NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal grand jury in Tennessee has indicted a man in connection with the hacking of the e-mail account of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Federal officials say that 20-year-old David Kernell of Knoxville, Tenn., was indicted by a federal grand jury in Knoxville for intentionally accessing without authorization the e-mail account of Palin, Alaska's governor. Kernell is the son of Tennessee state Rep. Mike Kernell, D-Memphis.

The younger Kernell has turned himself in to authorities and is scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday before a magistrate.

Kernell faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three-year term of supervised release.
Who'd of thunk there was a democrat connection?

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :eek:


No, not really, just disgusted at the level of politics in this country.

Some how that doesn't seem like it's worthy of being an indictable offence when compared to the shit happening during the Canadian election. Sure it was a hacked email account but it's no cut brake line or phone line or any other attempt at intimidation...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/07/elexn-vandalism.html

Did you know she used her private Yahoo! account for matters of state?

... Well neither did I! >_>;

In all seriousness, Jailtime, a quarter million fine and state supervision, just for guessing a Yahoo password? That seems totally out of proportion.

well, that'll teach him the importance of being behind 7 proxies

He shouldn't have done it in a Red State. Other places would have noted that Palin did the exact same thing years ago. However Ten is a state of Palin lovers.

Oh Wowmaui you saying that the Democratic party was directly behind it or something?

He shouldn't have done it in a Red State. Other places would have noted that Palin did the exact same thing years ago. However Ten is a state of Palin lovers.

Oh Wowmaui you saying that the Democratic party was directly behind it or something?

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.
I think he got the idea from Santa. But then, I think that's just the kind of baseless partisan conjecture that politics should be without. Don't you?

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

If he did he would have actually done something with the e-mail instead of posting the password on 4chan. No, wait, that would be logical and we can't have that, can we?

If he did he would have actually done something with the e-mail instead of posting the password on 4chan. No, wait, that would be logical and we can't have that, can we?

Maybe they're both stupid.

In any case, even if Sarah Palin wasn't a politician, and was merely a hockey mom, breaking into someone's email and posting the contents is a Federal offense here.

Up to 5 years in prison, 250,000 dollar fine, and 3 years post-prison supervised probation.

It's called hacking, and the FBI will nail you for it, even if your victim is a complete unknown.

Who'd of thunk there was a democrat connection?

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :eek:


No, not really, just disgusted at the level of politics in this country.

I knew this information about 10 days ago. They actually called up yahoo and reset the password. Which means that yahoo needs to up their security protocol. He was part of a group called anonymous. They have mostly been hacking and heckling the Church of Scientology over the past year. I can't say I blame them for that. Stupid kid made a stupid mistake and I hope he pays for it. As for making it a huge, "the Democrats did it" thing I think that's going too far. Let this kid pay for his crime and hope he learned his lesson.

I knew this information about 10 days ago. They actually called up yahoo and reset the password. Which means that yahoo needs to up their security protocol. He was part of a group called anonymous. They have mostly been hacking and heckling the Church of Scientology over the past year. I can't say I blame them for that. Stupid kid made a stupid mistake and I hope he pays for it. As for making it a huge, "the Democrats did it" thing I think that's going too far. Let this kid pay for his crime and hope he learned his lesson.

I hope he gets the full five years AND the full fine AND the full probation.

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

Of course you do.

I choose to think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

Edited for truth.

I choose to think McCain is a pedophile.
I choose to think Palin's a nazi.

I hope he gets the full five years AND the full fine AND the full probation.

You and I both know he won't. AIDS infested child molesting murderers rarely get what you are asking for. He will be punished and rightfully so. I do not have a problem with him being part of Anon and hitting Scientology. I've done some hacking in the past. Both for the fun of it when I was a teenage, and for the US govt where they paid me to do it.

I hope he gets the full five years AND the full fine AND the full probation.

Of course, were this done to Obama, you'd be hoping he got a blowjob. But that's the beauty of being ultra-partisan, innit?

Did you know she used her private Yahoo! account for matters of state?

... Well neither did I! >_>;

In all seriousness, Jailtime, a quarter million fine and state supervision, just for guessing a Yahoo password? That seems totally out of proportion.

Seriously? It was a yahoo account? You'd think there'd be a state email account thats a little more secure. No?

