

>irrational

Speak for yourself.

As someone living up here in the Northeast, when you come up here to lecture us about history (there are 391 years of it here), you'd better know your shit.

But no, she came up here, didn't know, tried to make some sort of point that I'm still trying to figure out, and is arrogant about it. And that's just recent history. Just trying to parse her word salad on a day to day basis must make any political aide or reporter go insane.

Yet she has aspirations to be President some day.

Stupid isn't bad, if you're not bull-headed. Arrogant isn't bad if you know your stuff. Stupid *and* arrogant? You really want that?

The hatred is not irrational.

--
BMO

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

Funny, i think that Nancy Pelosi, her polar opposite, is "all that is BAD in the USA". Want to compare the two?

Re:Can we please...

[SteveFoerster]

There should be a word for when one is both in error and arrogant, such as "errogant".

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

I would like to introduce you to Joe Biden, Vice President and first in line to become POTUS. . . . . You were saying?

Re:Can we please...

[Ultra64]

"She did a decent job in Alaska."

You mean the job she quit halfway?

Re:Can we please...

[BlueStrat]

Funny, i think that Nancy Pelosi, her polar opposite, is "all that is BAD in the USA".

Oh, c'mon! Give her a break! Nancy Pelosi is simply misunderstood (understandable, as her face doesn't move). She just wants what is best for you. She'll let you know what that is after she's done passing it into law See? Proactive, with the People's best interests at heart, AND transparent!.

What!?

Strat

Re:Can we please...

[ShavedOrangutan]

You mean the job she quit halfway?

She was being hounded by ethics complaints after being named as Mccain's running mate. These complaints can be initiated by anybody, she had to pay for her defense personally, and state law prohibited the government from picking up the tab even if she won. So she couldn't afford to stay in office, probably thanks to the same people who want to read all her emails.

Re:Can we please...

[ShavedOrangutan]

During her last year as house majority leader, Pelosi sent $2 million of taxpayer money on food and booze for her government provided personal jet. I heard that on the radio yesterday. And nobody gets to read her emails.

Re:Can we please...

[UnknowingFool]

Biden makes a lot of gaffes; I have not seen him steadfastly refuse to admit he's wrong when he's wrong.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

or FEAR of her.

Re:Can we please...

[Toonol]

There should be a word for when one is both in error and arrogant, such as "errogant".

Amusingly, that's one of the most common problems with slashdot posters; they're frequently wrong, often stupid, and always convinced of their truth.

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

Find me the last time that Biden was asked a trivia question by a reporter.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounded pretty irrational to me.

So we have a new website with all of Sarahcuda's emails in a searchable database; goody. Now we can see for ourselves all the death threats she received from unhinged Lefties. Just what I always wanted: incontrovertible proof of liberal "tolerance"; it's the gift that keeps on giving!

Re:Can we please...

[i_b_don]

"What news papers do you read?" ...that's some tough gotcha journalism!

Re:Can we please...

[osgeek]

No kidding. Joe Biden would be this decade's Dan Quayle if he were a Republican. They'd be showing the bit where he asked the guy in the wheelchair to stand up over and over on the Daily Show. You'd see constant mention of his quote that "J-O-B-S, JOBS!" is a three letter word.

It's funny how the press seems to give him a pass. Such a mystery of the universe.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your idea of history is based on a poem, not real history.

Analysis of emails showed she is a "solid communicator." Reading though the emails showed her as someone who, shockingly to you, was focused on doing her job well.

"Stupid *and* arrogant" would describe your president better than Palin. This week he was blaming ATMs and tech innovations for joblessness. I guess free ATMs refill, maintain and update themselves. Maybe he'd prefer we were all toiling in fields like serfs.

War Powers violation on Libya? Arrogance. Mocking tone in all his speeches? Arrogance. Flubbing a bog standard toast of the Queen? Arrogance and stupidity. Pushing Israel to negotiate on indefensible '67 borders? Arrogance and stupidity. Asked about high gas prices, he said buy a new car. Stupidity. Attacking "millionaires and billionaires" for not paying their fair share while avoiding taxes on his own millions so much he pays at 13% below his bracket's rate? Arrogance.

