Now, unjokingly, you may have a common password for everyone. This is not a bad idea if the goal is to protect information from non-employee theft. Like being stolen out of cars, in-office robbery, etc. Protecting against employee theft is next to impossible.
Nothing like one common password... until one employee leaves.
The difference being that Woz actually MADE the stuff, Jobs managed folks who made stuff.
The REAL difference is Jobs is still driving projects that are being adopted by millions. Woz MADE stuff. Besides, strong leadership and a vision of what the consumer will adopt isn't a fantastic positive? If you turn all of Apple into a couple thousand genius engineers who are as strong as Woz in his prime, and take away everybody else - no management, no administrative staff, no marketing, no janitors, nothing... yeah, that'd work well.
What the guy did for things like Floppy drives and... well pretty much the birth of the consumer-accepted personal computer is legendary. What Jobs is doing today is as well.
obs = marketing guy
Wozniak = engineering geek
If you prefer Jobs over Woz, you're at the wrong website.
While I *LOVED* my Apple//e... you know, 20+ years ago... I think I'm happier with the products Jobs has driven others to build (iPhone, iMac, OS X plus it's earlier NeXT roots, the functionality of iLife 09 which for $70 is a real steal for editing home video and tagging photos, etc, etc, etc.
I love(d) Woz... but he hasn't really made any products I've been remotely interested in since the Apple// days. In fact, he really hasn't done too much in the way of technology. I mean, is he still a great engineer? I hope so. But for now, Jobs has done more for me.
Everybody forgets that Apple was a HUGE holdout. They'd been competing in retail space seriously for a couple of years and were about the last of the retail sold notebooks to go glossy. It didn't much matter when they sold primarily mail order and via the Apple store, but as things started showing up in CompUSA and Best Buy you had the perception of a "dimmer" screen compared to those shiny Gateway, HP, Acer and other notebooks.
The price difference is no doubt for two reasons. One - having a premium price on it makes it easier to predict sales. If they were identically priced, who knows how many of each you'd need, but like the Black Macbooks making it more expensive helps ensure that you don't make less of something and then sell too much of it. A corollary to that is they probably do cost more, since they buy less from the company that makes them.
Maybe he wants a broadcast-capable TV available should the cable go out. I got one for just that purpose. I'm in hurricane territory, so I might be without power and cable for a prolonged period of time. It would be nice to be able to break out the generator and tuner box and watch some TV to kill some of the boredom.
If you can afford a generator you can afford a box. If you live in the same hurricane territory I do you have Best Buy nearby and they've been selling the boxes for $40-$50 on sale. If you spent your last $40-$50 on your generator then you can't afford gas for it anyway, so you won't need the TV since your generator won't run. You can always grab some AA batteries and live with the radio for the few days.
Well... it seems to me that "MP3" is the consumer standard for music today, and it seems to me that most consumers even call them "mp3-players" so (and I could be wrong here..>) but it seems to me that the consumer wants mp3 format music.
It may seem that way to you, but I've noticed many, many non-techies seem to call them iPods not MP3 players. In any event, I don't really think MP3 is "the" standard for music today. iPods are the majority of the players out there and iTunes is the majority of the online music sales, which tells me that AAC while not as sexy a term is actually "the" standard if there is just "one".
When allofmp3 was up, I read a lot of people used it because you could select your format.
I doubt that. SOME people used it, but when it was up, most online sales went through iTunes. Just like today.
Your kind of "the customer should be happy just to get to deal with us" attitude is what's killing plenty of companies. Not listening to what the customer wants is a quick way to close your shop.
I don't believe that's my attitude at all. My opinion is that I have an iPod and an iPhone and iTunes is by far the easiest way to legitimately purchase music, and I would continue to do it even if retailers fired back and made CDs CHEAPER, since it's just more convenient. I would imagine that other vendors that don't currently support AAC might think about releasing updates to do just that, since now that the DRM is removed that pretty much removes any hope that Amazon is going to swoop in and steal back all the marketshare. AAC via iTunes works.