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

Yes.... this whole "hacking" thing is far too clever, too unusual for an ordinary person to have done. Only with the dark influence of the Democrats could he have managed to gone so far with his devious criminal desires.:rolleyes:

Seriously? It was a yahoo account? You'd think there'd be a state email account thats a little more secure. No?

Yahoo account. And it wasn't hacking. It was filling out the standard password recovery form.

...In any case, even if Sarah Palin wasn't a politician, and was merely a hockey mom, breaking into someone's email and posting the contents is a Federal offense here.
Only if the hacker satisfies certain criteria: (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ccmanual/01ccma.html#C.)

A violation or attempted violation of section 1030(a)(2) is a felony if [either of]:

committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain,
committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or
the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000.
I'm not convinced those would be satisfied here.

Sure there is a maximum sentence but I doubt that the kid will get that. He'll get a variation on it, especially if it's proven that the kid did in fact beyond a shadow of a doubt use the standard password recovery form. Any reasonable judge would take all the facts into consideration.

Yahoo account. And it wasn't hacking. It was filling out the standard password recovery form.

The word Hack gets so misused. No it wasn't really a hack, it was however a pretty blatant demonstration of why Yahoo's security sucks. Kid ought be punished, but not too severely.

A script kiddie gets pwned? Well, I never.

I hope he gets the full five years AND the full fine AND the full probation.
Personally I think it should only be half the sentence she receives for conducting state business on a personal yahoo account.

He did nothing compared to her

This isn't hacking.

Who'd of thunk there was a democrat connection?

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :eek:


No, not really, just disgusted at the level of politics in this country.

David entered a 'not guilty' plea.

Under the American 'legal system', that means he didn't do anything wrong, until it is proved that he did, right?

I thought the handcuffs and ankle shackles were nice dramatic touches for an alleged hack...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hacked

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

Those damned Jews--I mean, those damned Dems!

This isn't hacking.

Indeed, I think it's disgusting that anyone should receive 5 years and a ridiculously huge fine merely for working out the answer to a 'secret question'. Absolutely nobody was harmed, I've had my email inbox 'hacked' into before by friends, but I don't wish them anything so severe. Nobody actually hacked into a government computer system or anything important, only a public yahoo email address. Journalists have done far worse things then that.

Careful - you might get a snarky mod comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14080022&postcount=2) about not posting this in one of the mythical "myriad " threads on Palin...

Oh Wowmaui you saying that the Democratic party was directly behind it or something?
No, not at all. An anti-Palin sentiment by a Democrat, yes. An "official operation" of the Democrat party, no. The leadership of the party is not so stupid as to authorize or command something like this.

A script kiddie gets pwned? Well, I never.

Not a script kiddie.

Stop calling it hacking. She had woefully poor security. What he did isnt hacking. I could have done it when I was 10 years old.

No, not at all. An anti-Palin sentiment by a Democrat, yes. An "official operation" of the Democrat party, no. The leadership of the party is not so stupid as to authorize or command something like this.

Oh please. It probably wasnt even an anti-Palin sentiment, it was probably a "lets fuck around with a very popular public figure!" sentiment. Im part of Anon (well, as much as one can be). They dont give a shit about politics, they just do things for lulz. And fucking with Palin's poorly protected email account was "epic lulz".


If Obama had such poor security for his email account, you can bet theyd have done it to him a long time ago.

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

I wonder if Palin's use of a yahoo account to conduct government business was an idea from the GOP leadership.

So what would you call it if not hacking?

From the Free Dictionary
hack 1 (hk)
v. hacked, hack·ing, hacks
v.tr.
1. To cut or chop with repeated and irregular blows: hacked down the saplings.
2. To break up the surface of (soil).
3.
a. Informal To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.
b. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.
4. Slang To cut or mutilate as if by hacking: hacked millions off the budget.
5. Slang To cope with successfully; manage: couldn't hack a second job.

v.intr.
1. To chop or cut something by hacking.
2. Informal
a. To write or refine computer programs skillfully.
b. To use one's skill in computer programming to gain illegal or unauthorized access to a file or network: hacked into the company's intranet.
3. To cough roughly or harshly.

n.
1. A rough, irregular cut made by hacking.
2. A tool, such as a hoe, used for hacking.
3. A blow made by hacking.
4. A rough, dry cough.

So what would you call it if not hacking?

Exploiting stupidity ?

b. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.


