Anyone else in her position would have done the same thing, so I won't fault her for that. Her politics, on the other hand, are way too religiously conservative for my taste.
That's probably true. But they'd also have to deal with the consequences of using their power for personal reasons. Maybe it was worth it to her. If I felt my family was threatened, I would have done it too. Doesn't mean that I'd get to keep my job though. People that aren't in her position don't have the ability to handle things the way she did. Being governor doesn't give her any special privilege to do so either.
Why don't they just make it an analog clock? The hands could simply spin around faster and faster as the situation worsens, which would be much more amusing. The numbers are fairly meaningless anyway.
And they could use it to cool off Times Square too!
I don't know. If the email address had been truly personal, I would have expected her to use something like goodtimes.sarah@yahoo.com or sarah12345@yahoo.com. And if you put your official title inside your email address, you're only encouraging people who send you email (or receive email from you) to think of you in that capacity.
Whether she used one or both accounts for official business, it was still wrong and possibly illegal. Given the evidence we've seen so far, it looks like she was just using the gov.sarah@yahoo.com address for state business. If they find any evidence that she used the other for state business, then they should check it too. I just haven't seen that evidence yet.
This court ruling is so late they can't expect the emails to still exist!
I know allot of people who delete email as it's read to prevent this type of privacy violation.
It's not a privacy violation when it's part of your job. Her emails dealing with state business are part of the public record and, with certain exceptions, the public is allowed to have access to them. If she believes that those emails are exempt, then she can make that claim. A judge will make the final determination. She doesn't get to decide unilaterally what to make available.
Once again, the account that got hacked was not the account that she used for official email. The one that McLeod is referring to is gov.sarah@yahoo.com, not gov.palin@yahoo.com. You're correct that the hacking of her account was pointless. That's because Alaskans were already investigating the other account that she used for official business.
So this means that the slashdot apologists will give a pass to the person who hacks into Obama's email accounts? Using the parent poster's same reasoning, as senator he is also an employee -- or does he only answer to God, these days?
He won't get a pass, and he shouldn't. What he did was extraordinarily dumb, and illegal. It was also not even necessary since Alaskans were already investigating her use of commercial accounts. None of that excuses Palin's use of a commercial account that circumvents the security and accountability of the state system either. They should both be held accountable for what they did.
Alaskan law (and probably most state laws) seem to make exceptions for transient things like post-its. I'm not talking about that sort of thing. If people actually started using post-its for official communications, then maybe we'd start requiring some sort of archive for those as well. The point is to get documentation of the actions and decisions of those who we elect to serve in government. Accountability is essential.
I don't really care if people start feeling hesitant to use email. It's either part of your job or it isn't. Public positions require accountability. If you don't like it, don't run for office. The governor has to document her decisions and interactions with the community and businesses, as well as with other officials. Whether she uses email or some less convenient method of documentation makes no difference. As long as the public record is preserved. We need more transparency in government, not less.
Businesses can do as they like, but any that are remotely concerned with security or accountability will require employees to use company email systems rather than their own personal accounts.
Try not to be obtuse. They don't record everything, but when you're governor, or in a similar position, you rely on documentation for all kinds of things because there's no way to keep it all straight in your head. Anyone doing business with the state will want documentation as well, as will most other officials, if only to cover themselves. So there will be plenty of official docs, memos, emails, etc. That's how business is done. People don't rely on memory or a handshake anymore. There's just too much going on for that.
Whatever you or your employer decide is best in your position is fine. She happens to be an employee of the people of Alaska. Her communications are public record. Having a record of communications and decisions allows for accountability to her employers. If she doesn't like that, she can go work somewhere else.
They already knew about her using commercial accounts for state business. Read this article. They already had boxes of emails from her aides, all sent to her yahoo address (save one which was a mistake).
I don't know if the term "Whistle blower" would be a good term to use. Whistle blowers typically KNOW something is going on that is illegal, I'm guessing this kids intentions were to be a giant douche but happened to stumble upon something. It's not like he knew that she was using a personal account to handle government related issues.
McLeod had already requested the email and phone records of Palin's aides before the account got hacked. The kid didn't uncover anything really. They already knew she was using commercial accounts for state business. The kid is just an idiot for getting into her account, a bigger idiot for bragging about it, and astoundingly stupid for making it so ridiculously easy to track him down. He probably won't get too steep of a punishment. Hope he manages to learn something from this.
Would you do everything by phone for your job? Never have a record of what you were asked to do or when you were asked to do it by? Or by whom? Don't you think that would be pretty dumb? There's a reason we put things in writing. It's called accountability. Something that many politicians, of any party, are sorely lacking these days. Let's not make things worse by letting them remove all accountability.