A sitting president is virtually all powerful and he is not get near the scrutiny as a woman holding no political office. What the hell!

I don't even like her or her fanatics but I recently noticed that deranged drumbeat against her, even in private life and it has made me realize she may not be all that bad! Where's the anal probe for failed, out of touch, White House leadership or the Congress which hasn't passed an actual budget in years?

Re:Can we please...

[youngone]

As someone who lives outside the US and has no dog in this fight (as it were), I'm really hoping she stands for the Republican nomination, purely for the entertainment factor. Every time I see her on TV and hear the latest buffoonery that spills from her mouth, I laugh and laugh and laugh. Still its not my government she potentially could be heading, so I guess I can afford to laugh. Although now I think about it, she will be in charge of a big bunch of nukes, so maybe I ought to worry more. On the other hand she can't see New Zealand from her house so we should be safe.

Re:Can we please...

[atriusofbricia]

>irrational

Speak for yourself.

As someone living up here in the Northeast, when you come up here to lecture us about history (there are 391 years of it here), you'd better know your shit.

But no, she came up here, didn't know, tried to make some sort of point that I'm still trying to figure out, and is arrogant about it. And that's just recent history. Just trying to parse her word salad on a day to day basis must make any political aide or reporter go insane.

Yet she has aspirations to be President some day.

Stupid isn't bad, if you're not bull-headed. Arrogant isn't bad if you know your stuff. Stupid *and* arrogant? You really want that?

The hatred is not irrational.

--
BMO

Not irrational? Hmmm... I suppose we have different definitions about that. However, that being said I have to ask if you merely accepted the story that Palin was an idiot on those comments or did you bother to look around and do some reading? At least NPR did do some asking around and such.

Re:Can we please...

[pankajmay]

I would like to introduce you to Joe Biden, Vice President and first in line to become POTUS. . . . . You were saying?

Are you freaking kidding me? Are you so enamored by Palin that you refuse to see any of her follies?

Perhaps you should re-watch the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate.

Re:Can we please...

[pankajmay]

At least you acknowledge she is a nitwit.
And of course, a nitwit would drive leftwing moonbats insane... I mean wouldn't you be driven insane when asked to debate someone, who is more adept at bullying and refuse to accept criticism with dignity and reply to it with logical coherency instead of accusing a conspiracy theory?

Oh wait, you are the typical American nitwit who stands for the underdog with no thought. You fit right in with her.

Re:Can we please...

[bmo]

I didn't so much pay attention to what NPR or what anyone else said.

I saw the transcript and made my own deductions.

I wrote about this earlier.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2215710&cid=36356586

You cannot cram for Northeast history. You simply can't.

"He who warned, uh, the ⦠the British that they werenâ(TM)t gonna be takinâ(TM) away our arms, uh, by ringinâ(TM) those bells and, um, by makinâ(TM) sure that as heâ(TM)s ridinâ(TM) his horse through town to send those warninâ(TM) shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free ⦠and we were gonna be armed."

Fucking read that. When you are confused at the end, read it again. Then read what I said in the previous message where I was *giving her the benefit of the doubt assuming she crammed for it.*

Then you will realize that she was talking utter nonsense and anyone making excuses for her is just stupid, and that includes anyone at NPR.

I fucking live here.

Don't tell me my history.

--
BMO

Re:Can we please...

[bmo]

Goddamnit Slashdot.

When is this place going to adopt UTF?

--
BMO

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well heck, if Bush could become President, I'd guess the bar has already dropped to "is able to tie own shoes." Palin probably fits that. Or does she wear velcro?

Re:Can we please...

[jhoegl]

Because I talk about Palin you think I automatically like all Democrats or Nancy Pelosi?
Sorry, Im not closed minded like a lot of partisan politics usually is. I dont like Pelosi either.
and comparing the two and saying "meh... all politicians blah blah..." is a cop out.
Fight for the better politician and throw out the bad ones, do no make excuses for them. Set an example.. and this goes for all politicians.

Re:Can we please...