He didn't gain access to a computer file or network, he gained access to an account.

Exploiting stupidity ?

You do realize how many doors that opens?

He didn't gain access to a computer file or network, he gained access to an account.

what kind of account? a computer account?

try arguing the difference of a computer file and computer account. I wish you luck!

what kind of account? a computer account?

try arguing the difference of a computer file and computer account. I wish you luck!

An account is, ultimately, a file/number of files detailing who can view/etc what emails.

He didn't gain access to a computer file or network, he gained access to an account.

18 U.S.C 2701, Unlawful access to stored communications (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html)

18 U.S.C 1030, Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html)

Yes, it was funny.
No, it doesn't excuse the fact he broke the law - and federal law at that.
Too bad, suck it up.

You do realize how many doors that opens?

Of course - but the term is accurate. He did not "hack" or "crack", but exploited a hole in the security procedures. No coding was necessary. Hell - no computer was necessary.

18 U.S.C 2701, Unlawful access to stored communications (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html)

18 U.S.C 1030, Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html)

Yes, it was funny.
No, it doesn't excuse the fact he broke the law - and federal law at that.
Too bad, suck it up.

Whatever you want to call it, no way in a million years does it deserve that harsh a sentence.

Whatever you want to call it, no way in a million years does it deserve that harsh a sentence.

Funnily enough, I do believe there's a judicial system designed precisely to determine that.

An account is, ultimately, a file/number of files detailing who can view/etc what emails.

a file? a set of computerized files.

Hack.

Of course - but the term is accurate. He did not "hack" or "crack", but exploited a hole in the security procedures. No coding was necessary. Hell - no computer was necessary.

actually, he did. he exploited a hole in the security procedures to gain access to a computer account that was not his and without the permission of the 'owner' of the account.

and a computer was necessary to gain that access to that computer account. :rolleyes:

a file? a set of computerized files.

Hack.

Quite.

Funnily enough, I do believe there's a judicial system designed precisely to determine that.

Any idea what the minimum sentence could be, if he is found guilty?

Any idea what the minimum sentence could be, if he is found guilty?Slap on the wrist with a "bad boy, don't do it again"?

Think is Junii, that definition that appears in that particular dictionary is only there because such a huge number of people use the term incorrectly, so much so, to an extent where it's been added another meaning officially.

Funnily enough, I do believe there's a judicial system designed precisely to determine that.

true. he could get a lesser punishment.

Any idea what the minimum sentence could be, if he is found guilty?

Right. I take it you didn't bother reading the link then.

Think is Junii, that definition that appears in that particular dictionary is only there because such a huge number of people use the term incorrectly, so much so, to an extent where it's been added another meaning officially.

welcome to the wonderful world of language. Words change their meanings every day though usage. so guess what the judge and jury will care more about. the original meaning of the word or the one that can be proven to fit the case?

Right. I take it you didn't bother reading the link then.

Which one? There wasn't one offered in the OP.

18 U.S.C 2701, Unlawful access to stored communications (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html)

18 U.S.C 1030, Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html)

Yes, it was funny.
No, it doesn't excuse the fact he broke the law - and federal law at that.
Too bad, suck it up.
Only the first seems to apply in this circumstance, which puts a strictly maximum jail sentence at 1 year for a first offense.

Only the first seems to apply in this circumstance, which puts a strictly maximum jail sentence at 1 year for a first offense.

that is up to the lawyers to argue. there may be information not revealed to the media.

He should have to spend time at Yahoo's Call Center. *nod*

that is up to the lawyers to argue. there may be information not revealed to the media.
Yeah, and from that information, it's clear that the damage caused does not exceed $5000, nor was the event used in blackmail.

Only the first seems to apply in this circumstance, which puts a strictly maximum jail sentence at 1 year for a first offense.

Well, he's been indicted under those two exacts statutes so......

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin3.html

He should have to spend time at Yahoo's Call Center. *nod*

Dammit LG! You have created an army of nodding fools! :p

He should have to spend time at Yahoo's Call Center. *nod*
errr... that would be a cruel and unusual punishment.

and believe me, I work in a call center... It can be very cruel!

