Alright, then the only justifiable thing to do, if you want such services, is to persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to want it as well. Show them why it's better, why they should want it, why if they all unite, their desires will be fulfilled.
Sounds like they had done that. Otherwise the city officials would get voted out. If enough people are behind it, then the city can do it without fear of voter wrath.
Just accept that infrastructure services that require digging up and constantly accessing private property is not something well-suited to private companies. We aren't going to just let them bury shit wherever they want, because it's not their property. The government represents the people who own the property, therefore the companies must deal with the government, unless they want to have to come to a million separate deals with property owners.
The ideal solution is for the government to handle the physical infrastructure, and then make it available to any and all commercial interests to offer services over that infrastructure to the citizens. That way we only have one party responsible for the infrastructure, and no conflicts of interest because that party doesn't offer services over that infrastructure.
It's crazy to try to require every company to lay its own infrastructure, and its not in the interests of the community to allow everyone and his dog to do so. But we also don't want to deal with the conflicts that arise from allowing one or two companies to control the infrastructure. This is one situation where government action makes sense.
There is, but there's essentially nothing you can do about it, its a flaw in the system that can't be fixed short of catapulting lawyers that ignore ethics requirements into outer space.
Note that you ARE expected to prove this. Let's see you provide a link by a credible source that they exist first.
Fine. Here's a link. You can find dozens more with a quick Google search.
And if Obama will stoop as low as anyone else, that's not a good sign at all. What would his response to 9/11 have been ? Nuking Mecca ? After all "it's all the same", right ?
You have to do better than the other bastards. "The same" is not good enough, and "basically the same as the rumours" is an abomination.
That's kind of the point. There's really no story here on either side. They both want to refute claims made by the other side. Given the ads that are running now, that's pretty understandable. That's all either one of them has said they will do. You're trying to turn it into a conspiracy.
The emails that they got didn't say much. Not very surprising. There were 1,100 that were withheld for various reasons that are being challenged, but the bottom line is that she is using a commercial account and making it hard or impossible for anyone to access her email, which is supposed to be public record. They can't retrieve the email from her commercial account. This is becoming a disturbing trend among public officials that needs to be stopped. Government has to be accountable, and this kind of behavior is directly opposed to that.
McCain has truth squads as well, and they are also populated by people with prosecutorial authority, up to and including state attorneys general. How is Obama doing anything different? Both sides are running ads that are misleading at the very least, so it's quite logical for them to have people out refuting them, which is what these groups claim they will be doing. I haven't heard any claim of arresting or prosecuting anyone. They just say they are going to be refuting the attack ads. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?
From what I've read so far, there was nothing illegal about those emails that we've seen. A couple of Alaskans received 4 banker's boxes of email and phone records from two of Palin's aides in a public records request, and none of those contained anything incriminating. They do note that 1,100 emails were refused based on an exemption for communications of a deliberative nature. They are intended to dispute that, and they may receive access to at least some of the withheld email.
Had she used her government mail service there would be no issue at all. The issue is the fact that she's making public documents subject to Yahoo's terms of service rather than state records laws, as well as making it very difficult to even know whether certain communications even exist. Some of them might not ever see the light of day due to their nature, but a judge would decide that rather than the governor deciding unilaterally. I'm waiting on responses to some emails I sent, trying to get more info on this.
That's the thing. It is widely known, but no one provides real evidence. The article from the Daily News doesn't provide any proof. It simply says she conducts official business on the personal account, but does not provide any actual evidence.
Andree McLeod received 4 boxes of email and phone records from two of Palin's aides. All but one of the emails was sent to her personal account rather than her state account. That's not evidence?? From the article:
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
The Alaskan courts don't always agree that deliberative process trumps public access (Fuller v. City of Homer). I'm having trouble finding the actual statutes that cover record retention for Alaska. I sent a couple of emails, so I'll have to wait and see what I can find out. It seems that while a court may uphold executive privilege in certain cases, the governor doesn't get to make that call unilaterally. If there are truly no rules regarding document retention, then public access is essentially useless, as anything that could be requested could also be destroyed.