I still think that because of this kid, the news got out more and resulted in this decision being made.
Seriously if it wasn't for this kid, I would have had no idea that any of this was going on.
Actually, I believe McLeod requested the emails and phone records before her other account got hacked. They already knew about her gov.sarah@yahoo.com account. The kid just found another one that she was using as well.
My point was that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if she was using the gov.palin@yahoo.com account for state business, because we already know she was using the other one for it. Whether it's either or both, she was circumventing the security and accountability of the state system.
I don't know why everyone thinks "specific email" means "news article".
The fact that the judge has ordered her to save her emails should be rather telling. He/she wants ACTUAL text from these emails to determine if she's actually done anything unlawful. This order does not prove that she has done anything wrong. Everybody else should want the same standard of proof because "I read it in a news article" simply isn't good enough.
Nobody, not even Palin, is denying that she used the commercial account for state business.
Not that I'm for the ditz, but isn't everyone entitled to their privacy? Even online.
As in, being free to delete whatever non-work emails come to you.
The problem is that she was using a commercial account for state business, which circumvents the security and accountability of using official state email services. She essentially made state business subject to Yahoo's terms of service rather than the laws of Alaska. Her official email is supposed to be public record, but the state can't access or archive her commercial account.
They've already seen boxes of emails from her aides to her Yahoo account. In fact, all but one email was sent to her gov.sarah@Yahoo.com account. That's the account she used for state business. It's not the account that got hacked.
But do you think that if he had not gained access to her emails, this decision would have been made? Regardless if he backed out, this still resulted in her being forced to keep her yahoo emails. This could come back to bite her if she doesn't remove those emails first.
I believe there was already an effort underway by some Alaskans to gain access to the emails in the commercial accounts that Palin and her staff were using. The account that got hacked was actually her personal Yahoo account, not one of the ones normally used for official business.
Wait wait wait wait wait. First you accept that Obama's truth squads indeed threatened violence and legal harassment and you proceeded to push the point that McCain has the same.
No, I said that they both have truth squads, both have prosecutors in them, and there is no story here because neither side has done anything to warrant one. Learn to read, moron.
You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim that they threatened violence. That post contains nothing even remotely resembling evidence of threatened violence. You're just full of shit and making stuff up. No wonder McCain is losing if his supporters are as deluded as you are. Come back when you have some proof.
This is not what the Obama "truth squads" did. They threatened violence against anyone who "spread untruths" about Obama.
See, it's hard to have a decent argument when one of us is just making shit up. You asked for proof, so now I'm asking for proof.
Show me proof that they threatened anyone with violence. I've read several places already that they have explicitly said they are not going to be pressing charges against anyone, but are going to be refuting any negative ads that come out.
How's it working out for you having your government take a "hands off" approach to your banks? (assuming you are an American).
Clue yourself in. The subprime crisis was caused by government intervention, not by any "hands off" approach. Just because people can co-opt the word "deregulation" for their own purposes doesn't mean any less regulation is occurring. Check out this excellent article written 8 years ago that predicted the whole thing, down to the huge dollar amount:
Right. A single cause for a multi-trillion dollar meltdown. If only it were thatsimple. Rather than try to pin the whole thing on the CRA, perhaps you might also want to look into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act as well, which deregulated the type of insurance (credit default swaps) that banks were using to allow themselves to make the insane loans they were making. The CRA may have been misguided and caused some more risky loans to be made, but it certainly didn't, on its own, lead to lenders giving large home loans to people with no evidence at all that they could pay it back. Nor did it allow for the obfuscation of the value of these loans through the creation of these ridiculous securities, which is one of the main causes of all of the problems. Nobody knows the true value of these things. That causes panic.
By deregulating credit default swaps, the government (republicans in this case, and Phil Gramm specifically), allowed companies like AIG to insure these mortgage backed securities, even though they couldn't really know their true value. To make matters worse, they weren't required to disclose any of this, and they were not required to have a capital reserve to cover the insured securities either, so when home values started crashing, they couldn't cover even a fraction of the securities that they insured. The whole house of cards came down.
Banks thought they had it made, and were loaning to anything with a pulse because they figured they were covered either way, either the person pays, or they collect the insurance. AIG thought that they'd just sit back and watch the premiums roll in and that they were facing little risk. They both thought they were getting a good deal. Why they thought home prices would never fall remains a mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
why is a government employee sending emails on govt business through a free email account?
Because it's illegal to send campaign messages, partisan political messages, or e-mails dealing with RNC activities through a government account.
Those things aren't government business.
Anyone else in her position would have done the same thing, so I won't fault her for that. Her politics, on the other hand, are way too religiously conservative for my taste.