[jhoegl]

Really? Flamebait? Really?
I am responding to someone who claims irrational dislike against Palin when the evidence is to the contrary.

Re:Can we please...

[UnknowingFool]

Are you referring to the Paul Revere incident? Because if you are, you are seriously delusional if you think "What have you seen today? And what are you going to take from your visit?" are trivia question or gotcha questions. That's what the reporter asked her.

Re:Can we please...

[Will.Woodhull]

My dislike of Palin is entirely rational. The woman is catering to a demographic that has been playing la-la-la-I-am-not-listening with any news about the changes of the last 50 years. These are people who want to go back to the grand days of the 1960s have the very dangerous idea that they can somehow do that. Things have changed: there are now 6+ billion people instead of a couple billion; the Chinese way of life is in our face instead of a very, very long way away; the very climate is different and is probably going to become even more different. And so forth.

There are some good things coming out of this intense scrutiny of her emails:

1. A surprise: she is a lot more savvy than I had thought. For so far no one has found anything particularly stupid in her correspondence. Maybe she is intelligent enough to handle an executive position.
2. This kind of inspection for dirty linen is good at discouraging all sorts of riff-raff and gutter critters from running for public office. That is a good thing.
3. Anyone who seeks to publicly influence politics, whether through elected office, through sanctioned lobbying, or by seeking to become a political pundit should be open to this kind of public scrutiny. That is not only a fair exchange-- exchanging your right to privacy for the potential power of influencing voters-- it is a necessary condition for a working democracy. The good thing about this is that this discussion has given me an opportunity to point out what should be obvious to a bunch of slashdotters who presumably have the brains to recognize how this has to work (but for some reason are not bothering to use their brains).

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Biden is what Bush should've been.

Vice president, full of gaffes, someone who was primarily a jokester, but not in a position of serious power.

Instead we had President Bush struggling to keep up and his occasional idiotic soundbite was ridiculed by one side and praised as wisdom by the other.

Although...President Cheney just gives me shivers. Hrugh.

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

No, like, i totally agree with you, at least the part about the emails. The irrational scrutiny wasn't about the release of the emails, it was the attention that they received before anything was even found. She is a minor player in the GOP, yet she gets more media attention and scrutiny than major players on both sides. I want everyone to get scrutinized, not minor players.

Re:Can we please...

[cerberusss]

Amusingly, that's one of the most common problems with slashdot posters; they're frequently wrong, often stupid, and always convinced of their truth.

Thank god you and me are completely different!

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

Exactly. Palin no one takes seriously, even those in her party. She has no power. Pelosi on the other hand is actively destroying the USA, while everyone is screaming about Palin.

Re:Can we please...

[It took my meds]

Well said! Mod parent up.

Re:Can we please...

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, then perhaps you should talk to some of the history professors from the area you live in, you know, the way that NPR did. If you listen to the NPR interview with the history profressor, you will hear the history profressor say that Sarah Palin, basically, got it right. So, now maybe the way you know your history says that Sarah Palin got it wrong, but when a history profressor says she got it right (even after the NPR reporter rephrased the question several times to get him to give a different answer), you might want to go back and look at your history a little more closely.

Re:Can we please...

[black soap]

You mean after she promised she wouldn't quit?

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

I don't think I believe that story, it may be part of truth, and I'm not even sure that what you wrote is true at all. However, I know it missing much of the truth. For example, it neglects to mention the multi-million dollar offer from Fox News. It seems far more likely that she realized that Alaska is fairly remote from much of American politics and she could make a lot more money than a governor's salary by working for Fox. That was likely an opportunity that she couldn't refuse, but it seems to me she quit her elected position so that she could cash in on her sudden fame.

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

I suspect both of you would disagree on who was the winner of that comparison. Frankly, as a non-American, I think I'd have to give Pelosi the advantage. She seems to be a hard-working no-nonsense type, she reminds me a bit of Margaret Thatcher, without the charisma. In contrast, Palin appears to be a bit dimwitted and her only advantages appear to be her appearance and charisma. Her political views seem to change to match the craziest wing of the Republicans. She seems to have demonstrated an inability to put in the hard work of governance. Frankly comparing the two brings the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper to mind.

