So that's why I met so much resistance when I was setting up a script to automatically check and process mail over IMAP. I thought it was still a standard default thing, but the server admin, who can design and set up entire Exchange systems, virtual servers, entire VPN infrastructures, etc, seemed confused when I asked him to enable and test IMAP.
Is there some major flaw in IMAP, or has Microsoft simply already embraced and extended it, and now they're moving on with phase 3?
You think this goes on all the time, huh? Do you have a laptop? Can you use your laptop to connect via VPN or wifi (or even wired) to your company's network? Does your company have the ability to delete all data on your laptop's hard drive remotely?
Someone in the IT department had sent out what's called a "remote wipe," a kind of auto-destruct command that's delivered by e-mail.
I'm really, really looking forward to the first story we get of an admin accidentally sending the message to a contact list, such as the entire company, and wiping everyone's data from the CEO down. Future computer science students will learn about the lessons of the Therac-25, the Ariane-5 rocket, and the Exchange/smart phone integration that brought a fortune-500 company to a standstill for a week.
I'm assuming the response will be a curt letter informing you to read the agreement that you already agreed to, with said agreement attached, including an invoice for the lawyer's time to draft the letter and send it. Thanks for your business.
What, you mean you didn't read the EULA? Whose fault is that? Is that the company's fault?
I don't think most people read it but when you think about the type of proprietary (and often confidential) data your email inbox has, you have to understand why the company does it.
That's a perfectly acceptable policy for any company that provides smart phones to its employees. I don't know if it's true with your company, but I would consider that an overreach if you want me to connect my personal phone with your network and give you the ability to delete all of my pictures and other personal data solely at your discretion. I'm sure you would understand why the owner would find that objectionable.
Earlier models of the series included an unfurling dish structure about 255 feet in diameter with a total spacecraft mass of about 5,953.5 pounds
The whosit whatnow?
The MAGNUM-ORION 1-3 spacecraft introduced the third larger unfurling dish structures "wrap-rib" large deployable bleached white gold colored mesh covered receiving dish antenna design of about 255 feet in diameter with a total spacecraft mass of about 5,953.5 pounds.
Oh. Of course, the old unfurling dish structures "wrap-rib" large deployable bleached white gold colored mesh covered receiving dish antenna design.
Given a choice of a quick grope or scatray versus quetion after question which is none of the government's busieness, which do you choose? "Why am I traveling? To fuck your mom in the face!" Seriously, why is the Israeli approach suddenly a paradigm of freedom? It is not. It may be grope free but it is not free of probing.
You can answer those questions how ever you want. They are not looking for the answers, they don't care about the answers. They care about your body language and your behavior while you are answering. The reason the first question they ask every one is "How are you" is not because the agents are concerned for your mental well-being, they just want to see how you answer the question. What are your eyes doing, are you looking them in the face, are you sweating, is your voice cracking, etc.
So, to answer your question, I'm going to go with the alternative that does not allow the government to take naked pictures of me, feel my balls, or give me cancer. They can ask whatever questions they want to ask, and I'll give whatever answers I want to give.
From the video of the "don't touch my junk" dude, he tells the TSA agent that this is sexual assault, and the response was "this is not considered sexual assault", the reasoning being that it's the government doing it in the name of security. But yeah, once you're in that position you're not allowed to leave, you have to either get assaulted or get cancer-blasted. It sounds like there may be room for a legal issue if they are essentially forcing you to do one or the other. I think it would be interesting if someone simply refused to do either. They are technically not allowed to leave the security area without being screened, so they would probably get hit with a $10,000 fine for the crime of simply refusing both.
Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?
Why? That's an easy question to answer: because we're human. They're the classic reasons: greed, power, money, etc. There are a lot of people getting paid for the TSA to be so big, and a lot of people in a lot of positions of power. Because people are people, corruption comes out of that.
The question isn't "why", because the answer is always the same. The question should be "is anyone doing anything about it?" Thankfully, it appears that finally this major issue is receiving the type of response that it should. This is obviously a breach of fourth amendment rights, and the Israelis have proven that it's possible to have a higher level of security with a minimal level of interference, without simply outright violating people's rights in the name of security. Everyone needs to continue pressure to figure out a way to make air travel secure while not violating everyone's rights, because it's obviously possible and just not happening.
