Anonymous hacks one of Gov. Sarah Palin's yahoo email accounts
s405.photobucket.com
s405.photobucket.com
There's not even an attempt at a "Well usually we wouldn't publish someone's personal email but in this particular case we think it's justified because [insert justification here]"
I guess I may be expecting too much of a site called "gawker" though. Still, here's hoping that someone (not me!) hacks Barack Obama's personal email soon so we can check whether they treat it the same way.
The Washington Post has a piece about Palin's email policies, which include CCing her husband on state business:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09...
Employees of major corporations would be fired for the same behavior (Sarbanes-Oxley has 'em all shit scared--destroying evidence like she did is major jail time).
Time agrees that using this un-archived email system is indeed a crime:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842097,00....
> The Alaska Governor could also face charges for conducting official state business using her personal, unarchived e-mail account (a crime), with some critics accusing her of skirting freedom-of- information laws in doing so.
When I asked for a legal reference, I was hoping for a bit more than a former journalism school student putting a two-word parenthetical remark in an article that reads like one of The Messiah's press releases.
The CC'ing of her husband was for matters relating to her brother-in-law, who was a State Trooper who has publically admitted to: 1) tasering a child with his service taser (the kid was curious about what it would feel like); 2) drinking in a patrol car; 3) (most importantly) has publically admitted that he told Sarah Palin's father that he would "eat a bullet".
This man was a state police officer. Not only should he have been fired the moment ANY one of these was determined, bit charges should have been pressed against him. I would have fired anyone who didn't get rid of him too.
A prediction: this is going to backfire on Obama badly. Palin was a reformer who pissed off a lot of people in power. Very few Americans want police officers walking around who have done any of those things. This is one smear I hope you keep pushing. It helps cement her reputation as the reformer that she truly was.
Please provide ... the name of a good civil defense attorney. Public accusations of the criminality of the unconvicted are legally actionable.
... is ill-informed, melodramatic, and weakens what's otherwise a strong post, albeit one whose sentiment I disagree with.
Sarah Palin's a public figure and, unless the person you're responding to is an officer of the court or a news agency of some kind, I don't think he's going to need a "civil defense" attorney for stating his opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
I appreciate the civility of your reply and have upmodded you.
The feeling is mutual. I don't agree, however, that Palin's been smeared worse than, say, Barack Obama. From using the dog-whistle politics of racial and religious innuendo to smearing Obama by lying about the nature of his anti-predator legislation in Illinois to connecting him to terror attacks that happened in the 60's, the same good ol' boys club that smeared McCain in 2000 is running his campaign now, using every dirty trick in the book, and acting shocked, shocked that people have the audacity to scrutinize Sarah Palin's record.
The fact is, they're using the sort of up-is-down doublespeak I haven't seen in a First World country outside of 1984. The GOP represents change, but they've been running the country for 8 years. The governor who requested and received more earmarks per capita than any other governor is now an anti-pork reformer. The Obama tax plan will hurt middle class pocketbooks, but his plan cuts taxes more than McCain's does.
This isn't to say that Obama's campaign is perfect, not by a long shot. But even if you prefer McCain's policy positions to Obama's, I don't see how you can deny McCain's running a dirtier campaign. It's not just lying; it's divisive, petty politics. If you disagree with their agenda, you're anti-American. If you criticize Sarah Palin's record, you're a sexist. Never mind that she is on record criticizing Hillary Clinton's accusations of sexism as whining. It's the highest -- or, better, lowest -- form of political cynicism.
The fact is, Sarah Palin deserves scrutiny, just like any other relative unknown selected to be on the presidential ticket of a major national political party. I mean, before a few months ago she didn't know what the VP even did. That's not a smear, that's directly from this interview with her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ Watch it, it's scary.
Sure, you can argue that the average American doesn't know what the VP does. Sure, just like Sarah Palin, the average American hasn't been out of the country much. The problem is, I don't want the average American to be the VP. I want someone who's solidly grounded in the issues that the president will deal with, someone who can be trusted to represent the best of our country, not the mediocre. If she's a serious candidate, her ticket ought to let her get vetted like one.
That's all I'm going to say in the thread. I'm trying not to fully engage in this discussion much because once I start, it'll be difficult to stop. It's off-topic for Hacker News anyway. :)
Obviously you were in a coma during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.
//$22 Million in debt over 5 years as mayor...
"It could seat up to 5,000 people and would include an ice rink and a cushioned hard-surface court where people could play basketball, volleyball and soccer, said Jim Blair, with GDM Inc., an Anchorage firm hired by the city to create a conceptual design for the center.