The Grasshopper may be more fun at parties, but I think I'd rather have the Ant running my country.

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, but you may be right. It may need a shorter, snappier name. Bill Maher calls it "doubling down on stupid".

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

Ironically, you can thank the Republicans for that, actually. It's not just that Reagan, Quayle, Bush II, and Palin are not exactly world-class intellectuals. The Republican party has been engaged in a political war on intelligence and education since Nixon. "Elitist" seems to have become a code word for anyone who actually know things, disagreeing with ignorant people is now "elitist". The only exception is businesspeople who are expected to know how business works, and sometimes economists, but only if they support lowering taxes.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call Biden stupid. A loose cannon, maybe, but not stupid.

Re:Can we please...

[bmo]

>you know, the way that NPR did.

No, she didn't get it right, and you didn't read what I wrote.

He only said what he said *after he was captured.* if you read the fucking *transcript* of what she *actually said* which I *pasted* up there which you *didn't read*, she made it sound like his sole purpose was to go and threaten the British soldiers.

Derp.

http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html

You can read Revere's own accounting here:

http://www.masshist.org/database/doc-viewer.php?item_id=99

Use the high-res view to read for yourself.

I read the NPR report and it was unfortunate how it got spun. Go back to Free Republic.

Fuck NPR. Fuck Allison. Allison is fucking wrong.

--
BMO

Re:Can we please...

[bmo]

You know what, I'm resolving right now not to get into any more debates with Palin worshipers.

Feel free to click on the "relationship" button and change it to "foe" so you don't have to see my messages.

--
BMO

Re:Can we please...

[Attila Dimedici]

I actually watched the video of what she said. It is clear from listening to her that she is attempting to condense into a short snippet something she just learned about Paul Revere that, in her mind (with some justification), reflects on a view she already had about a political issue. The fact that you are so quick to dismiss what she had to say reflects your pre-formed opinion of Sarah Palin.

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/166599-pelosis-net-worth-rises-62-percent- . No, it reminds me of the story of the normal American, crazy views or not, and the crazy liberal who spent tax payer money like it was her own. http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/01/pelosi-blows-3-million-on-copenhagenbooze-and-private-jet/ . This isnt about political view, its about who is abusing their power.

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

So... Pelosi is crazy because she's rich? Or she's crazy because she rich and a democrat and only Republicans are allowed to be rich?

I do wonder how the money "spent" by Pelosi on travel compares to other Speakers of the House both past and present. It's quite easy to quote a number without providing context and get worked up over it. Lastly, the site you linked to is a clearly partisan. I have some difficulty trusting them due to a history of misrepresentations by Republican partisans.

Re:Can we please...

[jmottram08]

No, she isnt crazy because she is rich. She is a thief because in one year during a recession her money managed to grow 62% while the rest of America lost money. If you dont look at that fact "Pelosi's wealth grew 62% last year" and wonder about "how", then. . . . i dunno man.

Do you want me to link you the quotes from tho military saying that pelosi thinks, and uses military flights as her personal taxis? OR will you just say that those quotes are partisan as well? Tell me honestly, what news sites do you think arent partisan? no really, i am interested.

Re:Can we please...

[tbannist]

Well, it would help if you could put your thoughts down clearly and consistently, you originally claimed she was crazy, not a thief. According to the article you linked "Pelosi saw her wealth rise due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul." It looks like they had a really good year, for example one of the companies he invested in quintupled in value over the year, another one he invested in released an iPhone. You may have heard of it.

As for the planes, according to a slightly more non-partisan source it's been normal for the Speaker of the House to use a government jet since 2001. It's a security requirement that was imposed by the Bush government.

Re:Can we please...

[Anonymous Coward]

she has much the same arrogance as most contributors on /.

Not necessary

[nharmon]

This sort of email sifting is more about drumming up negative publicity for one's political enemies than watching out for government abuse.

If you really want to find government abuse all you need is thomas.loc.gov. Most if it is documented there.

