Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

minor off-topic quibble - regarding 'FPMITAP' - It's interesting that as a society we heavily criticize typical rape, and the rapists who commit it, but we seem quite glad at the prospect of sending all manner of criminals to a prison to be raped on a consistent basis.

It's not nice to break into people's email, and much worse to disclose it in an irresponsible manner. That said, I would say that's on a whole different level of crime than would deserve a punishment of 'FPMITAP', assuming the the 'PMITA' bit is as it says.

Back on topic:
Out of curiosity,
a) what laws actually exist regarding transparency in govt,
b) what oversight/enforcement is in place for said laws
c) has any actual investigation been conducted on the accusations in this case? I got the impression that the accusations aren't new, but a few months old.
These things would be helpful to review and agree on, I think.

[*px]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Keep in mind how naive and apathetic the general public is when it comes to all of us being connected together all web-like. There are all types of people on the internet doing all sorts of various things. Some good. Some bad.

Generally speaking, people that are naive about the internet are apathetic until they get cracked. When they have been violated, only then do they fully realize how dangerous it is out there. Especially if you are a high profile person.

So do not criticize her for not having a heightened sense of awareness indicative of someone in her current position. She hasn't been around the block enough times for us to expect more from her. If she's been shady by using her personal email to conduct government business, then she will own her mistake.

What happens next? Palin, feeling violated, will probably add to her agenda (if she is elected VP) some thoughts about reforming the internet.

How fun that will be for her. Tally-ho!

[bascule]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Just watched the Bill O'Reilly arguing about whether the operators of Wikileaks should go to jail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpndIvUGPwA

The guy is so out of touch its hilarious. STOLEN INFORMATION! It's like if someone stole your car!

[streaker69]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

minor off-topic quibble - regarding 'FPMITAP' - It's interesting that as a society we heavily criticize typical rape, and the rapists who commit it, but we seem quite glad at the prospect of sending all manner of criminals to a prison to be raped on a consistent basis.

It's not nice to break into people's email, and much worse to disclose it in an irresponsible manner. That said, I would say that's on a whole different level of crime than would deserve a punishment of 'FPMITAP', assuming the the 'PMITA' bit is as it says.

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this, I spent the evening researching the Federal Sentencing records for the past 150 years or so, and I couldn't find a single instance where a Judge actually sentenced someone to be raped in prison.

So I guess these statements are more or less made to show how horrible it can be in prison, and possibly to deter someone from committing a crime in the first place that could end up with them being pounded in the ass.

Back on topic:
Out of curiosity,
a) what laws actually exist regarding transparency in govt,
b) what oversight/enforcement is in place for said laws
c) has any actual investigation been conducted on the accusations in this case? I got the impression that the accusations aren't new, but a few months old.
These things would be helpful to review and agree on, I think.

A) I would assume that each state has it's own set of laws regarding transparency at that level, and the Feds have their own laws.

B) Chances are, oversight/enforcement is done after the fact when someone complains or there's enough evidence to open an investigation.

As I said before, I'm quite sure that Sarah Palin is not the only public official that has possibly done this. I'd bet that officials from both sides have done it.

C) I believe that so far, it's only been accusations, without enough evidence, I don't think they can even begin an investigation. But hey, let's see how this works.

I'm making a accusation right now that Nancy Pelosi has been using her personal email to conduct official Speaker of the House Business.

[streaker69]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Just watched the Bill O'Reilly arguing about whether the operators of Wikileaks should go to jail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpndIvUGPwA

The guy is so out of touch its hilarious. STOLEN INFORMATION! It's like if someone stole your car!

If someone steals your credit card number, expiration and security code and gives it to me and I post it everywhere, should I go to jail? After all, it's just information, it's just a bunch of numbers.

[Thorn]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

If someone steals your credit card number, expiration and security code and gives it to me and I post it everywhere, should I go to jail? After all, it's just information, it's just a bunch of numbers.