I see this along the same lines as the lookign down on not dressing up for an interview: an excellent early warning sign that the company and I are not going to be a good match for one another. As to whether this could be considered a form of discrimination, it certainly seems to flirt with it. Makes you wonder whether simply letting them be stupid isn't punishment enough.
When I hire people, I don't really care if I'm at a company that's business casual or shorts and a t-shirt. I dress up, and expect the candidate too as well. Discrimination? EEOC lists age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment as this that can violate EEO rules. I didn't see anything about dress code. You are right though, there are probably a lot of companies that expected you to wear a tie that you are not a good match for. They expect a certain amount of class and respect from someone who seeks employment at their firm. I never expect a low level help desk guy to wear a full suit (although many do) - but a shirt and a tie is nice, and a pair of slacks with a pressed button down shirt is a bare minimum. Want to come work at a senior level? Find a sports jacket and show me you want to make a good first impression.
My first interview was at the age of 16 for a company that sold windows (vinyl windows, not the computer kind). I knew very little about interviewing, but wore a button down shirt, tie, and a pair of slacks. Why? I had enough respect for the interviewer.
Fair enough so long as there is no additional lossiness in the conversion.
Why? Who cares? AAC is a valid format. They should use MP3 because more non-iPods support MP3 then AAC? Maybe they should support Ogg because it's "better" or sell music in a lossless format so that you are closer to the original.
I kind of understood the complaint when it was DRM protected AAC "wahhh... I can't play it on my non-iPod even though that device supports AAC". Now you can. But there's no reason Apple should have to support MP3. To many, these high bitrate AAC files are superior to MP3. Have a non-AAC compatible player? Go to Amazon.com, they have a similar selection.
There will always be a complainer until Apple releases every song ever, including bootlegs, in Ogg, MP3, AAC, Flac, and ten other formats, and change the iPod to support all of the same, and make the iPod a 3G wireless device that has a built in BitTorrent client to grab the files quicker, and they cook you dinner and do your laundry too. Maybe some of the readers here just aren't the iPod's intended audience?
The problem is that there is no reason to assume that just because a machine is making a DNS query it intends opening a TCP connection to port 80 (or 443).
Even if the hostname starts with www ?
Uhh, what if you have to ssh to your web server to make a change?
Anytime I've returned something to Target, they have put the credit on a gift card and let me get whatever I wanted with it. I've never heard of them telling someone to get something from the same department before.
It specifically depends on the department the item was from. Interestingly, they don't do a good job of policing it. I once returned an unopened, shrink wrapped DVD (holiday gift, I already had it though), and was told I could only exchange it for something from electronics. I was then handed a gift card, and proceeded to spend it on a non-electronics item.
I have not bought any DRM'd music yet, but if I had, I would keep those legally-purchased copies & download "backup" copies off bittorrent. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we are allowed to have backup copies as long as we have the original purchased song (or video or game or whatever).
I'm pretty sure there's a large difference between making a backup copy and taking a copy to use as a backup. The courts may have ruled on the former, I wouldn't expect that to cover the latter.
Don't waste time applying for jobs unless your resume is a perfect match.
That can be horrible advice! There are certainly companies that have that short sighted desire for the perfect match on 20 different skills (and sometimes jobs where it's not unreasonable to have 3 requirements all exacting), but by all means don't stop applying to jobs JUST because you don't match a requirement.
Job requirements are sometimes maintained by HR and are out of touch with what the department is actually doing. Other times, there are managers (hint hint I've been one and I currently work for one) who aren't so narrow minded.
Worst case, when I've been looking, I try to gauge whether I'm missing one thing that's meaningless, or if it's a job where I'm sure I could do it, but really don't match enough requirements, maybe I don't waste much time on a cover letter and just fire away a resume. Costs me nothing to send a resume though.
I've worked for companies where one requirement is experience with XYZ which turns out to be a proprietary package they develop in-house, for in-house use only that naturally you couldn't know. But it's in the job description. Maybe it's a requirement that an internal applicant already knows it since they should in theory have been using it. Maybe it's a requirement that you get to know it immediately.
What is your point? That a private citizen used a personal mail account to send a message to a public official? REALLY? I must be missing something because it would be absurd if you thought that had any relevance to one public official communicating with an another public official about official government business via personal email accounts that were deliberately used to reduce the chances of a successful subpoena of those communications.