Read the linked article. She was using a Yahoo account for official business. Just not the account that was hacked.
And you need to re-read it. It doesn't say she has more than one Yahoo account. She has a personal Yahoo account and the official, government account. Two accounts, only the personal one is on Yahoo. The reporter also makes the unproven allegation, "Palin routinely uses a private Yahoo e-mail account to conduct state business. Others in the governor's office sometimes use personal e-mail accounts too."
But later in the article they admit they don't know what's in the emails. So they don't know what emails are being sent and if those emails are inappropriately being sent via a personal account or vice-versa--there are emails she's not supposed to send on her government account too. And it's not illegal to have a personal email for personal business. So the idea the reporter can claim she's conducting state business on her Yahoo account is bogus. It's an unfounded accusation.
There are 2 Yahoo accounts that are being discussed. gov.palin@yahoo.com which is the one that was personal and got hacked, and gov.sarah@yahoo.com which is what she uses for state business.
From the article:
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
Thank you, I'll take your word for that. I'll repeat part two for you to answer now: Has it been proven that she used a personal (or simply a Yahoo) email account to conduct personal business?
Yes. More than enough to warrant an investigation.
Except she did not use it for official business. The guy that hacked it even said he did not find anything that showed her account being used for official business. But if it would make you happy i think they should investigate it. While they are at it they should investigate all of congress too because I am sure everyone does it if the Governor of Alaska does it.
Actually, you're right that she didn't use that account for official business. It was a different Yahoo account that she used for official business. I do agree that any public official that does this in violation of state or federal law should be punished for it.
There was NO government business or smoking gun found. He said so himself, and every credible report of the content of the e-mails has concluded likewise. Sarah Palin is entitled to private e-mail just like the rest of us. Sarah Palin was clearly NOT conducting state business using her private e-mail account.
(Furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in public office to *never* mention political words in their private e-mails. A casual mention of a person who holds political office to a mutual friend in a private e-mail is not a violation of any laws, and maintaining that kind of ridiculous assertion will only encourage pols to keep every communication they can out of the system, so it's clearly self-defeating.)
The complaints against Palin are sour grapes and a desperate attempt to defend an indefensible violation of privacy on an unfounded suspicion that there might be some "smoking gun" there.
Personally, I don't think five years in prison is nearly long enough for this sort of deliberate, premeditated, e-crime with the intent to cause harm. A 20-year sentence without parole for any sort of knowing, deliberate breaking of or tampering with public, private, or government e-mail or file/document storage accounts would be more appropriate.
She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked. Do some research before you spout off.
Palin knowingly and deliberately circumvented Alaskan laws that exist to ensure accountability of public officials. Think she should get 20 years?
Take your partisan hate-spewing elsewhere. I'm sick of the team loyalty at all costs mindset this country seems to have. Any public official using commercial email accounts in violation of the law should face punishment for it. Period.
It's not there. As mentioned in all of the comments above, the "hacker" was disappointed by not finding anything. You can find all the email online, there's nothing illegal there.
The assertion that there is something illegal has been created in a sort of slashdot liberal love-fest, that ignores facts.
She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked. Those are the facts.
It is quite possible that Sarah Palin used personal email to conduct state business... though apparently in a willy-nilly manner since the emails are *from* and *to* state accounts suggesting foolish ignorance more than systematically trying hide something.
Sorry. Governors definitely don't get to plead ignorance of the law.
It amuses that there are two competing and mutually exclusive anti-Palin memes going on simultaneously:
(1) She was using insecure free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be kept secure so that not just anyone can hack in and see it!
(2) She was using private free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be made available so that anyone can file a request and see it!
How are those mutually exclusive? She should be using a secure email account that adheres to Alaskan law and properly archives the communications so that they can be subpoenaed if necessary.
On one hand, we have the Governor of Alaska and potential VP of the United States using a public e-mail system (with a really simple password hint) for state work.
Sometimes the written word is tough to interpret, so please don't take this as some sort of macho challenge, but do we really have any official proof that the governor was doing what you've said? I don't want anyone to simply answer "Yes" or give some anecdotal diatribe. I want someone to provide some real proof that I and a bunch of other curious people can read.
