Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Anonymous" Hacks Palin's Private Email

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the should-have-used-hushmail dept.

Privacy 1733

netbuzz writes "'Anonymous,' best known for its jousts with Scientology, has apparently hacked Sarah Palin's private Yahoo email account. Contents, including sample emails, an index, and family photos, have been posted by Wikileaks, which calls them evidence that the GOP vice presidential candidate has improperly used private email to shield government business from public scrutiny." Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax. Update by J : Genuine.

cancel ×

1733 comments

The crossed the line this time (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046083)

Attacking Scientology is one thing. We all know that it is a crock of crap. However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Funny)

joshtheitguy (1205998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046105)

Try telling Tom Cruise that Scientology is a crock. I'd imagine he'd scream incoherently at the top of his lungs, jump up and down then rip your face off.

Re:The crossed the line this time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046173)

rule #4 of registering windows: get to know your Haji! don't just talk to them, socialize a bit!

from the guide to haji dealings by microsoft

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Funny)

Beached (52204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046175)

He and John are still in Stan Marsh's closet, so noone will hear them.

Alrighty then... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046339)

HEY TOM CRUISE!!!!

If you're reading this, then I tell you that your hokey sci-fi, pseudo-religion CULT is a crock of crap.

And I also think you're a faggot weenie too.

So there.

PS: Your acting sucks too.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046121)

I, for one, think the laws should be applied equally to all parties regardless of their insane beliefs.

Re:The crossed the line this time (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046207)

However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.

If that even happened at all, I could whip up similar screenshots in 5 minutes.

Re:The crossed the line this time (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046369)

>If that even happened at all, I could whip up similar screenshots in 5 minutes.

Similar, in the sense that it can be verified as authentic by authors of some of the content?

Re:The crossed the line this time (1)

exabrial (818005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046223)

This is probably very true. Wonder what this will do to the future of wikileaks with the FBI and Secret Service getting involved. In all likeliness, the timing of these events is probably something like the http://digg.com/apple/Macworld_2008_Steve_Jobs_keynote_speech_leaked [digg.com] considering the reputation of this group

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046237)

This was on CNN a few minutes ago and they confirmed that the Secret Service was already involved in the investigation.

Re:The crossed the line this time (2, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046263)

This wouldn't be 4chan's first brush with the FBI. Two people [wikipedia.org] have previously been arrested over terrorist threats posted on the board.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046301)

On one hand.. I agree they crossed the line.. on the other I kind of understand people's motives. Now I am in no way shape or form advocating hacking someone's email account, but there's something important to consider here. There's a great article at NY Times [nytimes.com] which talks about Palin's rise in politics. Here's one excerpt:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

If she does infact use her private email address for correspondence with other staff members or governmental bodies, can you really consider it a private email account anymore? I'm not asking for response from slashdotters with analogies here, but if she does infact potentially use her personal email to avoid subpoenas then why the hell should it be considered personal. She is paid by the taxpayers and they have a right to know what is going on. Why have her staff members been studying the use of personal email accounts for official business anyways?

Maybe the deal with her using personal email for work is just a rumor, and maybe the whole deal with "Anonymous" is not true, but still things aren't just black and white here.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046323)

I would imagine though that hacking into a yahoo e-mail account, even if it's a political figure, is not really going to get any serious penalties. It's not like they hacked into a government e-mail account. It's also not as if she has launch codes yet. McCain has to be elected, then die of a heart attack for her e-mail to be of much real importance. ... of course, if she did, they would probably end up in her yahoo account. And we'll be dead soon anyway. As Matt Damon said, someone who belives in creationism should not be an (old) heartbeat away from the football.

But I suspect secret service is investigating mostly to determine if there's a real security risk IE if she e-mailed out that there was a spare key to her house under a fake rock in the garden, or she was going to be in room 287 of the doubletree hotel.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046397)

As much as I think Scientology is a dangerous cult, the actions of Anonymous to date have been demonstrating that they are just a group of dangerous radicals. Anonymous is dangerous because they attack and slander groups they disagree with and hide behind masks so that their opponents can not adequately defend themself. Now, I know many of the people who hate Sarah Palin and the Republicans won't see a problem with this, but for a moment imagine how you would feel if a similar group performed the same action on Barack Obama (or a political leader in your own country) and see how 'wonderful' it would be.