Yeah, and from that information, it's clear that the damage caused does not exceed $5000, nor was the event used in blackmail.

again, it's still up to how the lawyers wanna argue it. ;)

actually, he did. he exploited a hole in the security procedures to gain access to a computer account that was not his and without the permission of the 'owner' of the account.

and a computer was necessary to gain that access to that computer account. :rolleyes:

But what has that to do with hacking or cracking ? Such acts require at least *some* computerskills. This action, while of course unlawful and worthy of punishment, did not.

But what has that to do with hacking or cracking ? Such acts require at least *some* computerskills. This action, while of course unlawful and worthy of punishment, did not.

So he committed fraud.... but didn't hack anything? Oh, ok. That's changes his whole legal defence I'm sure!

But what has that to do with hacking or cracking ? Such acts require at least *some* computerskills. This action, while of course unlawful and worthy of punishment, did not.

he had to know how to use a computer. the fact that he couldn't cover his trail and was easily caught shows he wasn't an 'old hand' at this, but he still gained access to someone else account without their permission.

So he committed fraud.... but didn't hack anything? Oh, ok. That's changes his whole legal defence I'm sure!

It should. Fraud is after all a far more serious offence in this case - aand the one he actually committed.

Suppose he had gained access to her account because she left a note with her password next to a public computer. Would that have been hacking ? Hell no. Punishable ? Hell yes.

Suppose he had gained access to her account because she left a note with her password next to a public computer. Would that have been hacking ? Hell no. Punishable ? Hell yes.

actually. that would be different.

if she left her password in an easily accessable location, then the responsiblity is hers. but she didn't. HE sought out her password by answering the security questions YAHOO! had set up. so she didn't leave anything "out in plain sight".

actually. that would be different.

if she left her password in an easily accessable location, then the responsiblity is hers. but she didn't. HE sought out her password by answering the security questions YAHOO! had set up. so she didn't leave anything "out in plain sight".

Password request form, more likely.

Password request form, more likely.
which has security question(s) that must be answered.

actually. that would be different.

if she left her password in an easily accessable location, then the responsiblity is hers. but she didn't. HE sought out her password by answering the security questions YAHOO! had set up. so she didn't leave anything "out in plain sight".

That's not true. She could walk around and announce her account name and password on a megaphone during a football game, but unless she gives permission to access her account, it would still be criminal to do what this kid did. Doing something like leaving the password for everyone to see may increase your exposure to such a risk, but it's not implicit permission to people to access your accounts.

I know we're extending this analogy, but imagine you left your credit card information and signature out in a public place, and someone grabbed it and charged up your card. That you exposed yourself to such a risk through sheer boneheadedness does not absolve the person who fraudulently used your card. They still committed a criminal act, whether or not you invited said act.

That said, what this kid did is a crime, but it's not really the crime they're trying to make it. He no more hacked her account than you would hack someone's account if they left their log in information next to a public PC. What he did is a far, far cry from real hacking, or even script kiddie stuff.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say what he did is more akin to my example of someone finding your carelessly left credit card information and charging up a storm. Fraud. Not electronic crime.

which has security question(s) that must be answered.

Have you seen the Yahoo security questions? Mine is, "what is your pet's name?" Other choices include, "what is your zip code?" and "what is your maiden name?" Not exactly highly encrypted information.

which has security question(s) that must be answered.

No, actually. On Yahoo, you need the person's name, their address, and their zip code. That's all. Yahoo's security is horrible.

Edit: They've changed it since the last time. The hardest part now? The security code, because that shit's unreadable.

Fraud. Not electronic crime.

Which is why the indictment said fraud and not hacking.

It was: Unlawful access to stored communications
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html
and

Fraud and related activity in connection to computers
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

Which is why he the indictment said fraud and not hacking.

It was: Unlawful access to stored communications
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2701.html
and

Fraud and related activity in connection to computers
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

But the headline said hacking. I thought we were discussing how the story referring to it as hacking was improper.

what kind of account? a computer account?

try arguing the difference of a computer file and computer account. I wish you luck!
A file contains information an account is a set of associated rights that may directly or indirectly be stored in a file (Example: SQL user or Active Directory)

An account is ultimately data rather then a collection of data or a storage container for data

But the headline said hacking. I thought we were discussing how the story referring to it as hacking was improper.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the actual case....... um, crossed wires?