If you post that information under the umbrella of a "news organization", then the answer is "no you should not got to jail." That is a First Amendment issue, and the Supreme Court has made that very clear.

If the information is harmful in some way to to the person who it's about, and it isn't "newsworthy" per se, then that person has options for redress under the civil system. Most good news organizations understand that, and won't print such information (things such as credit card number, expiration and security code, etc) under fear that it is not newsworthy and it it clearly has very high potential for being harmful.

Of course, the question of what constitutes a "news organization" is less clear. So far, everyone is treating things like 'Big Bob's Bilious Blog' like they are in the same class as the New York Times. Some civil suits and case law will no doubt help define that in the coming years.

You posting it as an individual, may or may not be going to jail, depending on the state and your intent, as the criminal laws vary that much. Under the civil law in most places, you would almost certainly still be liable.

[jur1st]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Putting the Palin case aside. If that were to be true of some random person, while the young attorneys reading that person's email would happen, only emails that were pertinent to the case at hand SHOULD be revealed, correct? (emphasizing 'should')

It depends on the situation...how the information was collected and what protocol that both sides have agreed upon. Even with keyword searching to narrow the focus, there are lots of false positives which lead to unrelated information still getting to the point where attorneys are reviewing for responsiveness. In this day and age, all people with jobs should anticipate this situation happening to them at some point during their careers.

[Vyrus]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

ok old quote is old but better late than never yea?

Question:

Where is the outrage from the supposed hacker community that criminals are being called hackers giving all of us bad names.

i take offense when the term "African American" is used to describe black American citizens because it insinuates that i am "less of an American" by definition than my white counter parts, that doesn't mean im about to walk the street with a large blunt object and go beating people in the head who refuse to use the term how "I" see it.

language to a degree, in every context, is relative.

Regardless of your political belief's you should be angry that someone would invade someone's privacy (this was her private account, not her actual governor account) and posted the information publicly.

regardless of what i think i SHOULD think a certain way? sounds a bit hypocritical to me -_-

How would you feel if your private email account was raided in such a manner, private photos, phone numbers and information was posted for all to see?

I expect some to say that you have nothing to hide, to that I say bullshit. Everyone has things that they don't want the public to see.

id be inclined to agree with you, but that's an assumption

You guys should be condemning the people that did this and correcting the reporters that call them hackers and pointing out that they're criminals, plain and simple.

i have to say as a "hacker" im rather apposed to the idea of somebody telling me who i "should" be condemning and why. If anything id say that not seeing any "riots" in the streets over this provides evidence to me that I should observe the reactions of others in the community and find out why they have also chosen to remain silent, rather than brow beat them because they don't feel the need to speak up.

Nobody deserves to have their information posted like this.

again, playing devil's advocate here but some would disagree, and there ARE laws defining what information you can and can't disseminate, as well as under what circumstances.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with her having a yahoo account, how many of us here have yahoo accounts, gmail, hotmail, and I'm sure some here even have the odd aol account. I guess she isn't allowed to have a personal email account, since it hasn't been proven as fact that she's used it for official business.

as i understand it, the argument is that via the "security breach" there IS evidence linking her to the prospect of using a separate yahoo account for official business.

i don't see anything wrong with somebody having a yahoo or an msn, etc account ether but if the company i work for has a strict policy dictating what i can and can not do with my email, breaching that policy would subject me to termination i would imagine, i see no reason why the same rules would not apply in this situation.


*disclaimer* i posted this in the attempts to further productive and thought provoking discussion, not start a flame war... plz don't hurt me

[streaker69]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

i take offense when the term "African American" is used to describe black American citizens because it insinuates that i am "less of an American" by definition than my white counter parts, that doesn't mean im about to walk the street with a large blunt object and go beating people in the head who refuse to use the term how "I" see it.

language to a degree, in every context, is relative.