Re:The crossed the line this time (5, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046523)

Right, remember this is the same group that hacked an epilepsy support page to try to induce seizures. Also realize this is pretty much the opposite of constructive: Palin is being used as a distraction to keep us from thinking about real issues. This only furthers that distraction. It would be one thing if they found evidence of corruption, but this is merely digital tabloid fluff.

Anonymous is doing this entirely to feed their own egos.

Hack recipe (1)

teapot (2686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046475)

Recover password. Enter date of birth and zipcode. Happy hacking.

Re:The crossed the line this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046503)

Um, this is a candidate. So unless her safety is at issue, the SS won't be involved. As for the FBI, why would they investigate the hacking of a single person's private email account? That is what she has claimed, remember? Can't have it both ways. Either Sarah Palin needs to admit she used her Yahoo account for government business, in which case she has illegally withheld emails from FOIA requests, or she can't go crying to a Federal investigative agency to help her out.

Also, I thought I read both of her Yahoo accounts were closed down as of last night. If that does not authenticate the hack, I do not know what would. Hell of a coincidence.

One additional point. Sarah Palin says she is for open and transparent government. So why should she care if the public can view her gov.sarah@ or gov.palin@ yahoo email? Or was open and transparent government just a line she used to get elected governor in 2006?

To paraphrase Shakespeare, the lady doth protest too much. She needs to start cooperating with investigators. Right now she appears to be stonewalling and obstructing.

No way to tell? (4, Interesting)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046097)

Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax.

Translation: Wikileaks has been down for hours.... Wonder why?

Re:No way to tell? (4, Informative)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046141)

Slashdotted record?

Re:No way to tell? (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046437)

Secret Service

Re:No way to tell? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046285)

So where's the torrent?

Please, someone must have saved this and it didn't get heroed* right away did it?....

* Apparently one anon changed the password and emailed Palin's campaign with the new password, thus ending the fun for everyone and closing the window we had on finding any good info.

Re:No way to tell? (3, Informative)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046451)

Re:No way to tell? (1)

LEMONedIScream (1111839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046539)

Conspiracy theories at the ready. It's down.

Note to self (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046103)

...must change passwords asap. No wait. Doh!

Who? (0, Troll)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046109)

Pardon my ignorance, but who is this Sarah Palin, and why is she in the news all of a sudden?

Re:Who? (5, Funny)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046135)

I'll pardon your ignorance if you pardon my advice to just fucking google it.

From what I gather... (3, Funny)

gasaraki (262206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046157)

she's the mother of a famous hockey player.

Re:From what I gather... (2, Funny)

krog (25663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046231)

IANAL but I believe the proper term is "shotgun mother-in-law".

Re:From what I gather... (2, Funny)

JazzyMusicMan (1012801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046253)

lipstick!

wait...did i jump the gun??

Re:Who? (3, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046281)

Duh... Famous comedian, member of the Monty Python.

Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046423)

Oh, how I envy you...

Nude self-portraits? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046123)

She's kind of got this whole hot milfy soccer mom look to her. I'd jam my cock into every orifice of her hot little body.

The only VP candidate I'd ever spank it to.

Re:Nude self-portraits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046149)

All I'm going to say is that you haven't seen my photos of Jack Kemp.

Re:Nude self-portraits? (1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046325)

Is that all? I'd shove my fist so far in her pussy it would fucking nullify that slimy cunt cervix. Ass-fuck her with a broken beer bottle until she stops crying. I would fuck the bloody holes where her tits used to be, and I would cum so deep in her lungs, she drowns on dry land.

I've looked. Check Gawker (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046125)

So far only two emails, some personal photos, a contact list and some inbox screenshots have been posted. Nothing incriminating.

Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (4, Informative)

slaker (53818) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046337)

I'm fairly certain that this is legit. I'm also fairly certain that members of Anonymous are not all based in the USA and may or may not have anything to fear from the Secret Service.

However, one of the features of a Yahoo Mail account is the ability to download a backup copy of your mailbox as a single file. I believe the file format is the one used by Outlook Express, rather than the more universal .mbox format, but still, if the "hackers" didn't think to grab everything, I would be shocked.