Re:Not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no point going through these emails, it's already been published all her dodgy stuff went through a web account.

Re:No thanks

[Sponge Bath]

My theory is all the interesting, embarrassing, or damning stuff was removed before this release anyways.

Re:Um...

[game kid]

Because Kagan isn't the one with a porn parody character. Or so I...think...and...hope...

Everyone is now dumber

[gubers33]

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Re:Everyone is now dumber

[Revotron]

^^^ THIS. I lack mod points, but this form of recognition I feel is much more public...

Re:Everyone is now dumber

[Anonymous Coward]

If whoever said that had to involve "god", then how much dumber can he really get??
It's like being angry at someone for throwing him off the carpet... in the basement. ;)

Re:Everyone is now dumber

[gubers33]

Watch a movie. It is a quote from Billy Madison.

Re:Everyone is now dumber

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much spot on. :) I don't think anything criminally damaging to her would be released, and I doubt we'll find much in there that could possible compete with all the things she's said and done in plain view already.

She's a complete moron, yet she has a very big platform to broadcast her bizarre and ridiculous comments, complete fabrications (e.g. death panels), and general face-palm-inducing idiocy, such as her apparent inability to speak in coherent sentences. I used to think George W. Bush was rather painful to listen to, but Palin takes it to a whole new level of agony.

Just skimming through for the heck of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this customer service issue if you think you have it rough when you call for tech support.

Photos?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this thing doesn't include photos, so that we may fight photos of her nude or having sex... then it's pointless.

GET OUT OF POLITICS AND TAKE IT OFF ALREADY!

Worth it?

[doktorstop]

I bet 50% of those reading Slashdot have access or run all of those Exchange servers... so they are used to the *possibility* to read other people's emails. So what's the big deal? Her minute of fame has passed a long time away. And then, for most of the audience that lives in strange countries like Europe and Asia, who the hell is she anyways?

Re:Worth it?

[ErikZ]

She is someone who is a role model, and has lead a good life.

There are people who can't stand that, it reminds them of how little they've done. So they try to tear it down.

Re:Worth it?

[pankajmay]

She is someone who is a role model, and has lead a good life.

There are people who can't stand that, it reminds them of how little they've done. So they try to tear it down.

Oh seriously! Come on man... espouse her all you want, but elevating her demagoguery to the status of a role-model?

Look, I am not a big fan of either party - but lets call a spade a spade here shall we!
She was just present at the right place at the right time. Are there qualities in her worth appreciating? Sure.
But remember she is just another politician -- and you always gotta have a healthy skepticism towards them. They are your public servants; not the other way around.
There are millions of women - both the regular and famous - in America that have led a life far greater in stature than Palin. Palin is just another American who is managing the challenge of family and work -- millions of working women do this everyday.
And don't forget by your definition - even Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are great role models -- even if I suspect they belong to a party whose views you disagree with.
So tone it down... Debate the policies, don't hate the person! And perhaps look up to more lofty examples of role models -- Mother Teresa, Helen Keller.

Watch the Prez Instead

[jarich]

Palin's not running for office. Focus on the currently elected leaders instead. This article sums it up pretty well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/11/welch.palin.email/index.html

Re:Watch the Prez Instead

[Lunix Nutcase]

She was in office when this FOIA request was made. It's just that the stated purposefully delayed for enough years that it wasn't until after she left office that they released anything.

Re:Watch the Prez Instead

[osgeek]

But she's not in office now. The level of zeal in pursuing an out-of-office governor turned vice presidential candidate fits in perfectly with my observations that the mainstream media in this country is biased against those to the right of the US political spectrum.

Re:Watch the Prez Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

But she's not in office now. The level of zeal in pursuing an out-of-office governor turned vice presidential candidate fits in perfectly with my observations that the mainstream media in this country is biased against those to the right of the US political spectrum.

Says the same person who would refuse to believe the Governor of Hawaii and other people who vouched for President Obama's birth certificate. You deserve candidates like Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin. Too bad, the rest of America has to suffer through it!
And I hope there is always a healthy bias towards left US political spectrum (even though there is none!) -- We can use a little separation of the Church and the State.