That's not true. She could walk around and announce her account name and password on a megaphone during a football game, but unless she gives permission to access her account, it would still be criminal to do what this kid did. Doing something like leaving the password for everyone to see may increase your exposure to such a risk, but it's not implicit permission to people to access your accounts. actually, by publically announcing her account name and password that does imply permission given.

leaving her password in an open area shows negligence on her part but I didn't say it was permission, only that she was responsible.

I know we're extending this analogy, but imagine you left your credit card information and signature out in a public place, and someone grabbed it and charged up your card. That you exposed yourself to such a risk through sheer boneheadedness does not absolve the person who fraudulently used your card. They still committed a criminal act, whether or not you invited said act. and I did not say he would be not guilty. sorry for the confusion. If I left my credit card and other information (and admitted it) then I would be partically responsible. that doesn't mean the person who found it is guilt free.

That said, what this kid did is a crime, but it's not really the crime they're trying to make it. He no more hacked her account than you would hack someone's account if they left their log in information next to a public PC. What he did is a far, far cry from real hacking, or even script kiddie stuff. it's still hacking because he sought her password, obtained it without her permission or knowledge and accessed her e-mail account again, without her permission or knowledge.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say what he did is more akin to my example of someone finding your carelessly left credit card information and charging up a storm. Fraud. Not electronic crime.
except she didn't leave anything out for him to find. he guessed the answer to the security question and obtained her password and he did so electronically.



Have you seen the Yahoo security questions? Mine is, "what is your pet's name?" Other choices include, "what is your zip code?" and "what is your maiden name?" Not exactly highly encrypted information. which is neither his nor her fault but Yahoo.

the fact that he still sought out her password and entered her email account without her permission is still there.

Edit: and those security codes is more to prevent computerized data fishing.

Well, he's been indicted under those two exacts statutes so......

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin3.html
Thanks for posting that. Curiously enough, what he's been served is not the crime of which he'd be guilty. The defendent did not access the protected computer without authorisation (he did it all by standard HTTP, and he is himself a user of Yahoo!'s computer) - what he might be argued to have done would be to have acted in excess of his authorisation. And there's a convincing case to be made even against that, which (as Junii is pointing out) is where the lawyers come into play.

That aside, I guess I can see the arguments to be made for the 5-year sentence now that I see the indictment ((c)(2)(b)(ii)), but you need to prove intent for that one to stick. That's a tricky business in general, and this case seems to be easily winnable on the part of the defence given the documentation of the aftermath (assuming the prosecution managed to get a hold of a copy).

I'm sticking by my assertion of a 1-year max sentence, with definite possibility for total absolvency, unless the indictment is changed.

Then I guess we're just operating with different defintions of hacking. The hacking I, and most other people, are referring to is an order of magnitude more malicious than this kid trying to get some stupid lulz.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the actual case....... um, crossed wires?

No worries. I agree what he did was criminal, but I find the media's fascination with throwing the word "hacking" around for every crime that takes place on a computer very inflammatory. It's just a tactic designed to appeal to people's emotions.

No worries. I agree what he did was criminal, but I find the media's fascination with throwing the word "hacking" around for every crime that takes place on a computer very inflammatory. It's just a tactic designed to appeal to people's emotions.

the thing is, you got two definitions running around. the crime of Hacking which is different than the general definition of hacking.

media uses the general terminology while the legal system can't be so luxurious.

so while we (the public) can call what he did hacking under general terms, Legally they call whatever will legally fit.

guess I too got crossed wired... :p

the thing is, you got two definitions running around. the crime of Hacking which is different than the general definition of hacking.

media uses the general terminology while the legal system can't be so luxurious.

so while we (the public) can call what he did hacking under general terms, Legally they call whatever will legally fit.

guess I too got crossed wired... :p

I find the public definition of hacking to be silly. Virtually any crime committed where a computer is involved is tagged as "hacking". The word loses its meaning if we just attach it to everything.

No, not at all. An anti-Palin sentiment by a Democrat, yes. An "official operation" of the Democrat party, no. The leadership of the party is not so stupid as to authorize or command something like this.

This is some new kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy logic - because a person is biologically related to a person in a political party, their actions are intrinsically covert operations for that party?

Wait - Sarah Palin's husband is MARRIED to a Republican politician! And she's the one who alleges her account has been hacked! Obviously this is a FRAME job by the GOP!

I find the public definition of hacking to be silly. Virtually any crime committed where a computer is involved is tagged as "hacking". The word loses its meaning if we just attach it to everything.
Oh, man, you have no idea what that word has been through.

newfag forgot his over9000 proxies.