I guess I still don't see THAT email. I'm just going to drop this thread until I do see that email. Where was it again? Look, it's great that you and I obviously agree that somebody doing that would be wrong. But I'm not going to applaud this guy hacking her account and NOT posting an email like that, but rather an email about a campaign and a few family photos. He's not serving any public interest in his flouting of the law, nor was he serving any vigilante needs in this country. It's a separate debate whether such vigilante action was warranted at all, but CLEARLY that was not his motivation, or if it was, he didn't find anything worth posting. For the record, the point of the original statement about a government official having personal emails go through a government email or a personal email system was in regards to this, up the thread quite a bit:
its irrelevant. if some law says you cant take a govt. car out of business hours, you cant. its regardless whether you use it for personal business or not, if you do.
Now that quote isn't from you, but you wanted to know what my point was. The point I was making originally was in response to that statement. The point I was making was: that statement is patently not true as pertains to email from a government servant. That's very separate from the claims you make (that she was conducting official government business through a Yahoo account). I doubt very much that any of this is what motivated the guy who broke into her account. Even if I were an adamant supporter of rampant vigilante activity in almost every case where it was remotely justified, that's just not what motivated this guy who seemingly broke a law. I believe it was you who said:
Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon
So I say throw the book at him. If he were some vigilante there'd be some wiggle room in some minds, I suppose.
My point is that when the people who make the rules are the ones who violate them, then the only people who can enforce them are BY DEFINITION vigilantes. Ergo the rhetorical question, where the answer is IMPLICIT.
Obviously I disagree. There are countless times when someone making a rule is not the same person who enforces/prosecutes that same rule. And in this case, the rule that it's claimed (without any concrete evidence) she broke was not a rule she broke or is responsible for enforcing, it's just a rule that exists and applies to her that she's being baselessly accused of violating. In any event, enjoy the rest of the thread, clearly your opinion isn't going to change, and we obviously won't be agreeing.
What a ridiculous red herring. Are you the governor's chief of staff? Are you the state attorney general? Are you the Governor's press secretary? Director of communications? No, you were not even a part of the government when you 'did it all the time.' That you would even cite your personal example of the actions of a regular citizen as some sort of defense for what Palin and her political appointees were doing shows that you are either completely ignorant of the facts, or a total political tribalist.
Actually the point wasn't that I sent the email, it was that the person is question was subject to those rules, and in fact was a person who would have to take disciplinary action against others he managed should they violate those rules, and that he clearly was given an outline of when it was allowed and when it was not. I don't think the Governor's Chief of Staff sets those rules, by the way, and I certainly doubt the press secretary does either. Director of Communications? Yeah, no.
As for why wikileaks doesn't have the text of the messages? Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? By Wikipedia's definition, it's the question of who watches the watchers (and other definitions). I thought this guy was a vigilante hero. Now he's just some dumb kid. By the way, I don't think it was "information he had stumbled upon". I stumped upon a twenty dollar bill once in the street. I didn't trick the teller into giving it to me from someone else's account.
Again, if he's some vigilante hell bent on justice, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Complain all you like, but I doubt you'll change my opinion. If he's just some idiot cracker as you suggest, then it's definitely something that should be prosecuted. He then wouldn't even have the "it was in the name of justice" crap to go on.
You keep confusing the two issues. The law about conducting federal business is not the same as a government official being allowed to have personal email addresses and/or occasionally use a government computer and account for personal use when following procedures.
And neither are related to the Freedom of Information Act which you are correct in it's universiality. That said you can't just walk in and take anything you want from anywhere you want. There are actual (non hacking) procedures.
And before I sign off this thread, where again are those incriminating emails that WikiLeaks didn't post? Be nice if the heroic act of vigilantiasm paid off with more than personal pictures posted for... for... umm... Yeah, I still don't know how that helped preserve my freedom. I mean skip the official acts of office and post the baby picture. Good thing he's around.
I did glance at the original WikiLeaks article. Of the posted screenshots, the closest one to politics seems to be an email in regards to someone's recent campaign? I believe those explicitly should be done via private email, and not a.gov address, no?