Seriously - and the right are the same f***-tards who are fighting over giving rights to Gay people -- the only group in the country actively fighting for the right to serve their country, and the right to form a family... and you call yourselves conservatives. Go drown yourself.

Re:Watch the Prez Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, can you imagine if they had let all this dirt get out while she was in office and running for VP? Oh, wait... there doesn't seem to be any dirt. In fact it's just the opposite. Does your theory (which you state as fact) still sound logical in any way?

Re:Watch the Prez Instead

[brokeninside]

It's called a red herring. Palin's team managed to send her political enemies on a multi-year fool's errand and, by doing so, dissipated large amounts of time and effort that may have been more profittably spent on other tactics.

If the emails had been promptly released, this would have been a short lived controversy and folks would have moved on rather quickly. But Palin had a vested interest in keeping the anti-Palin forces distracted and misdirected.

In a box

[hawguy]

When I saw the sarahsinbox.com url, I thought maybe it was her box in a box: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xElIik0Ys0

Re:In a box

[synapse7]

The URL looks like sarahSinBox.com to me, but thats just me.

Re:In a box

[bennomatic]

Wish I had mod points. That video was pretty funny.

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

This is childish, a diversion from the real criminals in government. Slashdot should ignore this, but most on here are anti-American anything so it gets posted. You idiots do realize both parties are screwing us over?

Re:Weird

[hawguy]

This is childish, a diversion from the real criminals in government. Slashdot should ignore this, but most on here are anti-American anything so it gets posted. You idiots do realize both parties are screwing us over?

I think you're reading the wrong website if you're expecting balanced news reporting from all sides of the political spectrum - Slashdot is not a political website (though they do certainly run politically slanted aricles on geek political issues like net neutrality and freedom of speech issues).

This issue has some geek interest since the documents were released on paper (apparently as a big F*ck you! to everyone that wanted to make them public, since a CD-ROM or DVD release would have been trivial and saved a lot of paper, if you can print something you can capture it as a PDF), and a website scanned in the emails to make them publically available and searchable.

If they hadn't tried to obfuscate them with a paper-only release and released the emails online like any agency interested in transparency would have done, then this issue would have likely not made the pages of slashdot since all of the mainstream news outlets would have published a link to them.

Re:No thanks

[Mister Whirly]

Or sent from her private account that she isn't going to disclose. Yeah, it would be really hard for politicians to create separate email accounts, and use them for nefarious things. Really, really, hard. Good thing none of them have ever thought of that.

Why

[JB19000]

Why would anyone actually want to read this? The media can steal their snippets for headlines, but after that, who cares?

Sure that's a good idea, given the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever referred to her as "completely full of shit" (as many of us have), I fear that comment is about to come back to bite you in the...well, you get the idea.

Incompetence and coverups

[Anonymous Coward]

It only takes two years if you have to sift through the mailbox and find nooks and crannies to stuff dirt, or otherwise cover shit up and corroborate stories with peers. Its also an Exchange server as evidenced by the in alot of headers:

"[/O=SOAIOU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=....]",

so these two commands could have dumped her mailbox in short order.

Add-MailboxPermission -Identity sarah.palin -User TheAlaskaStateITAdmin -AccessRights FullAccess

Export-Mailbox -Identity sarah.palin@alaska.gov -PSTFolderPath c:\lots-o-dumbshit-and-dirt.pst

Similarly there are programmatic ways to redact info to/from or "containing X". Incompetent IT staff, or mountains of dirt to hide. Pick one (or both).

What did she get wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly did she get wrong about the history?

Hatred goes a long way

[Shivetya]

The number of justifications given is just endless. Whenever I encounter someone with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) I have learned it is best just to walk away. It gets really silly if they start spouting Tina Fey lines when they try to show their intelligence.

If anything the e-mail episode proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the partisan traits of two certain papers.

Now, lets see someone try this with those on the other side of the political spectrum, say someone who ain't white, and see how far it gets.

Re:Hatred goes a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything the e-mail episode proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the partisan traits of two certain papers.