No worries. I agree what he did was criminal, but I find the media's fascination with throwing the word "hacking" around for every crime that takes place on a computer very inflammatory. It's just a tactic designed to appeal to people's emotions.

I don't think there's a good replacement word for "unauthorized access to computer information", though. The idea that unauthorized access has to require some skill or creativity to qualify as "hacking" is a geek/industry connotation that hasn't spread to the general public.

Back in the paleolithic era when Cliff Stoll wrote The Cuckoo's Egg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo%27s_Egg_(book)), the "hacker" he was tracking was using unprotected guest accounts to access military computers. Was it particularly clever? No, not even in the late 80s. Stoll even explains how the term is used by computer experts, but he sticks with the term "hacker" because he's writing for a non-expert audience.

So, yeah, in one sense the term's inaccurate, but it's not unreasonable for the press (and the government) to use it because they're communicating with the general public.

Yes, he broke the law. However, lets compare the magnitude of this to some of the McCain camp's stunts, like trying to link Obama to terrorism. In my book, that's borderline inciting assassination(and surely slanderous).

Also, no proof anyone else ordered or asked him to do this. Inocent until proven guilty(not that the supporters of the GOP (Guantanamo/Overseas Prisons Party) understand the value of presumed innocence or any of a myriad of questions relating to due process of law.

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

He's 20. He probably thinks his father is a douchebag. ;)

Dammit LG! You have created an army of nodding fools! :p

Yep. *nod*

Yep. *nod*

*Begins to nod out of control*

I find the public definition of hacking to be silly. Virtually any crime committed where a computer is involved is tagged as "hacking". The word loses its meaning if we just attach it to everything.

add to the fact that it's attached to any computer activity that's not necessarily a crime...

"OMG!!! this player hacked his character so it's indestructable with unlimited ammo!"

it's still hacking because he sought her password, obtained it without her permission or knowledge and accessed her e-mail account again, without her permission or knowledge.


He used something Yahoo provided for the express purpose of acquiring a password to acquire the password. Hacking has nothing to do with who acquires the information. It has to deal with how the information is acquired.

add to the fact that it's attached to any computer activity that's not necessarily a crime...

"OMG!!! this player hacked his character so it's indestructable with unlimited ammo!"

So, as an example of something labeled hacking that's not hacking, you gave something that almost certainly is hacking?

So, as an example of something labeled hacking that's not hacking, you gave something that almost certainly is hacking?

I took it more as the idea in FPSs that anyone who's better than you is accused of hacking.

I took it more as the idea in FPSs that anyone who's better than you is accused of hacking.

Ah, I was taking it as something where the person actually did something.

In all seriousness, Jailtime, a quarter million fine and state supervision, just for guessing a Yahoo password? That seems totally out of proportion.
Wire fraud, perhaps?

Wire fraud, perhaps?
"Fraud" is as inapplicable here as "hacking", unless the words are stretched so completely as not to mean much anymore. He didn't take her money. The first count in the indictment, for "unauthorized access", is legit, but the second count, for "fraud", is prosecutorial overreach.

Seriously? It was a yahoo account? You'd think there'd be a state email account thats a little more secure. No?

Sarah Palin and her people used yahoo so they wouldn't have to worry about turning over info to anyone due to a freedom of information request.

I wonder how many people would still call for the kid to fry if Obama was the one stupid enough to conduct state business on Yahoo! Mail and his account was broken into?

I wonder how many people would still call for the kid to fry if Obama was the one stupid enough to conduct state business on Yahoo! Mail and his account was broken into?

Hotwife wouldn't.

Hotwife wouldn't.

We know Kimchi's a given.

Obviously the entire democratic party was behind this. A Hack gate as you will.
Punishment shall be swift.
Al democrats shall be removed from office and banned from election or voting for ten years. Including the supreme court justices.
The libertarian party shall be tapped to replace the democrats.

just got word Bush is doing this all by executive order.

This is some new kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy logic - because a person is biologically related to a person in a political party, their actions are intrinsically covert operations for that party?

Wait - Sarah Palin's husband is MARRIED to a Republican politician! And she's the one who alleges her account has been hacked! Obviously this is a FRAME job by the GOP!
I expressly said it was NOT an operation for the Democrat party. I was claiming that I thought it was likely it was based on the kids personal, democrat party influenced, vendetta. I will concede though that it is probably improper to assume he is a dem. because his dad is.