That's probably true. But they'd also have to deal with the consequences of using their power for personal reasons. Maybe it was worth it to her. If I felt my family was threatened, I would have done it too. Doesn't mean that I'd get to keep my job though. People that aren't in her position don't have the ability to handle things the way she did. Being governor doesn't give her any special privilege to do so either.
We should quit counting the debt. We'll just put it down as "Trillions and Trillions owed"! Genius! :)
Why don't they just make it an analog clock? The hands could simply spin around faster and faster as the situation worsens, which would be much more amusing. The numbers are fairly meaningless anyway.
And they could use it to cool off Times Square too!
I don't know. If the email address had been truly personal, I would have expected her to use something like goodtimes.sarah@yahoo.com or sarah12345@yahoo.com. And if you put your official title inside your email address, you're only encouraging people who send you email (or receive email from you) to think of you in that capacity.
Whether she used one or both accounts for official business, it was still wrong and possibly illegal. Given the evidence we've seen so far, it looks like she was just using the gov.sarah@yahoo.com address for state business. If they find any evidence that she used the other for state business, then they should check it too. I just haven't seen that evidence yet.
This court ruling is so late they can't expect the emails to still exist!
I know allot of people who delete email as it's read to prevent this type of privacy violation.
It's not a privacy violation when it's part of your job. Her emails dealing with state business are part of the public record and, with certain exceptions, the public is allowed to have access to them. If she believes that those emails are exempt, then she can make that claim. A judge will make the final determination. She doesn't get to decide unilaterally what to make available.
Once again, the account that got hacked was not the account that she used for official email. The one that McLeod is referring to is gov.sarah@yahoo.com, not gov.palin@yahoo.com. You're correct that the hacking of her account was pointless. That's because Alaskans were already investigating the other account that she used for official business.
So this means that the slashdot apologists will give a pass to the person who hacks into Obama's email accounts? Using the parent poster's same reasoning, as senator he is also an employee -- or does he only answer to God, these days?
He won't get a pass, and he shouldn't. What he did was extraordinarily dumb, and illegal. It was also not even necessary since Alaskans were already investigating her use of commercial accounts. None of that excuses Palin's use of a commercial account that circumvents the security and accountability of the state system either. They should both be held accountable for what they did.
Alaskan law (and probably most state laws) seem to make exceptions for transient things like post-its. I'm not talking about that sort of thing. If people actually started using post-its for official communications, then maybe we'd start requiring some sort of archive for those as well. The point is to get documentation of the actions and decisions of those who we elect to serve in government. Accountability is essential.
I don't really care if people start feeling hesitant to use email. It's either part of your job or it isn't. Public positions require accountability. If you don't like it, don't run for office. The governor has to document her decisions and interactions with the community and businesses, as well as with other officials. Whether she uses email or some less convenient method of documentation makes no difference. As long as the public record is preserved. We need more transparency in government, not less.
Businesses can do as they like, but any that are remotely concerned with security or accountability will require employees to use company email systems rather than their own personal accounts.
Try not to be obtuse. They don't record everything, but when you're governor, or in a similar position, you rely on documentation for all kinds of things because there's no way to keep it all straight in your head. Anyone doing business with the state will want documentation as well, as will most other officials, if only to cover themselves. So there will be plenty of official docs, memos, emails, etc. That's how business is done. People don't rely on memory or a handshake anymore. There's just too much going on for that.
Whatever you or your employer decide is best in your position is fine. She happens to be an employee of the people of Alaska. Her communications are public record. Having a record of communications and decisions allows for accountability to her employers. If she doesn't like that, she can go work somewhere else.
They already knew about her using commercial accounts for state business. Read this article. They already had boxes of emails from her aides, all sent to her yahoo address (save one which was a mistake).
I don't know if the term "Whistle blower" would be a good term to use. Whistle blowers typically KNOW something is going on that is illegal, I'm guessing this kids intentions were to be a giant douche but happened to stumble upon something. It's not like he knew that she was using a personal account to handle government related issues.
McLeod had already requested the email and phone records of Palin's aides before the account got hacked. The kid didn't uncover anything really. They already knew she was using commercial accounts for state business. The kid is just an idiot for getting into her account, a bigger idiot for bragging about it, and astoundingly stupid for making it so ridiculously easy to track him down. He probably won't get too steep of a punishment. Hope he manages to learn something from this.
Would you do everything by phone for your job? Never have a record of what you were asked to do or when you were asked to do it by? Or by whom? Don't you think that would be pretty dumb? There's a reason we put things in writing. It's called accountability. Something that many politicians, of any party, are sorely lacking these days. Let's not make things worse by letting them remove all accountability.