Then I saw there was a ZIP file, and thought "wow, maybe I'm wrong, maybe she did it, and there's tons of evidence". So I just now downloaded it (open mind and what have you). I saw:
Two family pictures.
A bunch of subject lines whose actual message contents were inexplicably not provided.
The same five Yahoo screenshots with absolutely no damning evidence.
The real question I still have is - where's the beef?! He had access to every email, and rather than post something clearly indicating official government business he posts some family snapshots, an email about a political campaign, and her address book? Oh and a bunch of subject line, including one that was apparently a "draft" letter to the Governator, which might be related to campaign issues and sure, might be official government business. There's no way to know, since nobody bothered to post the actual email. Wikileaks rarely holds back - if they have more email, and it's evidence against her - where is it?
Look, if he broke the law, prosecute him. If she did the same, do the same to her. But contrary to your claims otherwise, there is no restriction on having a Yahoo email account if you are an elected official (by the way if I was elected Governor, I'd probably add another alias to my account and add Governor, hell, I'd be bragging all over town). There's also no restriction on sending an email from a personal account to a government account. As I've already stated, I used to do it all the time. Only reason I stopped, is the government official I knew retired.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's rhetorical, right? Clearly, gangs of Internet hackers is an excellent choice.
its irrelevant. if some law says you cant take a govt. car out of business hours, you cant. its regardless whether you use it for personal business or not, if you do.
same goes for the email - you cant use a personal email to correspond with.gov addresses in any fashion, IF you are a government employee. thats simple as that.
But does it in Alaska? Has anyone confirmed that no, you can't ever email an Alaskan government official and have a personal conversation to his or her official email address? This would be different than most branches of the government I know of. As I already stated, my father worked for a federal branch, and explicitly was allowed (in some instances) to do just that - use it for personal emails during break/down times. This policy applied to elected and non-elected personnel within his branch.
And no, I don't support vigilante hacking of Yahoo email accounts. That surprises you? Or did you think everybody was all for it?
its irrelevant whether they just said 'hi' to each other, one using private email, other using govt. email.
its still a violation of the laws. you CANT use your private email to correspond with someone through govt. email. thats as simple as that.
It's actually not irrelevant whether they said hi to each other. I actually used to say hi via email to my father using his.gov email address as the "To" all the time. Like every other branch, his branch of the government had very specific guidelines for personal use of the account, and the computer in general. He did personal banking from time to time I believe on his office computer, during lunch time, when it and many other web sites were permitted. Others (porn) were always forbidden. You actually can as a government official both maintain a private email address AND send non-official business to a government address.
I have read a few references in some of the coverage to there being a second account (not hacked) that has allegedly been used for government business, but unfortunately for the hacker that claim is still apparently unsubstantiated, and also he didn't hack THAT account. I guess he was more interested in posting family photos from her Yahoo address.
vigilantism is unfortunately a necessity of our times, because we are living in times in which people are being stripped of all their modern constitutional rights by many governments around the world. there are noone but you, the people, to protect your interests. not even senators or representatives.
Right. Because we are being stripped of our rights, the solution is to invade personal email accounts. Do me a favor, don't hack my account and I promise not to tread on you man!
I have to admit only glancing at the article and the accompanying screenshots, but it seems that many out there have read every word of the coverage and nobody finds any official business conducted through that account. By the way, two elected officials corresponding by email is still not automatically government business. "Hey Sarah, it's John - please tell your husband I can't watch his snowmobile race, I have to be at a town hall meeting that night, but thanks for the offer."
Furthermore, if there is disclosure to be made, I don't think that falls to some random guy who changes her password.
And even if there was government business going on, then there are two legal issues, hers, and the hackers. Vigilantism is best left for movies.
The name of the email accounts were gov.sarah and gov.palin. So, yes, these were used in her official capacity as the governor.
What? So if her personal vehicle had a license plate that said "govsarah" that's being used for official government business? I have an IM account with my company's name in it. I don't use it for company business, I use it so people can identify if I'm at work or not when they see me signed on.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, unjokingly, you may have a common password for everyone. This is not a bad idea if the goal is to protect information from non-employee theft. Like being stolen out of cars, in-office robbery, etc. Protecting against employee theft is next to impossible.