It seems to me like "grope them" is the reaction you get when you can't think of anything better, so there might be some problems with the people making these policies.
The fact that people are at least starting to stand up against those policies and for their rights is the right reaction and it's reassuring to see it finally happening. That's what makes this country strong: not the fact that we can stop everything from happening, but the fact that we change it if it does.
Ben Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
So what you're saying is that if there's a 0.00001% chance that somebody who looks like a nun is a terrorist, and a 0.01% chance that somebody who looks like a young Arab male is a terrorist, we should search every young Arab male and miss the terrorist nuns? Oh, and there's also the not-insignificant problem that any terrorist who notices this sort of profiling will simply recruit a lighter-skinned female terrorist and dress her up like a nun.
There's no reason to profile based on what color people are, or how old they are, or what they're wearing, or what brand of shoes they have on, or whatever else. The only useful profiling is behavioral profiling. Israel's Ben Gurion airport manages to move passengers from their car, through six layers of security, to the terminal lounge, in less than half an hour. No taking off of shoes required, no inspecting liquids. They just talk to you, they look you in the eyes, ask you questions, and see how you answer.
Profiling is exactly the right response, but it is a person's behavior you should be profiling, not what color they are or what they're wearing. There's no reason to have ridiculous lines, pat downs, naked body scanners, etc, when you can get by with a few simple, quick interviews.
How many people have had to take off their shoes at the security check? Let me ask that a different way: how many individual shoes have been removed and put back on since the TSA started that procedure? How many bombs have been found in those shoes? This whole security crap is a waste of everyone's time and money, we need to be looking at how the Israels have been doing things for the last 50 years and take a goddamn hint already instead of trying and failing to reinvent their working wheel.
I think "able to brute-force thousands of passwords in an hour" qualifies as a weakness in SHA-1.
Maybe that would be seen as a weakness. But what this guy demonstrated was not "thousands of password in an hour", it was "14 passwords with a maximum length of 6 in 49 minutes". Can you scale up, and crack thousands in an hour? Sure. But at the rate he did it, one password every 3.5 minutes, to get 1000 passwords in 60 minutes you would need a nearly 60-fold increase in power. He paid $2.10 for his 49 minutes, which means you're going to need to pay $126 per hour if you want the power to crack that many passwords. So, it comes down to economics, what's it worth to you? Are you willing to pay $3,000 per day to crack 24k passwords?
So, it doesn't apply _at all_ to private entities creating websites, which seems to be largely what this change is about, and it also pretty much says that if it's too hard to implement, you don't have to. How is that a problem?
It's a problem when your client is the government, and they require it. Then it's a problem.
As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control.
I went ahead and bolded the relevant part (which I happen to agree with). Steve Jobs is a charismatic leader who desires more control than is good for us. Regardless, the guy is clearly just trying to sell his book, so if you want to know what he really thinks, and why he thinks it, you know what to do. It's not real fair to judge his reasoning based on the transcript blurbs that the newspaper chose to use. The reason he has a book is because he has a lot to say about it.
As for why anyone having "too much control" over the internet is not a good thing for the internet, that should be fairly obvious. The main reason the internet is as powerful as it is is because no one controls it.
But you know what, if someone hacked my email and posted all my emails, complete with pictures of my teenage daughters for the whole world to see... I'd delete them too! All of them.
Why? What would doing so accomplish?
Then again, Obama stalling on releasing his birth certificate smells fishy.
No it doesn't. He says he was born in Hawaii. You ask Hawaii for his birth certificate. Right there, on the bottom, is a line of text indicating that what you are looking at is prima facie evidence of live birth in Hawaii, and it's good enough for the court system. Case closed. The issue with that was that some people assumed that what was good enough for the court system was not good enough for them, that for some reason they required additional evidence. That's what makes those people wackos.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a public figure, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have complete access to everything she, and her kids do.