In addition to sports, the center could be set up to host conventions, trade fairs, theater productions, graduations and even motorcoss competitions.."
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517370.html
Evidently no other mayors in America have ever purchased city buildings using debt instruments. </sarcasm>
Meanwhile, Obama was chairman of the board of an organization that spent $109,200,000. Want to know what they have to show for it?
"The project appears to have failed to achieve any of its stated, measurable educational goals. For example, a comprehensive study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research concludes:
"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
(Yeah, it's Wikipedia. But follow the good links.)
>> Obviously you were in a coma during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.
Apparently trashing Sarah Palin wasn't enough. You had to insult me as well.
You make hyperbolic claims as though Mrs. Palin were some sort of sanctified Joan of Arc riding out to defeat the heretics; when in fact she's nothing more than another corrupt local politician who's gotten lucky in her choice of alignments and is being pushed forward by the fact that she will make a tractable puppet if elected.
This election does not matter, the American people are Fucked no matter which party takes office. And people like you deserve to have their homes taken away, their jobs automated or outsourced, their communications monitored, and to be subject to intrusive social controls.
I will be doing the automating, have a nice day.
Such as having our email accounts broken into and displayed to the whole world, along with the email addresses and personal photos of friends and family.
Swiftboating: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017385.php
I would encourage you to explore alternative media (such as the above) rather than just following the conventional "wisdom" of the mainstream media. Just because one group owns all the microphones doesn't mean everything they say is the truth.
So, who's the better American? The ones who violate the law and try to effect change or the peanut gallery that kick back and do nothing? Sure, you can say, "I vote". That is something. Its just that others obviously feel more action (even illegal actions) is required to effect change.
Note: I am a member of the peanut gallery. I just bitch and vote. But it is key hacker news that we are at a point in our history where others are deciding to take alternative action.
More likely this particular asshole is just an idiot who didn't think through the consequences of his actions. He just thought it'd be funny.
I think that increases in behaviors where people work outside social norms (this includes people that strap bombs to their bodies) are indicators of stress in the social fabric. Labeling actions as stupid, or terrorist, and such are useful but miss the bigger picture sometimes.
First -- it's a crime, plain and simple. Somebody should go to jail. Sites trafficking in stolen goods should be charged.
Second -- glad it happened in September. Can you imagine something like this happening, only in the last week of the election? Heck, you could put any kind of flamebait stuff you wanted in the screen shots. It doesn't even have to be real. It could easily throw the election and you're left with a mess and nobody to blame for it.
Third -- How was the system breached?
This is definitely hacker news. As an example, I had an idea last year for a site/app to keep track of breaking election-year news. As the emotional juices roil in the 40% of die-hards on each side, there's this incredible thirst for up-to-the-date, cutting-edge news and insights. It doesn't get much more up-to-date and insightful than reading the candidate's email. (Note earlier comment about legality, though)
Where there's a great thirst, somebody is going to be selling trips to the water fountain. Not only is there lots of money in this right now, elections are predictable, repeatable events and piggybacking on people's emotional investment in them is only going to get more and more profitable.
Dunno, I just went and quickly braved 4chan (I know... I feel so dirty) to see if anyone was linking anything. They had some rapidshare links up (a 1.4 mb and 1.1mb one).
Am grabbing now just to see what they are... I'm curious if there is anymore info on this.
To reset a Yahoo! Mail password, you need the person's birthdate, zip code, and answer to their "secret question". That information is easily accessible for public figures like Palin. Try it sometime with your friend's email/screenname and Facebook; it's quite easy.
Where I work, all webmail is blocked, so the IA department is grateful to Palin for the object lesson supporting the policy.
I'm not saying this is ok or making a political statement - just an observation.
Hah, notice in one of the screenies the 'hacker' is playing Counter-Strike:Source, which ties in nicely with today's other big story (Google/Valve)
OTOH, if she uses Yahoo for her personal stuff only, then it´s just a common privacy violation and should be prosecuted as such.
http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-accoun...
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
I feel bad for the script kiddies that did this. They are going to get Mitnicked on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick
General law enforcement in the US is crap when it comes to computer crime, but if you get the boys at the NSA, the FBI or at Secret Service interested, you're going to be spending a lot of quality time exercising in a little room with metal bars for a wall. And, if you have any sort of "ideological" basis for your acts, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the word "terrorism" creep into the DA's vocabulary at some point during your legal proceedings.
Whom I feel bad for is all the regular folks that had the same thing happen and are not running for office.