Nothing like one common password... until one employee leaves.
The difference being that Woz actually MADE the stuff, Jobs managed folks who made stuff.
The REAL difference is Jobs is still driving projects that are being adopted by millions. Woz MADE stuff. Besides, strong leadership and a vision of what the consumer will adopt isn't a fantastic positive? If you turn all of Apple into a couple thousand genius engineers who are as strong as Woz in his prime, and take away everybody else - no management, no administrative staff, no marketing, no janitors, nothing... yeah, that'd work well.
What the guy did for things like Floppy drives and ... well pretty much the birth of the consumer-accepted personal computer is legendary. What Jobs is doing today is as well.
obs = marketing guy Wozniak = engineering geek If you prefer Jobs over Woz, you're at the wrong website.
While I *LOVED* my Apple //e... you know, 20+ years ago... I think I'm happier with the products Jobs has driven others to build (iPhone, iMac, OS X plus it's earlier NeXT roots, the functionality of iLife 09 which for $70 is a real steal for editing home video and tagging photos, etc, etc, etc.
I love(d) Woz... but he hasn't really made any products I've been remotely interested in since the Apple // days. In fact, he really hasn't done too much in the way of technology. I mean, is he still a great engineer? I hope so. But for now, Jobs has done more for me.
[citation provided]
The price difference is no doubt for two reasons. One - having a premium price on it makes it easier to predict sales. If they were identically priced, who knows how many of each you'd need, but like the Black Macbooks making it more expensive helps ensure that you don't make less of something and then sell too much of it. A corollary to that is they probably do cost more, since they buy less from the company that makes them.
Maybe he wants a broadcast-capable TV available should the cable go out. I got one for just that purpose. I'm in hurricane territory, so I might be without power and cable for a prolonged period of time. It would be nice to be able to break out the generator and tuner box and watch some TV to kill some of the boredom.
If you can afford a generator you can afford a box. If you live in the same hurricane territory I do you have Best Buy nearby and they've been selling the boxes for $40-$50 on sale. If you spent your last $40-$50 on your generator then you can't afford gas for it anyway, so you won't need the TV since your generator won't run. You can always grab some AA batteries and live with the radio for the few days.
Well ... it seems to me that "MP3" is the consumer standard for music today, and it seems to me that most consumers even call them "mp3-players" so (and I could be wrong here..>) but it seems to me that the consumer wants mp3 format music.
It may seem that way to you, but I've noticed many, many non-techies seem to call them iPods not MP3 players. In any event, I don't really think MP3 is "the" standard for music today. iPods are the majority of the players out there and iTunes is the majority of the online music sales, which tells me that AAC while not as sexy a term is actually "the" standard if there is just "one".
When allofmp3 was up, I read a lot of people used it because you could select your format.
I doubt that. SOME people used it, but when it was up, most online sales went through iTunes. Just like today.
Your kind of "the customer should be happy just to get to deal with us" attitude is what's killing plenty of companies. Not listening to what the customer wants is a quick way to close your shop.
I don't believe that's my attitude at all. My opinion is that I have an iPod and an iPhone and iTunes is by far the easiest way to legitimately purchase music, and I would continue to do it even if retailers fired back and made CDs CHEAPER, since it's just more convenient. I would imagine that other vendors that don't currently support AAC might think about releasing updates to do just that, since now that the DRM is removed that pretty much removes any hope that Amazon is going to swoop in and steal back all the marketshare. AAC via iTunes works.
I see this along the same lines as the lookign down on not dressing up for an interview: an excellent early warning sign that the company and I are not going to be a good match for one another. As to whether this could be considered a form of discrimination, it certainly seems to flirt with it. Makes you wonder whether simply letting them be stupid isn't punishment enough.