I don't believe I stated nor alluded that people should go about beating people over anything. My point was that it's been repeated many times that when the media proclaims a hacker has done something it makes all people who consider themselves hackers look bad. Defcon, generally being a the forefront of the hacker community, shouldn't be relishing in the breach of privacy, no matter who's privacy was breached.

regardless of what i think i SHOULD think a certain way? sounds a bit hypocritical to me -_-

You are free to think whatever you want, I was making a statement that it shouldn't matter what your political beliefs are, if you feel that this gives hackers a bad name, then you should be upset about it.

i have to say as a "hacker" im rather apposed to the idea of somebody telling me who i "should" be condemning and why. If anything id say that not seeing any "riots" in the streets over this provides evidence to me that I should observe the reactions of others in the community and find out why they have also chosen to remain silent, rather than brow beat them because they don't feel the need to speak up.

If you feel the need to take your cue to react from others that's your choice. But when I go to hacker conference and hear people decrying the invasion of privacy and hackers looking bad in the media, it seems rather hypocritical of them not to be saying anything about this. But instead blaming the victim, as I stated before, do we blame a scantily clad woman for being raped?

again, playing devil's advocate here but some would disagree, and there ARE laws defining what information you can and can't disseminate, as well as under what circumstances.

The ends does not justify the means. The person that did this is no better than a vigilante. If there really was sufficient evidence to show that she was improperly using her email, then there should be an investigation opened. But, it isn't up to someone out there to break into her email and attempt to expose outside of proper channels. You're right, there are means to disseminate information, and if you think this was the proper method...

i don't see anything wrong with somebody having a yahoo or an msn, etc account ether but if the company i work for has a strict policy dictating what i can and can not do with my email, breaching that policy would subject me to termination i would imagine, i see no reason why the same rules would not apply in this situation.

Again, it's been accusations of such, with no solid evidence, and no formal investigation into the matter. I stand by my previous statement, that it isn't up to someone other than the proper authorities to investigate the matter.

*disclaimer* i posted this in the attempts to further productive and thought provoking discussion, not start a flame war... plz don't hurt me

Always enjoy the discourse.

[bascule]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Of course, the question of what constitutes a "news organization" is less clear. So far, everyone is treating things like 'Big Bob's Bilious Blog' like they are in the same class as the New York Times. Some civil suits and case law will no doubt help define that in the coming years.

You posting it as an individual, may or may not be going to jail, depending on the state and your intent, as the criminal laws vary that much. Under the civil law in most places, you would almost certainly still be liable.

In the case of Wikileaks, their goal is to act as an information clearing house for the press, allowing reporters/bloggers/etc free access to information that the government or corporations wish to suppress.

[Thorn]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

i take offense when the term "African American" is used to describe black American citizens because it insinuates that i am "less of an American" by definition than my white counter parts, that doesn't mean im about to walk the street with a large blunt object and go beating people in the head who refuse to use the term how "I" see it.

It's off the general topic, but it's interesting to hear you say that. Vyrus, because the lords of Political Correctness would seem to disagree. For the last ten years or so, "African-American" has certainly been pushed as THE correct term. While I don't feel that it diminishes you in any way -any more than calling me an "Irish-American" diminishes me- I do feel that it is unwieldy for everyday use. As an indicator of heritage such terms are fine, but for general conversation, words like "black" or "white" make a hell of a lot more sense in my opinion.

In the case of Wikileaks, their goal is to act as an information clearing house for the press, allowing reporters/bloggers/etc free access to information that the government or corporations wish to suppress.

The "press" status should be clear for sites like that. I was just making a general point that the status of some sites/blogs may not be as clear cut, and that case law will shape this into a better definition as time goes on.

[xor]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

Just watched the Bill O'Reilly arguing about whether the operators of Wikileaks should go to jail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpndIvUGPwA

The guy is so out of touch its hilarious. STOLEN INFORMATION! It's like if someone stole your car!