You're right, there are no laws about public figures. But there are laws about certain public servants, and they do at least say that any time she sends a written communication about official government business that it needs to be archived. I'm being vague there because I don't know the actual text.
I mean, she could have conducted government business in her bed with her husband Todd.
Todd isn't a government official, so she couldn't. Unfortunately the possibility of streaming a First Blow Job online is very low.
What if she completes state business on the crapper? Do we need to mic her toilet and install a live, 24-hr webcam?
Without seeing the legal text, I would assume they only need to archive the phone call or the written messages. Her location is not important, if she wants to call Ahnold while she's pinching one off that's her thing.
She may be a public figure, but that doesn't give you access to every aspect of her life.
But it does require access to the aspects that deal with her official duties as governor.
I don't see people screaming for Obama's Blackberry text logs. Why Sarah Palins? I don't agree with a witch hunt. I really don't agree a witch hunt that is one sided. It's one thing for the press (or hackers) to go over the line and be overzealous in their investigative reporting. It's something else entirely when they only do it one side.
First, I have no idea whether or not Obama's BlackBerry gets archived, but in order to comply with the laws I would assume that they have his server set up so that it complies with everything. I don't see anything one-sided or political about this, I think that Palin should have been investigated and I think any other politician in any other state subject to the same laws should also be investigated if they try to hide. Just like a partisan witch hunt is a bad idea, it's also a bad idea to let her off the hook for political reasons. She should have been investigated, regardless of which letter she chooses to put by her name. Hell, I'm drawn in most by the hypocritical aspect of it, not the political aspect. She campaigns on how open and honest she is, and then it looks like she's intentionally trying to hide what she's doing (and then quits). String her up, make an example of her for others aspiring to be in her position. If only she didn't destroy the evidence...
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that, after they had regained control of the accounts, they deleted them? Why would anyone delete any communication? Either 1) because you don't need it, or 2) because you don't want anyone else to see it. So either she didn't need her entire 2 personal email accounts, or she didn't want anyone to be able to prove what the contents were. She had control of the accounts, and they knew that whatever was already exposed was exposed, so why delete the accounts under your control? Does it matter that this was in the midst of an investigation where the investigators were seeking the contents of emails that she refused to provide? What about her "special assistant", Ivy Frye, whose emails you see in the personal account, being subpoenaed in the investigation about the emails she was sending to Sarah and several other government officials? It's not exactly a stretch to assume that she was conducting business as the governor through her personal accounts. I emphasize assume because that's all I've ever done, regardless of what you want to say here:
it's not really fair to claim as fact that Sarah Palin was using Yahoo email to "...to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability."
As for your email, it could have been deputy chief of staff asking Palin if his/her email to Arnold stating, "I, as a private citizen and in no way relating to my duties as an employee of the state of Alaska, think your policy sux and you have a stupid name" spells Arnold's name correctly. We don't know and we will never know.
I agree. It makes perfect sense and is entirely reasonable that someone would do something like that. Surely it makes more sense to assume that than to assume that someone who has actively sought to try and hide her communication from being archived has.... wait for it... actually hidden her communication.
Was the email actually sent to Gov Arnold from her Yahoo account or was she requesting editing help from someone else?
She was receiving a draft from her deputy chief of staff. The letter was probably mailed.
Was she sending this letter to Gov Arnold in her official capacity as governor?
As opposed to a personal friendship? Yeah, I'm thinking the reason two governors are talking about a tax has something to do with official business in their capacities as governor. Likewise, the draft from her deputy chief of staff would also be official business.
Again, I would not consider asking for an opinion of a "draft" letter to be official government business.
You think a deputy chief of staff sending a draft to a governor is not state business? What exactly is it?
This request for edit help on this draft letter had absolutely no effect on Alaskan policy.