And it's not like other things are in the news, like being FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT.

Re:Hatred goes a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I encounter someone with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome)

You never have.

Re:Hatred goes a long way

[sycodon]

Can the Left say "Jumped the shark"?

Re:Hatred goes a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, lets see someone try this with those on the other side of the political spectrum, say someone who ain't white, and see how far it gets.

RTFS (Summary)
elenasinbox.com

Re:No thanks

[TheSpoom]

Yeah, I mean, she couldn't possibly have an email on a provider like Yahoo that's not subject to scrutiny (unless someone "hacks" it by inputting easily accessible answers to security questions) and use it for state business, that would be illegal!

Oh wait...

Re: Sarah's Inbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Queue bad jokes about placing items in Sarah's "Inbox"

Michael Mann is not an elected official.

[microbox]

Besides, /nothing/ would convince you that AGW is real.

This could be fun!

[sproketboy]

http://sarahsinbox.com/search/?q=penis

sarahsinbox.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a porn site. Move over powergenitalia.com, there's a new URL in town!

Why Palin?

[Dave Emami]

I'm not likely to agree politically with the crowd of DailyKos readers or whatnot who are so into this, but even if I did, why the big interest in Palin's official emails rather than, say, Mitt Romney's, Tim Pawlenty's, or Gary Johnson's? They're ex-governors as well, and they're actually running, while Palin isn't and probably won't be.

Re:Why Palin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not likely to agree politically with the crowd of DailyKos readers or whatnot who are so into this, but even if I did, why the big interest in Palin's official emails rather than, say, Mitt Romney's, Tim Pawlenty's, or Gary Johnson's? They're ex-governors as well, and they're actually running, while Palin isn't and probably won't be.

The law requires the state to release these emails. The governor's office claimed it would cost a silly amount of money (thousands of dollars per email). Then they said it was not technically possible to release them in any form other than print, and took months to actually do it. So at least one of two things is true:

1) They have no idea what they are doing. As a Slashdot reader, I find extreme technical incompetence interesting.
2) They are hiding something. As a Slashdot reader, I find government corruption interesting.

I realize that the truth is probably closer to #1 than to #2. As a programmer who works really hard to be competent, I wonder how I can find a job where someone who doesn't know how to forward email can make a living as an IT guy. I think I could do four or five such jobs "full time" and do very well for myself.

Re:Why Palin?

[atriusofbricia]

I'm not likely to agree politically with the crowd of DailyKos readers or whatnot who are so into this, but even if I did, why the big interest in Palin's official emails rather than, say, Mitt Romney's, Tim Pawlenty's, or Gary Johnson's? They're ex-governors as well, and they're actually running, while Palin isn't and probably won't be.

Because they aren't Sarah Palin and for some reason some people think we MUST DESTROY SARAH PALIN!!!11!!one!!!111!!!

As to they why.. no clue..

Re:Um...

[jacks0n]

Rule 34

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Palin and Elena Kagan sixty-nining... GO!

Re:Um...

[sortius_nod]

Thanks, now I don't want to eat lunch...

ok, i admit it

[Anonymous Coward]

i only peeked in here for "sarah's inbox" jokes.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Dutchman.

It's funny they haven't found anything

[Quila]

They desperately wanted them for the 2008 election, but didn't get them. Now the media was drooling over their release coming into this election season, even openly enlisting readers to dig through them to find damaging material to kick her out of this election.

And all they show is a governor doing her job.

Oh horrors, she arranged a baby shower for her kid with the media, demanding all gifts go to families of deployed soldiers. What a bad person!

A cursory glance

[realisticradical]

Beyond all of the comments about how this is all standard Palingazing. I think there's a lot to be said for the sunlight foundation and this sort of analysis of a public official's emails.

Sure you could get this sort of information by FOIA request but it's reasonably apparent that politicians aren't tremendously afraid of the public reading their every word.

I gave the emails a quick glance and one of the things I'm most surprised by is how informal most of the emails are. I think if I were sending an email to the executive of an entire state I would use things like proper grammar and letter writing form.