It's already widely known that she was using a Yahoo account for official business. It's not the same account that got hacked though.
Actually the "hacker" has stated that he read every email in her account and couldn't find any government business being conducted. The emails to and from government officials had to do with her campaign and would have been illegal if sent using government accounts.
The hacker didn't hack the account she was using for state business. That was a different Yahoo account, and is already common knowledge.
Bah. Replying to myself. I meant to say that I was referring to the account she was using for state business, which she must have closed, as Yahoo had no reason to touch that one. It was never hacked.
Believe it or not, I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out that regardless of whether Palin would close the account, Yahoo had beat her to it anyways.
Right, and by doing that she could get in more trouble for deleting official correspondence, which could also be evidence.
Cool glad I missed it. Where is your proof? Where is the investigation? What law did she break etc. The two people who have "used" the account (Palin and Kernell) said that Palin did not use the account for government business.
She was using a Yahoo account for state business. That is common knowledge now. It's not the same account that got hacked.
Why should she be indicted? None of her emails were very inappropriate.
What we have is some people who thought that Palin was conducting official state business on her personal account, and for some reason, even though her personal emails have been exposed and cleared as appropriate, they still can't drop their belief that she was/is conducting state business on her personal account.
Let it go--she obviously wasn't, and we know that thanks to the idiot who accessed her emails.
She was using a Yahoo account for state business. That is common knowledge now. It's not the same account that got hacked.
If the only proof of the Palin using yahoo to conduct official business came out becuase of the hacking of her account then its going to be hard to get it admitted as evidence. Its all fruit of the poisonous tree. He did much more harm than good. Besides doing something completely illegal.
That's not the only evidence. It's already widely known that she was using a Yahoo account for state business. That's not the one that got hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, then the only justifiable thing to do, if you want such services, is to persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to want it as well. Show them why it's better, why they should want it, why if they all unite, their desires will be fulfilled.
Sounds like they had done that. Otherwise the city officials would get voted out. If enough people are behind it, then the city can do it without fear of voter wrath.
Can you provide some sources for this?
Sure. Some good articles here, here, here, and here.
Just accept that infrastructure services that require digging up and constantly accessing private property is not something well-suited to private companies. We aren't going to just let them bury shit wherever they want, because it's not their property. The government represents the people who own the property, therefore the companies must deal with the government, unless they want to have to come to a million separate deals with property owners.
The ideal solution is for the government to handle the physical infrastructure, and then make it available to any and all commercial interests to offer services over that infrastructure to the citizens. That way we only have one party responsible for the infrastructure, and no conflicts of interest because that party doesn't offer services over that infrastructure.
It's crazy to try to require every company to lay its own infrastructure, and its not in the interests of the community to allow everyone and his dog to do so. But we also don't want to deal with the conflicts that arise from allowing one or two companies to control the infrastructure. This is one situation where government action makes sense.
There is, but there's essentially nothing you can do about it, its a flaw in the system that can't be fixed short of catapulting lawyers that ignore ethics requirements into outer space.
Why would we want to do anything short of that?
Note that you ARE expected to prove this. Let's see you provide a link by a credible source that they exist first.
Fine. Here's a link. You can find dozens more with a quick Google search.
And if Obama will stoop as low as anyone else, that's not a good sign at all. What would his response to 9/11 have been ? Nuking Mecca ? After all "it's all the same", right ?
You have to do better than the other bastards. "The same" is not good enough, and "basically the same as the rumours" is an abomination.
That's kind of the point. There's really no story here on either side. They both want to refute claims made by the other side. Given the ads that are running now, that's pretty understandable. That's all either one of them has said they will do. You're trying to turn it into a conspiracy.
The emails that they got didn't say much. Not very surprising. There were 1,100 that were withheld for various reasons that are being challenged, but the bottom line is that she is using a commercial account and making it hard or impossible for anyone to access her email, which is supposed to be public record. They can't retrieve the email from her commercial account. This is becoming a disturbing trend among public officials that needs to be stopped. Government has to be accountable, and this kind of behavior is directly opposed to that.