When I hire people, I don't really care if I'm at a company that's business casual or shorts and a t-shirt. I dress up, and expect the candidate too as well. Discrimination? EEOC lists age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment as this that can violate EEO rules. I didn't see anything about dress code. You are right though, there are probably a lot of companies that expected you to wear a tie that you are not a good match for. They expect a certain amount of class and respect from someone who seeks employment at their firm. I never expect a low level help desk guy to wear a full suit (although many do) - but a shirt and a tie is nice, and a pair of slacks with a pressed button down shirt is a bare minimum. Want to come work at a senior level? Find a sports jacket and show me you want to make a good first impression.
My first interview was at the age of 16 for a company that sold windows (vinyl windows, not the computer kind). I knew very little about interviewing, but wore a button down shirt, tie, and a pair of slacks. Why? I had enough respect for the interviewer.
If you think $500 headphones are high quality, you're sorely mistaken.
If you think the intended audience for things like iTunes and the Amazon MP3 store DON'T think $500 are high quality, you might be the mistaken one.
Fair enough so long as there is no additional lossiness in the conversion.
Why? Who cares? AAC is a valid format. They should use MP3 because more non-iPods support MP3 then AAC? Maybe they should support Ogg because it's "better" or sell music in a lossless format so that you are closer to the original.
I kind of understood the complaint when it was DRM protected AAC "wahhh... I can't play it on my non-iPod even though that device supports AAC". Now you can. But there's no reason Apple should have to support MP3. To many, these high bitrate AAC files are superior to MP3. Have a non-AAC compatible player? Go to Amazon.com, they have a similar selection.
There will always be a complainer until Apple releases every song ever, including bootlegs, in Ogg, MP3, AAC, Flac, and ten other formats, and change the iPod to support all of the same, and make the iPod a 3G wireless device that has a built in BitTorrent client to grab the files quicker, and they cook you dinner and do your laundry too. Maybe some of the readers here just aren't the iPod's intended audience?
1) Apple's DRM policy is entirely mandated by the RIAA, who do not know the meaning of the word 'compromise'. No RIAA OK, no iTunes licensing.
What DRM policy? We're referring to non-DRM protected files.
Modifying iTunes wouldn't help somebody either convert it to MP3 or drop it on a non-iPod player that may support AAC but not Apple's DRM on top.
I had mod points yesterday, but alas not today... somebody throw this guy a +1, come on, that's pretty funny!
The problem is that there is no reason to assume that just because a machine is making a DNS query it intends opening a TCP connection to port 80 (or 443).
Even if the hostname starts with www ?
Uhh, what if you have to ssh to your web server to make a change?
Anytime I've returned something to Target, they have put the credit on a gift card and let me get whatever I wanted with it. I've never heard of them telling someone to get something from the same department before.
It specifically depends on the department the item was from. Interestingly, they don't do a good job of policing it. I once returned an unopened, shrink wrapped DVD (holiday gift, I already had it though), and was told I could only exchange it for something from electronics. I was then handed a gift card, and proceeded to spend it on a non-electronics item.
I have not bought any DRM'd music yet, but if I had, I would keep those legally-purchased copies & download "backup" copies off bittorrent. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we are allowed to have backup copies as long as we have the original purchased song (or video or game or whatever).
I'm pretty sure there's a large difference between making a backup copy and taking a copy to use as a backup. The courts may have ruled on the former, I wouldn't expect that to cover the latter.
Don't waste time applying for jobs unless your resume is a perfect match.
That can be horrible advice! There are certainly companies that have that short sighted desire for the perfect match on 20 different skills (and sometimes jobs where it's not unreasonable to have 3 requirements all exacting), but by all means don't stop applying to jobs JUST because you don't match a requirement.
Job requirements are sometimes maintained by HR and are out of touch with what the department is actually doing. Other times, there are managers (hint hint I've been one and I currently work for one) who aren't so narrow minded.
Worst case, when I've been looking, I try to gauge whether I'm missing one thing that's meaningless, or if it's a job where I'm sure I could do it, but really don't match enough requirements, maybe I don't waste much time on a cover letter and just fire away a resume. Costs me nothing to send a resume though.
I've worked for companies where one requirement is experience with XYZ which turns out to be a proprietary package they develop in-house, for in-house use only that naturally you couldn't know. But it's in the job description. Maybe it's a requirement that an internal applicant already knows it since they should in theory have been using it. Maybe it's a requirement that you get to know it immediately.