How about quitting 2/3 of the way through?

[Quila]

Like Obama.

Actually, he effectively quite one-third of the way through since he was in campaign mode after two years.

Not just exchange

[Quila]

They had to get emails on other servers, including non-government servers Palin was using. Some of these sources were found out partway through. Plus they switched naming of all accounts to @alaska.gov during the period, so after a search and partial processing, they had to do it all over again for another batch of emails. There are also indications they screwed up at some point trying to export emails.

Then after all of that lawyers have to go over every single page by hand to make sure no attorney-client privilege applied to any communications, no purely personal information was there, and nothing released could violate any security. After all that, it has to be printed, boxed and released.

It doesn't help that this was a blanket request for tens of thousands of emails, not targeted whatsoever. Fishing expeditions take a long time to fulfill, and in this case cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars, a cost that was NOT passed on to those who requested it. They were only charged the copying fee.

Because they absolutely hate Palin

[Quila]

I mean serious burning, seething hatred.

They have an obsessive compulsion that she must be destroyed!

She must be mocked at every turn. Even when she says something historically correct, mock her for being incorrect and ignorant. The mainstream press will likely only report the mocking, not the fact that she was right and her attackers were ignorant.

I have seriously never seen anything like this before. Even though the left hated Bush, it didn't rise to this level of obsessiveness. Even the birthers don't seem to have this obscene level of obsessive hatred toward Obama.

I really don't like much about Palin, but her ability to send leftists into an apoplectic fit with just a few words is wonderful.

Re:Because they absolutely hate Palin

[Dave Emami]

I agree, but I was asking in the hopes of finding what the left expects to get out of it, beyond fun. From outside, it just looks like "let's get together and jeer and boo and hiss at someone we hate." Nothing wrong with that, if you enjoy it. I wouldn't mind a Noam Chomsky dartboard for my loft, myself. But in the equivalent position I wouldn't be making as big a deal out of this as they are unless there was something politically useful to be gained.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

You crazies are acting like the emails have not been released yet.

If there was anything in there even remotely damaging or embarrassing, the WaPo and NYTs would have been all over it.

So why don't you just print them all out and wall paper your room with them.

Email Headers

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the email headers part of the email? They've not been printed out, and they sometimes do contain revealing information as well.

Manufactured controversy

[brokeninside]

This would have been a tempest in a teapot if the FOIA request had been promptly filled back during the election cycle. But by fighting the request tooth and nail and then delaying as long as possible once that fight was lost, Palin's camp gave the impression that there was a smoking gun buried somewhere in those emails. That there appears that no smoking gun suggests that Palin's foes got played. No small amount of anti-Palin energy got sucked into a massive black hole of irrelevency.

Re:Um...

[RockDoctor]

There's a porn parody character of the Next President (I just remembered what my .sig is! <G>) ?

Are you sure that it's a parody, and not just the pics posted by the guy she dumped in college because he preferred her cunt over her arsehole?

I'm setting myself up for a goatse, aren't I?

honest answer

[Eponymous Hero]

i didn't link it because it's dead. i did think it would be funny to waste your time, but the laffs were short and it was too much effort in the end. you're welcome! =)

Tilted

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy how you can get 12,500+ emails from a governor but find it impossible to get a birth certificate, college records, etc. from President Obama. A tilted world we live in.

They hope to destroy Palin

[Quila]

All they needed was for the message that they got emails and are looking for dirt to be louder than the message that they found nothing.

For example they already worked to tarnish her image by bringing a large number of frivolous ethics complaints against her as governor. It doesn't matter that all were later found to be baseless because of two reasons:

First, they can now say "Palin has had X ethics complaints against her." Tell only part of the truth to commit libel without actually committing libel because it's a technically true statement.

Second, they can hope that a complicit media will put the charges on front page, and then put the dismissal of the charges on page 22. All people will remember is that she was charged, and the assumption will be that she is dirty.

It doesn't seem to be working too well this time though. Even the LA Times is writing about how the emails show no dirt; however, they are trying to frame it as "she was an average governor" as in to say this isn't an exceptional person you'd want as President.