I won't feel bad that these people get punished for their crimes. I will feel bad if these people have charges of "terrorism" brought against them, which I suspect might happen.
It touches on a political controversy (running the State of Alaska through Yahoo may be illegal) and involves a seperate crime commited for publicity and political purposes. It implicates the security of hosted email providers in general, and begs the question of how confidential government emails could have been so insecure in the first place.
I'm betraying opinions that I'd like to keep close, because this hasn't been authenticated. If it is, I'd say it's huge news. What a fuckup.
I have a work and personal account... 99% of the time I manage to keep my personal account personal-- occasionally I don't. I'd be stunned if there weren't occasional transgressions on this front in any governor's office. I'd expect that security tightens up a bit in the Executive branch.
(disclaimers: I lived in Alaska until 2 years ago and know how utterly wrong the national media is about what goes on up there. I am not a republican, but don't really consider myself a democrat, either.)
In addition to being a fuckup of spectacular proportions, it also corroborates an earlier news report of leaked emails that included specific instructions not to send sensitive government mails to Palin's work account.
Of course, none of this has been authenticated. It looks credible, but there's plenty of incentive to make something look credible in this political and news climate.
The interesting story here is the trend story. It applies to companies as well as government officials. People will attempt to use personal email accounts to avoid subpoenas. But nobody knows enough to keep those accounts secure, and the growing insecurity of the web guarantees most hosted mail accounts will eventually get popped. Meanwhile, it's hard for executives and officials to find "secure" mail providers without tacitly confirming that they're conducting business in secret. It's an interesting problem.
[Late edit: Time: it's probably real.]
I've worked on the technology side of a few candidates and politicians-- they are almost without fail moronic about technology. I can imagine accidental sends to Palin's personal account. For all we know, the content of those emails are "You dumbass. How many times do I have to tell you that stuff like this should go to my work account?!", right?
I agree that the trend is interesting, tho.
(b) Because the people who pulled off the attack somehow lost access after getting the account but before archiving all the mail, and so made up the good stuff.
(c) Because the people who pulled off the attack are very smart, and are going to slow-drip this out to the media over the next month.
I know where my bet's at now.
The US Secret Service has a lot of resources and a pretty limited mission statement. It's not a good idea to attract their attention.
Trivia question: which law enforcement agency was primarily responsible for responding to computer incidents throughout the 80s and 90s?
Seems like it was 4chan/Anonymous, unless it started in a super elite IRC channel and was slowly leaked to 4chan.
None of this "I've forgotten my password but here's my mother's maiden name" crap.
It won't solve this problem though; funnelling mail through Yahoo comes with plausible deniability. Funneling it through the email security vault, not so much.
http://www.rsa.com/node.aspx?id=1156
This way you need to know the password _and_ have the physical token in your hand to know the current key. On the downside, it's also a hassle to carry it around and use it (I have a couple of 'em for access to various supercomputers), so I wouldn't bother doing it for my own email, but if you're a public figure or otherwise sufficiently paranoid it might be worthwhile.
"Request for documents" could be any kind of request for documents. Maybe it's the McCain campaign doing some vetting. Maybe it's some journalist requesting a copy of Trig's birth certificate. I actually think it's unlikely to be official business -- if you need documents from the governor's office you probably request them from a low-level official, not from the governor herself.
"Confidential: ethics investigation" could be personal too -- if she's under investigation and has hired a lawyer, for instance, then communications with that lawyer should be protected under client/lawyer privilege and shouldn't be a matter of public record.
I"m not sure exactly where the dividing line is between personal and official email for government officials -- I expect it's blurry, having been defined in a law somewhere but never tested in court.
"Hello anonymous? Good news! The IRS is going to audit you for the past 20 years"
Unfortunately, this only has the potential to help the Republicans. Let's assume the 98th-percentile scenario, from a Democratic perspective: a few mildly inappropriate emails are discovered via the hack. To us, meaning those who post on Hacker News, transparency and propriety matter a great deal, because we care about such "academic" issues. However, the average American (who spends 3 hours per workday surfing the internet, despite having signed an agreement that work computers were "for official use only") isn't going to be shocked or disgusted that a governor has sent a few emails in violation of propriety; it can easily be spun as a "one of us" crime, and the hackage will do nothing less than engender sympathy for Mrs. Palin.
I'm expecting a bunch of things to be "discovered" in the next few days. Most will be fakes -- some obvious, some ambiguous. There might be some real ones mixed in there somewhere, but how are we going to know one way or the other?
In the end, everyone will believe what they want to believe.