Actually and sadly enough I had a little bird tell me that his site was in the process of being hacked if not already. These guys are going for the gold when it comes to jail and civil charges.

xor

[xor]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

If someone steals your credit card number, expiration and security code and gives it to me and I post it everywhere, should I go to jail? After all, it's just information, it's just a bunch of numbers.

Palin a side what about if I get your phone number and do a full blown credit/back ground check on you. I go to say Intellisearch, buy this information legally and then in turn post it to Usenet do I go to jail? Have I done anything wrong?


xor

Back to Palin, what about the "good Samaritan" that went onto her account and re-changed the password in an attempt to notify & protect her; should they go to jail?

Ps. The pic of the her daughter and the baby is very cute. I'm surprised she didn't release that to the public anyway.

I also just wanted to say that if my attempt at satire offended anyone, I'm sorry. I often try and use humor to bring up serious subjects and get people talking. One of the things I like about the Defcon community is that you can have a Fed and a guy with tattoos all over his body get together without trying to kill one another. In fact they actually get a long,

[Vyrus]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

I don't believe I stated nor alluded that people should go about beating people over anything. My point was that it's been repeated many times that when the media proclaims a hacker has done something it makes all people who consider themselves hackers look bad. Defcon, generally being a the forefront of the hacker community, shouldn't be relishing in the breach of privacy, no matter who's privacy was breached.

im not so sure that doing nothing is "relishing in the breach of privacy", at what point is it just none of our business? i may have an opinion on the situation but that doesn't mean the world wants or needs to hear it.

If you feel the need to take your cue to react from others that's your choice. But when I go to hacker conference and hear people decrying the invasion of privacy and hackers looking bad in the media, it seems rather hypocritical of them not to be saying anything about this. But instead blaming the victim, as I stated before, do we blame a scantily clad woman for being raped?

i think black people "not speaking the kings English" when asked there opinions publicly "makes us look bad", am i a hypocrite because i choose to keep my opinions to myself?

The ends does not justify the means. The person that did this is no better than a vigilante. If there really was sufficient evidence to show that she was improperly using her email, then there should be an investigation opened. But, it isn't up to someone out there to break into her email and attempt to expose outside of proper channels. You're right, there are means to disseminate information, and if you think this was the proper method...

i was only commenting that there are those people out there who believe in the "i don't have a problem disclosing my personal info because i don't have anything to hide"
whom aren't "bullshitting"

Again, it's been accusations of such, with no solid evidence, and no formal investigation into the matter. I stand by my previous statement, that it isn't up to someone other than the proper authorities to investigate the matter.

as i understand it there IS an investigation being launched to determine if she was indeed using a yahoo email address to conduct state business

[streaker69]

Re: Sarah Palin: hacked by Anonymous

im not so sure that doing nothing is "relishing in the breach of privacy", at what point is it just none of our business? i may have an opinion on the situation but that doesn't mean the world wants or needs to hear it.

Problem is, 'nothing' wasn't happening. This thread got started, and she was pretty much ridiculed for using a yahoo account. Instead of people being upset that her privacy was invaded and the entire hacker community looks bad because of it. If nothing was done, this thread wouldn't exist.

i think black people "not speaking the kings English" when asked there opinions publicly "makes us look bad", am i a hypocrite because i choose to keep my opinions to myself?

You're by all means free to keep your opinions to yourself. I'm not exactly sure what your first statement has to do with any part of this discussion.

as i understand it there IS an investigation being launched to determine if she was indeed using a yahoo email address to conduct state business

If you have a source says there is an investigation I'd be interested in reading it. So far, everything that I have read have been nothing but accusation and hearsay.

IMO, if she is being investigated for such, then probably any public official with a private email address should be as well. Like I said, I suspect Nancy Pelosi has been using hers as well. The proof that I have is probably about as strong as any proof that the people that started accusing Palin have.