What is your point? That a private citizen used a personal mail account to send a message to a public official? REALLY? I must be missing something because it would be absurd if you thought that had any relevance to one public official communicating with an another public official about official government business via personal email accounts that were deliberately used to reduce the chances of a successful subpoena of those communications.
I guess I still don't see THAT email. I'm just going to drop this thread until I do see that email. Where was it again? Look, it's great that you and I obviously agree that somebody doing that would be wrong. But I'm not going to applaud this guy hacking her account and NOT posting an email like that, but rather an email about a campaign and a few family photos. He's not serving any public interest in his flouting of the law, nor was he serving any vigilante needs in this country. It's a separate debate whether such vigilante action was warranted at all, but CLEARLY that was not his motivation, or if it was, he didn't find anything worth posting. For the record, the point of the original statement about a government official having personal emails go through a government email or a personal email system was in regards to this, up the thread quite a bit:
its irrelevant. if some law says you cant take a govt. car out of business hours, you cant. its regardless whether you use it for personal business or not, if you do.
Now that quote isn't from you, but you wanted to know what my point was. The point I was making originally was in response to that statement. The point I was making was: that statement is patently not true as pertains to email from a government servant. That's very separate from the claims you make (that she was conducting official government business through a Yahoo account). I doubt very much that any of this is what motivated the guy who broke into her account. Even if I were an adamant supporter of rampant vigilante activity in almost every case where it was remotely justified, that's just not what motivated this guy who seemingly broke a law. I believe it was you who said:
Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon
So I say throw the book at him. If he were some vigilante there'd be some wiggle room in some minds, I suppose.
My point is that when the people who make the rules are the ones who violate them, then the only people who can enforce them are BY DEFINITION vigilantes. Ergo the rhetorical question, where the answer is IMPLICIT.
Obviously I disagree. There are countless times when someone making a rule is not the same person who enforces/prosecutes that same rule. And in this case, the rule that it's claimed (without any concrete evidence) she broke was not a rule she broke or is responsible for enforcing, it's just a rule that exists and applies to her that she's being baselessly accused of violating. In any event, enjoy the rest of the thread, clearly your opinion isn't going to change, and we obviously won't be agreeing.
What a ridiculous red herring. Are you the governor's chief of staff? Are you the state attorney general? Are you the Governor's press secretary? Director of communications? No, you were not even a part of the government when you 'did it all the time.' That you would even cite your personal example of the actions of a regular citizen as some sort of defense for what Palin and her political appointees were doing shows that you are either completely ignorant of the facts, or a total political tribalist.
Actually the point wasn't that I sent the email, it was that the person is question was subject to those rules, and in fact was a person who would have to take disciplinary action against others he managed should they violate those rules, and that he clearly was given an outline of when it was allowed and when it was not. I don't think the Governor's Chief of Staff sets those rules, by the way, and I certainly doubt the press secretary does either. Director of Communications? Yeah, no.
As for why wikileaks doesn't have the text of the messages? Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? By Wikipedia's definition, it's the question of who watches the watchers (and other definitions). I thought this guy was a vigilante hero. Now he's just some dumb kid. By the way, I don't think it was "information he had stumbled upon". I stumped upon a twenty dollar bill once in the street. I didn't trick the teller into giving it to me from someone else's account.
Again, if he's some vigilante hell bent on justice, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Complain all you like, but I doubt you'll change my opinion. If he's just some idiot cracker as you suggest, then it's definitely something that should be prosecuted. He then wouldn't even have the "it was in the name of justice" crap to go on.
You keep confusing the two issues. The law about conducting federal business is not the same as a government official being allowed to have personal email addresses and/or occasionally use a government computer and account for personal use when following procedures.
... for ... umm ... Yeah, I still don't know how that helped preserve my freedom. I mean skip the official acts of office and post the baby picture. Good thing he's around.
And neither are related to the Freedom of Information Act which you are correct in it's universiality. That said you can't just walk in and take anything you want from anywhere you want. There are actual (non hacking) procedures.