McCain has truth squads as well, and they are also populated by people with prosecutorial authority, up to and including state attorneys general. How is Obama doing anything different? Both sides are running ads that are misleading at the very least, so it's quite logical for them to have people out refuting them, which is what these groups claim they will be doing. I haven't heard any claim of arresting or prosecuting anyone. They just say they are going to be refuting the attack ads. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?
From what I've read so far, there was nothing illegal about those emails that we've seen. A couple of Alaskans received 4 banker's boxes of email and phone records from two of Palin's aides in a public records request, and none of those contained anything incriminating. They do note that 1,100 emails were refused based on an exemption for communications of a deliberative nature. They are intended to dispute that, and they may receive access to at least some of the withheld email.
Had she used her government mail service there would be no issue at all. The issue is the fact that she's making public documents subject to Yahoo's terms of service rather than state records laws, as well as making it very difficult to even know whether certain communications even exist. Some of them might not ever see the light of day due to their nature, but a judge would decide that rather than the governor deciding unilaterally. I'm waiting on responses to some emails I sent, trying to get more info on this.
That's the thing. It is widely known, but no one provides real evidence. The article from the Daily News doesn't provide any proof. It simply says she conducts official business on the personal account, but does not provide any actual evidence.
Andree McLeod received 4 boxes of email and phone records from two of Palin's aides. All but one of the emails was sent to her personal account rather than her state account. That's not evidence?? From the article:
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
The Alaskan courts don't always agree that deliberative process trumps public access (Fuller v. City of Homer). I'm having trouble finding the actual statutes that cover record retention for Alaska. I sent a couple of emails, so I'll have to wait and see what I can find out. It seems that while a court may uphold executive privilege in certain cases, the governor doesn't get to make that call unilaterally. If there are truly no rules regarding document retention, then public access is essentially useless, as anything that could be requested could also be destroyed.
Read the linked article. She was using a Yahoo account for official business. Just not the account that was hacked.
And you need to re-read it. It doesn't say she has more than one Yahoo account. She has a personal Yahoo account and the official, government account. Two accounts, only the personal one is on Yahoo. The reporter also makes the unproven allegation, "Palin routinely uses a private Yahoo e-mail account to conduct state business. Others in the governor's office sometimes use personal e-mail accounts too."
But later in the article they admit they don't know what's in the emails. So they don't know what emails are being sent and if those emails are inappropriately being sent via a personal account or vice-versa--there are emails she's not supposed to send on her government account too. And it's not illegal to have a personal email for personal business. So the idea the reporter can claim she's conducting state business on her Yahoo account is bogus. It's an unfounded accusation.
There are 2 Yahoo accounts that are being discussed. gov.palin@yahoo.com which is the one that was personal and got hacked, and gov.sarah@yahoo.com which is what she uses for state business.
From the article:
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.
Thank you, I'll take your word for that. I'll repeat part two for you to answer now:
Has it been proven that she used a personal (or simply a Yahoo) email account to conduct personal business?
Yes. More than enough to warrant an investigation.
Will sarah palin get a similar fine for using Yahoo mail to conduct official business?
This is against the law? Can you cite me the law that makes this illegal?
Yes, and yes.
Except she did not use it for official business. The guy that hacked it even said he did not find anything that showed her account being used for official business. But if it would make you happy i think they should investigate it. While they are at it they should investigate all of congress too because I am sure everyone does it if the Governor of Alaska does it.
Actually, you're right that she didn't use that account for official business. It was a different Yahoo account that she used for official business. I do agree that any public official that does this in violation of state or federal law should be punished for it.
There was NO government business or smoking gun found. He said so himself, and every credible report of the content of the e-mails has concluded likewise. Sarah Palin is entitled to private e-mail just like the rest of us. Sarah Palin was clearly NOT conducting state business using her private e-mail account.
(Furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in public office to *never* mention political words in their private e-mails. A casual mention of a person who holds political office to a mutual friend in a private e-mail is not a violation of any laws, and maintaining that kind of ridiculous assertion will only encourage pols to keep every communication they can out of the system, so it's clearly self-defeating.)