That is not the point of the law, my friend. The point of the law is that, as public servants, the official correspondence of these people is a matter of public record and needs to be archived. They do not have the discretion to decide what is and is not covered under the law. In fact, that discretion is given to the courts, and it's certainly not given to you and your opinions. As a public servant, if they are corresponding with another official on a matter related to their official duties, then their correspondence is a public record. That's it. "Try again", indeed. Therefore, the fact that they are using unmonitored, unsecured, unarchived accounts for this purpose is a direct violation. So why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the people with access to the mail account didn't bother to save anything before sharing the password with the world, and both of Sarah Palin's Yahoo accounts (she had 2) were deleted the same day shortly after the breach was known, before an investigative agency could even put an injunction on it. "So what", you say, could have been anything in there. And yeah, that's exactly the point, anything could have been in there, we have plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the very likely possibility that there was in fact official government correspondence in those accounts (including her secretary directing other people to contact her at those accounts), and there's no way to prove either way. All we have are things like subject lines. And yes, a draft of a letter to another governor on an official matter is in fact official business, regardless of whatever your opinion on the matter is. Was it actually a draft of the letter? I don't know! Would it have been illegal if it was? Yes.
How about the one from her deputy chief of staff's official government account with the subject "Draft Letter to Governor Swarzenegger / Container Tax"?
Really? The Gawker article in particular has plenty of screenshots showing government correspondence. Do you think an email from another government official title "veep talking points" is personal? What about a draft of a letter to Schwarzenegger about a tax? Is that also personal business? Why use an email account which is not required to be archived for government business? What about the emails asking how to hide communications between each other?
We both know there's no way of proving intent, but that's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence, youthink?
I gotta say, hacking a high-profile politician's email account (ESPECIALLY when they are running for vice president, which means everything of theirs is being watched 24/7) is a really stupid idea. There's pretty much no way you can get away with that nowadays...
You think that when Sarah Palin became the candidate, that the government started monitoring traffic on her Yahoo account? That's not how this kid was caught, he was caught because he changed the password and posted it online.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's why I met so much resistance when I was setting up a script to automatically check and process mail over IMAP. I thought it was still a standard default thing, but the server admin, who can design and set up entire Exchange systems, virtual servers, entire VPN infrastructures, etc, seemed confused when I asked him to enable and test IMAP.
Is there some major flaw in IMAP, or has Microsoft simply already embraced and extended it, and now they're moving on with phase 3?
You think this goes on all the time, huh? Do you have a laptop? Can you use your laptop to connect via VPN or wifi (or even wired) to your company's network? Does your company have the ability to delete all data on your laptop's hard drive remotely?
From TFA:
Someone in the IT department had sent out what's called a "remote wipe," a kind of auto-destruct command that's delivered by e-mail.
I'm really, really looking forward to the first story we get of an admin accidentally sending the message to a contact list, such as the entire company, and wiping everyone's data from the CEO down. Future computer science students will learn about the lessons of the Therac-25, the Ariane-5 rocket, and the Exchange/smart phone integration that brought a fortune-500 company to a standstill for a week.
I'm assuming the response will be a curt letter informing you to read the agreement that you already agreed to, with said agreement attached, including an invoice for the lawyer's time to draft the letter and send it. Thanks for your business.
What, you mean you didn't read the EULA? Whose fault is that? Is that the company's fault?
I don't think most people read it but when you think about the type of proprietary (and often confidential) data your email inbox has, you have to understand why the company does it.
That's a perfectly acceptable policy for any company that provides smart phones to its employees. I don't know if it's true with your company, but I would consider that an overreach if you want me to connect my personal phone with your network and give you the ability to delete all of my pictures and other personal data solely at your discretion. I'm sure you would understand why the owner would find that objectionable.
What if you sucked 10,000 cocks per second?
.. then you would have a 10KHz CPU (cock processing unit).
Earlier models of the series included an unfurling dish structure about 255 feet in diameter with a total spacecraft mass of about 5,953.5 pounds
The whosit whatnow?
The MAGNUM-ORION 1-3 spacecraft introduced the third larger unfurling dish structures "wrap-rib" large deployable bleached white gold colored mesh covered receiving dish antenna design of about 255 feet in diameter with a total spacecraft mass of about 5,953.5 pounds.
Oh. Of course, the old unfurling dish structures "wrap-rib" large deployable bleached white gold colored mesh covered receiving dish antenna design.