And before I sign off this thread, where again are those incriminating emails that WikiLeaks didn't post? Be nice if the heroic act of vigilantiasm paid off with more than personal pictures posted for
Here - glance at this
I did glance at the original WikiLeaks article. Of the posted screenshots, the closest one to politics seems to be an email in regards to someone's recent campaign? I believe those explicitly should be done via private email, and not a .gov address, no?
Then I saw there was a ZIP file, and thought "wow, maybe I'm wrong, maybe she did it, and there's tons of evidence". So I just now downloaded it (open mind and what have you). I saw:
The real question I still have is - where's the beef?! He had access to every email, and rather than post something clearly indicating official government business he posts some family snapshots, an email about a political campaign, and her address book? Oh and a bunch of subject line, including one that was apparently a "draft" letter to the Governator, which might be related to campaign issues and sure, might be official government business. There's no way to know, since nobody bothered to post the actual email. Wikileaks rarely holds back - if they have more email, and it's evidence against her - where is it?
Look, if he broke the law, prosecute him. If she did the same, do the same to her. But contrary to your claims otherwise, there is no restriction on having a Yahoo email account if you are an elected official (by the way if I was elected Governor, I'd probably add another alias to my account and add Governor, hell, I'd be bragging all over town). There's also no restriction on sending an email from a personal account to a government account. As I've already stated, I used to do it all the time. Only reason I stopped, is the government official I knew retired.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's rhetorical, right? Clearly, gangs of Internet hackers is an excellent choice.
its irrelevant. if some law says you cant take a govt. car out of business hours, you cant. its regardless whether you use it for personal business or not, if you do. same goes for the email - you cant use a personal email to correspond with .gov addresses in any fashion, IF you are a government employee. thats simple as that.
But does it in Alaska? Has anyone confirmed that no, you can't ever email an Alaskan government official and have a personal conversation to his or her official email address? This would be different than most branches of the government I know of. As I already stated, my father worked for a federal branch, and explicitly was allowed (in some instances) to do just that - use it for personal emails during break/down times. This policy applied to elected and non-elected personnel within his branch.
And no, I don't support vigilante hacking of Yahoo email accounts. That surprises you? Or did you think everybody was all for it?
its irrelevant whether they just said 'hi' to each other, one using private email, other using govt. email. its still a violation of the laws. you CANT use your private email to correspond with someone through govt. email. thats as simple as that.
It's actually not irrelevant whether they said hi to each other. I actually used to say hi via email to my father using his .gov email address as the "To" all the time. Like every other branch, his branch of the government had very specific guidelines for personal use of the account, and the computer in general. He did personal banking from time to time I believe on his office computer, during lunch time, when it and many other web sites were permitted. Others (porn) were always forbidden. You actually can as a government official both maintain a private email address AND send non-official business to a government address.
I have read a few references in some of the coverage to there being a second account (not hacked) that has allegedly been used for government business, but unfortunately for the hacker that claim is still apparently unsubstantiated, and also he didn't hack THAT account. I guess he was more interested in posting family photos from her Yahoo address.
vigilantism is unfortunately a necessity of our times, because we are living in times in which people are being stripped of all their modern constitutional rights by many governments around the world. there are noone but you, the people, to protect your interests. not even senators or representatives.
Right. Because we are being stripped of our rights, the solution is to invade personal email accounts. Do me a favor, don't hack my account and I promise not to tread on you man!
I have to admit only glancing at the article and the accompanying screenshots, but it seems that many out there have read every word of the coverage and nobody finds any official business conducted through that account. By the way, two elected officials corresponding by email is still not automatically government business. "Hey Sarah, it's John - please tell your husband I can't watch his snowmobile race, I have to be at a town hall meeting that night, but thanks for the offer."
Furthermore, if there is disclosure to be made, I don't think that falls to some random guy who changes her password.
And even if there was government business going on, then there are two legal issues, hers, and the hackers. Vigilantism is best left for movies.
The name of the email accounts were gov.sarah and gov.palin. So, yes, these were used in her official capacity as the governor.
What? So if her personal vehicle had a license plate that said "govsarah" that's being used for official government business? I have an IM account with my company's name in it. I don't use it for company business, I use it so people can identify if I'm at work or not when they see me signed on.