I still think that because of this kid, the news got out more and resulted in this decision being made.
Seriously if it wasn't for this kid, I would have had no idea that any of this was going on.
Actually, I believe McLeod requested the emails and phone records before her other account got hacked. They already knew about her gov.sarah@yahoo.com account. The kid just found another one that she was using as well.
My point was that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if she was using the gov.palin@yahoo.com account for state business, because we already know she was using the other one for it. Whether it's either or both, she was circumventing the security and accountability of the state system.
I don't know why everyone thinks "specific email" means "news article".
The fact that the judge has ordered her to save her emails should be rather telling. He/she wants ACTUAL text from these emails to determine if she's actually done anything unlawful. This order does not prove that she has done anything wrong. Everybody else should want the same standard of proof because "I read it in a news article" simply isn't good enough.
Nobody, not even Palin, is denying that she used the commercial account for state business.
Personal email accounts called gov.palin@yahoo.com and where the subjects clearly implied she was talking business?
Sorry, I don't believe for a second they were personal.
gov.palin@yahoo.com was her personal use account. gov.sarah@yahoo.com was the one that she was using for official state business.
Not that I'm for the ditz, but isn't everyone entitled to their privacy? Even online.
As in, being free to delete whatever non-work emails come to you.
The problem is that she was using a commercial account for state business, which circumvents the security and accountability of using official state email services. She essentially made state business subject to Yahoo's terms of service rather than the laws of Alaska. Her official email is supposed to be public record, but the state can't access or archive her commercial account.
They've already seen boxes of emails from her aides to her Yahoo account. In fact, all but one email was sent to her gov.sarah@Yahoo.com account. That's the account she used for state business. It's not the account that got hacked.
But do you think that if he had not gained access to her emails, this decision would have been made? Regardless if he backed out, this still resulted in her being forced to keep her yahoo emails. This could come back to bite her if she doesn't remove those emails first.
I believe there was already an effort underway by some Alaskans to gain access to the emails in the commercial accounts that Palin and her staff were using. The account that got hacked was actually her personal Yahoo account, not one of the ones normally used for official business.
Wait wait wait wait wait. First you accept that Obama's truth squads indeed threatened violence and legal harassment and you proceeded to push the point that McCain has the same.
No, I said that they both have truth squads, both have prosecutors in them, and there is no story here because neither side has done anything to warrant one. Learn to read, moron.
You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim that they threatened violence. That post contains nothing even remotely resembling evidence of threatened violence. You're just full of shit and making stuff up. No wonder McCain is losing if his supporters are as deluded as you are. Come back when you have some proof.
This is not what the Obama "truth squads" did. They threatened violence against anyone who "spread untruths" about Obama.
See, it's hard to have a decent argument when one of us is just making shit up. You asked for proof, so now I'm asking for proof.
Show me proof that they threatened anyone with violence. I've read several places already that they have explicitly said they are not going to be pressing charges against anyone, but are going to be refuting any negative ads that come out.
How's it working out for you having your government take a "hands off" approach to your banks? (assuming you are an American).
Clue yourself in. The subprime crisis was caused by government intervention, not by any "hands off" approach. Just because people can co-opt the word "deregulation" for their own purposes doesn't mean any less regulation is occurring. Check out this excellent article written 8 years ago that predicted the whole thing, down to the huge dollar amount:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Right. A single cause for a multi-trillion dollar meltdown. If only it were that simple. Rather than try to pin the whole thing on the CRA, perhaps you might also want to look into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act as well, which deregulated the type of insurance (credit default swaps) that banks were using to allow themselves to make the insane loans they were making. The CRA may have been misguided and caused some more risky loans to be made, but it certainly didn't, on its own, lead to lenders giving large home loans to people with no evidence at all that they could pay it back. Nor did it allow for the obfuscation of the value of these loans through the creation of these ridiculous securities, which is one of the main causes of all of the problems. Nobody knows the true value of these things. That causes panic.
By deregulating credit default swaps, the government (republicans in this case, and Phil Gramm specifically), allowed companies like AIG to insure these mortgage backed securities, even though they couldn't really know their true value. To make matters worse, they weren't required to disclose any of this, and they were not required to have a capital reserve to cover the insured securities either, so when home values started crashing, they couldn't cover even a fraction of the securities that they insured. The whole house of cards came down.
Banks thought they had it made, and were loaning to anything with a pulse because they figured they were covered either way, either the person pays, or they collect the insurance. AIG thought that they'd just sit back and watch the premiums roll in and that they were facing little risk. They both thought they were getting a good deal. Why they thought home prices would never fall remains a mystery.