Given a choice of a quick grope or scatray versus quetion after question which is none of the government's busieness, which do you choose? "Why am I traveling? To fuck your mom in the face!" Seriously, why is the Israeli approach suddenly a paradigm of freedom? It is not. It may be grope free but it is not free of probing.
You can answer those questions how ever you want. They are not looking for the answers, they don't care about the answers. They care about your body language and your behavior while you are answering. The reason the first question they ask every one is "How are you" is not because the agents are concerned for your mental well-being, they just want to see how you answer the question. What are your eyes doing, are you looking them in the face, are you sweating, is your voice cracking, etc.
So, to answer your question, I'm going to go with the alternative that does not allow the government to take naked pictures of me, feel my balls, or give me cancer. They can ask whatever questions they want to ask, and I'll give whatever answers I want to give.
From the video of the "don't touch my junk" dude, he tells the TSA agent that this is sexual assault, and the response was "this is not considered sexual assault", the reasoning being that it's the government doing it in the name of security. But yeah, once you're in that position you're not allowed to leave, you have to either get assaulted or get cancer-blasted. It sounds like there may be room for a legal issue if they are essentially forcing you to do one or the other. I think it would be interesting if someone simply refused to do either. They are technically not allowed to leave the security area without being screened, so they would probably get hit with a $10,000 fine for the crime of simply refusing both.
how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?
For the same reason that the "pat-down" isn't considered sexual assault: because the government is doing it.
Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?
Why? That's an easy question to answer: because we're human. They're the classic reasons: greed, power, money, etc. There are a lot of people getting paid for the TSA to be so big, and a lot of people in a lot of positions of power. Because people are people, corruption comes out of that.
The question isn't "why", because the answer is always the same. The question should be "is anyone doing anything about it?" Thankfully, it appears that finally this major issue is receiving the type of response that it should. This is obviously a breach of fourth amendment rights, and the Israelis have proven that it's possible to have a higher level of security with a minimal level of interference, without simply outright violating people's rights in the name of security. Everyone needs to continue pressure to figure out a way to make air travel secure while not violating everyone's rights, because it's obviously possible and just not happening.
It seems to me like "grope them" is the reaction you get when you can't think of anything better, so there might be some problems with the people making these policies.
The fact that people are at least starting to stand up against those policies and for their rights is the right reaction and it's reassuring to see it finally happening. That's what makes this country strong: not the fact that we can stop everything from happening, but the fact that we change it if it does.
Ben Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
So what you're saying is that if there's a 0.00001% chance that somebody who looks like a nun is a terrorist, and a 0.01% chance that somebody who looks like a young Arab male is a terrorist, we should search every young Arab male and miss the terrorist nuns? Oh, and there's also the not-insignificant problem that any terrorist who notices this sort of profiling will simply recruit a lighter-skinned female terrorist and dress her up like a nun.
There's no reason to profile based on what color people are, or how old they are, or what they're wearing, or what brand of shoes they have on, or whatever else. The only useful profiling is behavioral profiling. Israel's Ben Gurion airport manages to move passengers from their car, through six layers of security, to the terminal lounge, in less than half an hour. No taking off of shoes required, no inspecting liquids. They just talk to you, they look you in the eyes, ask you questions, and see how you answer.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother
Profiling is exactly the right response, but it is a person's behavior you should be profiling, not what color they are or what they're wearing. There's no reason to have ridiculous lines, pat downs, naked body scanners, etc, when you can get by with a few simple, quick interviews.
How many people have had to take off their shoes at the security check? Let me ask that a different way: how many individual shoes have been removed and put back on since the TSA started that procedure? How many bombs have been found in those shoes? This whole security crap is a waste of everyone's time and money, we need to be looking at how the Israels have been doing things for the last 50 years and take a goddamn hint already instead of trying and failing to reinvent their working wheel.
I think "able to brute-force thousands of passwords in an hour" qualifies as a weakness in SHA-1.