However, I in NO way mean to imply the democrat party as a whole had anything at all to do with it, even within their "black ops" division :wink:

(though many do seem to be reveling in the information that Palin seems have used her account for gov. business and are delighted that the kid did it and don't think he should be punished too severely).

I'm not convinced those would be satisfied here.Perhaps the last one, the monetary amount, since there's a few people interested in what she had to say.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/550099.html
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/549095.html
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/547647.html
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/546167.html
Last one there ...

Sarah Palin and her people used yahoo so they wouldn't have to worry about turning over info to anyone due to a freedom of information request.Truth here, there be. *bows*

"Fraud" is as inapplicable here as "hacking", unless the words are stretched so completely as not to mean much anymore. He didn't take her money. The first count in the indictment, for "unauthorized access", is legit, but the second count, for "fraud", is prosecutorial overreach.

"Hacking", I believe, in penal terms is something along the lines of "unauthorized access to a server" and "unauthorized possession of a password". Its really a combination of trespassing in theft. Probably the only time that the two are mutually inclusive.

"Fraud" is as inapplicable here as "hacking", unless the words are stretched so completely as not to mean much anymore. He didn't take her money. The first count in the indictment, for "unauthorized access", is legit, but the second count, for "fraud", is prosecutorial overreach.

Fraud - he pretended to be her in order to gain access, without her authorisation, to her files. Pretty easy for anyone with a bit of legal studies in them to prove 'fraud'.

(though many do seem to be reveling in the information that Palin seems have used her account for gov. business and are delighted that the kid did it and don't think he should be punished too severely).

But of course. Some high quality dirt has come to light about their opponent. Possibly involving illegal activities. I'm sure bottles of champagne have been popped.

I think the guy got the idea from his father, who is definitely a Democratic politician.

Uh...probably not. Think about it. Kid's dad is a Democrat, popular Republican is a juicy target for his kind of Anon-type action. Republicans are Dad's "opposition", people who run against his dad in elections and probably say at least a few nasty things about him. What kid wouldn't want to take the piss out of those who cast his father in bad light? You're trying to ascribe high-level conspiracy to an impulse any kid has (I mean, unless "any kid"'s dad is an abusive prick or something).

actually, he did. he exploited a hole in the security procedures to gain access to a computer account that was not his and without the permission of the 'owner' of the account.

and a computer was necessary to gain that access to that computer account. :rolleyes:

No it wasn't. He could have used a cell phone or a BlackBerry. All he had to do was put the damned Wasilla ZIP code into the "password" field on the Web site. You're trying too hard to make this some kind of clandestine assault. It simply wasn't.

he had to know how to use a computer. the fact that he couldn't cover his trail and was easily caught shows he wasn't an 'old hand' at this, but he still gained access to someone else account without their permission.

*sigh*

No. No he didn't. He had to be able to TYPE. Type into the USPS ZIP finder the code for Wasilla (there are two), and then type that number into the password field. Come on. The fact that he took no "advanced" measures to cover his tracks and posted the ZIP code on a site to fuel his own bravado suggests a kid doing something for kicks.

By all means, though, please continue with the conspiracy theory. I've still got popcorn left.

But of course. Some high quality dirt has come to light about their opponent. Possibly involving illegal activities. I'm sure bottles of champagne have been popped.

Not possibly. Deleting government e-mails is against the law.

Not possibly. Deleting government e-mails is against the law.

On the other hand, erasing 18.5 minutes of secretly recorded government conversation is perfectly acceptable.

Not possibly. Deleting government e-mails is against the law.

There you go then. Now, who wants to take bets on when, if ever, Palin is taken to court for this?

There you go then. Now, who wants to take bets on when, if ever, Palin is taken to court for this?

Never.

Never.Drat! That's why I was going to pick but you beat me to it :tongue:
I guess I'll have to go with "when Jesus returns"

Fraud - he pretended to be her in order to gain access, without her authorisation, to her files. Pretty easy for anyone with a bit of legal studies in them to prove 'fraud'.That's not what "fraud" is, in law. It is not just any false pretense, but one for a purpose of stealing something of statutory monetary value: in this particular statute the threshold is set at $5000 or more.