The complaints against Palin are sour grapes and a desperate attempt to defend an indefensible violation of privacy on an unfounded suspicion that there might be some "smoking gun" there.
Personally, I don't think five years in prison is nearly long enough for this sort of deliberate, premeditated, e-crime with the intent to cause harm. A 20-year sentence without parole for any sort of knowing, deliberate breaking of or tampering with public, private, or government e-mail or file/document storage accounts would be more appropriate.
She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked. Do some research before you spout off.
Palin knowingly and deliberately circumvented Alaskan laws that exist to ensure accountability of public officials. Think she should get 20 years?
Take your partisan hate-spewing elsewhere. I'm sick of the team loyalty at all costs mindset this country seems to have. Any public official using commercial email accounts in violation of the law should face punishment for it. Period.
It's not there. As mentioned in all of the comments above, the "hacker" was disappointed by not finding anything. You can find all the email online, there's nothing illegal there.
The assertion that there is something illegal has been created in a sort of slashdot liberal love-fest, that ignores facts.
She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked. Those are the facts.
It did not happen. Even the guy that hacked the account said he did not find anything. It is more media spin.
This is getting tedious now. She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked.
It is quite possible that Sarah Palin used personal email to conduct state business... though apparently in a willy-nilly manner since the emails are *from* and *to* state accounts suggesting foolish ignorance more than systematically trying hide something.
Sorry. Governors definitely don't get to plead ignorance of the law.
It amuses that there are two competing and mutually exclusive anti-Palin memes going on simultaneously:
(1) She was using insecure free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be kept secure so that not just anyone can hack in and see it!
(2) She was using private free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be made available so that anyone can file a request and see it!
How are those mutually exclusive? She should be using a secure email account that adheres to Alaskan law and properly archives the communications so that they can be subpoenaed if necessary.
She was obviously not doing that.
On one hand, we have the Governor of Alaska and potential VP of the United States using a public e-mail system (with a really simple password hint) for state work.
Sometimes the written word is tough to interpret, so please don't take this as some sort of macho challenge, but do we really have any official proof that the governor was doing what you've said? I don't want anyone to simply answer "Yes" or give some anecdotal diatribe. I want someone to provide some real proof that I and a bunch of other curious people can read.
It's already widely known that she was using a Yahoo account for official business. It's not the same account that got hacked though.
Actually the "hacker" has stated that he read every email in her account and couldn't find any government business being conducted. The emails to and from government officials had to do with her campaign and would have been illegal if sent using government accounts.
The hacker didn't hack the account she was using for state business. That was a different Yahoo account, and is already common knowledge.
Bah. Replying to myself. I meant to say that I was referring to the account she was using for state business, which she must have closed, as Yahoo had no reason to touch that one. It was never hacked.
Believe it or not, I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out that regardless of whether Palin would close the account, Yahoo had beat her to it anyways.
Right, and by doing that she could get in more trouble for deleting official correspondence, which could also be evidence.
Cool glad I missed it. Where is your proof? Where is the investigation? What law did she break etc. The two people who have "used" the account (Palin and Kernell) said that Palin did not use the account for government business.
She was using a Yahoo account for state business. That is common knowledge now. It's not the same account that got hacked.
Why should she be indicted? None of her emails were very inappropriate.
What we have is some people who thought that Palin was conducting official state business on her personal account, and for some reason, even though her personal emails have been exposed and cleared as appropriate, they still can't drop their belief that she was/is conducting state business on her personal account.
Let it go--she obviously wasn't, and we know that thanks to the idiot who accessed her emails.
She was using a Yahoo account for state business. That is common knowledge now. It's not the same account that got hacked.
If the only proof of the Palin using yahoo to conduct official business came out becuase of the hacking of her account then its going to be hard to get it admitted as evidence. Its all fruit of the poisonous tree. He did much more harm than good. Besides doing something completely illegal.
That's not the only evidence. It's already widely known that she was using a Yahoo account for state business. That's not the one that got hacked.