Maybe that would be seen as a weakness. But what this guy demonstrated was not "thousands of password in an hour", it was "14 passwords with a maximum length of 6 in 49 minutes". Can you scale up, and crack thousands in an hour? Sure. But at the rate he did it, one password every 3.5 minutes, to get 1000 passwords in 60 minutes you would need a nearly 60-fold increase in power. He paid $2.10 for his 49 minutes, which means you're going to need to pay $126 per hour if you want the power to crack that many passwords. So, it comes down to economics, what's it worth to you? Are you willing to pay $3,000 per day to crack 24k passwords?
So, it doesn't apply _at all_ to private entities creating websites, which seems to be largely what this change is about, and it also pretty much says that if it's too hard to implement, you don't have to. How is that a problem?
It's a problem when your client is the government, and they require it. Then it's a problem.
How hard is it to use HTML and CSS the way they were meant to be used
It's really easy. Problem is, they weren't designed with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in mind.
It's not that hard to figure out. We're looking at what a 30-year old black hole looks like, regardless of how long it took that light to get here.
As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control.
I went ahead and bolded the relevant part (which I happen to agree with). Steve Jobs is a charismatic leader who desires more control than is good for us. Regardless, the guy is clearly just trying to sell his book, so if you want to know what he really thinks, and why he thinks it, you know what to do. It's not real fair to judge his reasoning based on the transcript blurbs that the newspaper chose to use. The reason he has a book is because he has a lot to say about it.
As for why anyone having "too much control" over the internet is not a good thing for the internet, that should be fairly obvious. The main reason the internet is as powerful as it is is because no one controls it.
But you know what, if someone hacked my email and posted all my emails, complete with pictures of my teenage daughters for the whole world to see... I'd delete them too! All of them.
Why? What would doing so accomplish?
Then again, Obama stalling on releasing his birth certificate smells fishy.
No it doesn't. He says he was born in Hawaii. You ask Hawaii for his birth certificate. Right there, on the bottom, is a line of text indicating that what you are looking at is prima facie evidence of live birth in Hawaii, and it's good enough for the court system. Case closed. The issue with that was that some people assumed that what was good enough for the court system was not good enough for them, that for some reason they required additional evidence. That's what makes those people wackos.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a public figure, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have complete access to everything she, and her kids do.
You're right, there are no laws about public figures. But there are laws about certain public servants, and they do at least say that any time she sends a written communication about official government business that it needs to be archived. I'm being vague there because I don't know the actual text.
I mean, she could have conducted government business in her bed with her husband Todd.
Todd isn't a government official, so she couldn't. Unfortunately the possibility of streaming a First Blow Job online is very low.
What if she completes state business on the crapper? Do we need to mic her toilet and install a live, 24-hr webcam?
Without seeing the legal text, I would assume they only need to archive the phone call or the written messages. Her location is not important, if she wants to call Ahnold while she's pinching one off that's her thing.
She may be a public figure, but that doesn't give you access to every aspect of her life.
But it does require access to the aspects that deal with her official duties as governor.
I don't see people screaming for Obama's Blackberry text logs. Why Sarah Palins? I don't agree with a witch hunt. I really don't agree a witch hunt that is one sided. It's one thing for the press (or hackers) to go over the line and be overzealous in their investigative reporting. It's something else entirely when they only do it one side.
First, I have no idea whether or not Obama's BlackBerry gets archived, but in order to comply with the laws I would assume that they have his server set up so that it complies with everything. I don't see anything one-sided or political about this, I think that Palin should have been investigated and I think any other politician in any other state subject to the same laws should also be investigated if they try to hide. Just like a partisan witch hunt is a bad idea, it's also a bad idea to let her off the hook for political reasons. She should have been investigated, regardless of which letter she chooses to put by her name. Hell, I'm drawn in most by the hypocritical aspect of it, not the political aspect. She campaigns on how open and honest she is, and then it looks like she's intentionally trying to hide what she's doing (and then quits). String her up, make an example of her for others aspiring to be in her position. If only she didn't destroy the evidence...
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that, after they had regained control of the accounts, they deleted them? Why would anyone delete any communication? Either 1) because you don't need it, or 2) because you don't want anyone else to see it. So either she didn't need her entire 2 personal email accounts, or she didn't want anyone to be able to prove what the contents were. She had control of the accounts, and they knew that whatever was already exposed was exposed, so why delete the accounts under your control? Does it matter that this was in the midst of an investigation where the investigators were seeking the contents of emails that she refused to provide? What about her "special assistant", Ivy Frye, whose emails you see in the personal account, being subpoenaed in the investigation about the emails she was sending to Sarah and several other government officials? It's not exactly a stretch to assume that she was conducting business as the governor through her personal accounts. I emphasize assume because that's all I've ever done, regardless of what you want to say here:
it's not really fair to claim as fact that Sarah Palin was using Yahoo email to "...to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability."
As for your email, it could have been deputy chief of staff asking Palin if his/her email to Arnold stating, "I, as a private citizen and in no way relating to my duties as an employee of the state of Alaska, think your policy sux and you have a stupid name" spells Arnold's name correctly. We don't know and we will never know.
I agree. It makes perfect sense and is entirely reasonable that someone would do something like that. Surely it makes more sense to assume that than to assume that someone who has actively sought to try and hide her communication from being archived has .... wait for it ... actually hidden her communication.
Was the email actually sent to Gov Arnold from her Yahoo account or was she requesting editing help from someone else?
She was receiving a draft from her deputy chief of staff. The letter was probably mailed.
Was she sending this letter to Gov Arnold in her official capacity as governor?
As opposed to a personal friendship? Yeah, I'm thinking the reason two governors are talking about a tax has something to do with official business in their capacities as governor. Likewise, the draft from her deputy chief of staff would also be official business.
Again, I would not consider asking for an opinion of a "draft" letter to be official government business.
You think a deputy chief of staff sending a draft to a governor is not state business? What exactly is it?
This request for edit help on this draft letter had absolutely no effect on Alaskan policy.
That is not the point of the law, my friend. The point of the law is that, as public servants, the official correspondence of these people is a matter of public record and needs to be archived. They do not have the discretion to decide what is and is not covered under the law. In fact, that discretion is given to the courts, and it's certainly not given to you and your opinions. As a public servant, if they are corresponding with another official on a matter related to their official duties, then their correspondence is a public record. That's it. "Try again", indeed. Therefore, the fact that they are using unmonitored, unsecured, unarchived accounts for this purpose is a direct violation. So why haven't they been prosecuted? Because the people with access to the mail account didn't bother to save anything before sharing the password with the world, and both of Sarah Palin's Yahoo accounts (she had 2) were deleted the same day shortly after the breach was known, before an investigative agency could even put an injunction on it. "So what", you say, could have been anything in there. And yeah, that's exactly the point, anything could have been in there, we have plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the very likely possibility that there was in fact official government correspondence in those accounts (including her secretary directing other people to contact her at those accounts), and there's no way to prove either way. All we have are things like subject lines. And yes, a draft of a letter to another governor on an official matter is in fact official business, regardless of whatever your opinion on the matter is. Was it actually a draft of the letter? I don't know! Would it have been illegal if it was? Yes.
How about the one from her deputy chief of staff's official government account with the subject "Draft Letter to Governor Swarzenegger / Container Tax"?
Really? The Gawker article in particular has plenty of screenshots showing government correspondence. Do you think an email from another government official title "veep talking points" is personal? What about a draft of a letter to Schwarzenegger about a tax? Is that also personal business? Why use an email account which is not required to be archived for government business? What about the emails asking how to hide communications between each other?
We both know there's no way of proving intent, but that's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence, youthink?
http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903044.html
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32838
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/sarah-palins-yahoo-e-mail_b_127177.html
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sarah+palin+emails+government+business&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I gotta say, hacking a high-profile politician's email account (ESPECIALLY when they are running for vice president, which means everything of theirs is being watched 24/7) is a really stupid idea. There's pretty much no way you can get away with that nowadays...
You think that when Sarah Palin became the candidate, that the government started monitoring traffic on her Yahoo account? That's not how this kid was caught, he was caught because he changed the password and posted it online.
The Japanese can probably answer that.