I'd be willing to bet that someone out in internet land has a copy of Sarah Palin's whole mail spool right now.

Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (5, Insightful)

uberotto (714173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046439)

As I understand it, what is in the emails isn't what's important. There have been several people accusing her of using her personal email account to conduct public business, in order to hide the emails from becoming part of the public record (sounds familiar). The catch was that the people who were supposed to be investigating this claim stated there was no proof, therefore nothing to investigate...

Now, there is proof...

What she said isn't the story, it's who she said it to.

Row row (4, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046131)

Fight the power.

Re:Row row (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046259)

Fight the power.

Re:Row row (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046287)

You are the cancer...

Re:Row row (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046499)

YO YO BITE THE FLOWAH!

Let me guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046133)

The password was "lipstickpig".

Confirmed by her campaign (5, Informative)

benjackson520 (778024) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046137)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html [wired.com]

It has been confirmed by her campaign and Amy McCorkell, the sender of one of the emails that has been posted.

Re:Confirmed by her campaign (1, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046355)

Summary: someone broke into her email, found absolutely nothing even vaguely incriminating or even embarassing, posted some stuff on Wikileaks claiming that it might somehow suggest something or other.

Re:Confirmed by her campaign (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046465)

Summary: someone broke into her email, found absolutely nothing even vaguely incriminating or even embarassing, posted some stuff on Wikileaks claiming that it might somehow suggest something or other.

I don't know about that. They haven't posted anything damaging but that doesn't mean they didn't find anything that would be damaging. My bet is they are or will try to extort her. I hope not though.

Re:Confirmed by her campaign (3, Informative)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046541)

No...I think the summary (courtesy of uberotto [slashdot.org] ) is that she lied and said she wasn't using her personal email for government business and this "proves" otherwise (assuming you don't question the validity of these email, at least part of which has already been confirmed as valid).

History in the making (5, Funny)

krog (25663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046139)

This might be the first time the Secret Service has encountered the Streisand Effect.

It's safe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046145)

Ok I followed the link. It's not a rickroll.

FP (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046147)

I am Sarah Palin here. My password is obamasucks.

Anonymous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046151)

...is mostly known for posting their dicks on /b/.

Re:Anonymous... (1)

krog (25663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046185)

Or, put another way, the perpetrators were linked with an enormous, international child porn ring.

Hack or Hoax? (1)

jlowery (47102) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046161)

Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax.

But it sure provides powerful blackmail opportunity for someone who holds the well-documented other end of the email exchange. It has been noted that Sarah does have a predilection for hiring former high school classmates. What do they have on her?

Re:Hack or Hoax? (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046251)

But it sure provides powerful blackmail opportunity for someone who holds the well-documented other end of the email exchange. It has been noted that Sarah does have a predilection for hiring former high school classmates. What do they have on her?

uh, friendship?

Don't get me wrong, I very much dislike Palin, but WTF are you talking about? Are you claiming they have some old HS gossip on her? Maybe she made up a rumour about how one of the other girls stuffs their bra?

Ok ok actually that would be kind of fun to learn about. With pictures.

Re:Hack or Hoax? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046479)

uh, friendship?

That's exactly what I was going to say. Who are you going to hire: a random individual or someone that you know has (or at least had) a work ethic you approve of?

Probably Genuine (5, Interesting)

amaupin (721551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046193)

Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax.

Wired has confirmed [wired.com] from one sender, Amy McCorkell, that the displayed message from her to Sarah Palin is genuine.

hhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046195)

good , time to see what the lady has been really stealing er up too

Not cool... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046199)

C'mon guys. We all know that e-mail isn't very secure. I personally don't have anything in any of my e-mail accounts that I would be concerned about anyone else reading -but I'd still be offended if someone posted it public.

This is in poor taste.

Hacking? (5, Insightful)

Gr33nNight (679837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046201)

Since when is it 'hacking' to guess that her email password is her zip code? You can't hack stupidity and ignorance.

Re:Hacking? (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046221)

Was it really her zip code? I would have guessed the combination to her luggage.

Re:Hacking? (2, Funny)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046235)

"I would have guessed it WAS the combination to her luggage" - Way to spoil a joke...sigh.

Re:Hacking? (5, Funny)

Gr33nNight (679837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046245)

Yes it was. I was following the 4chan discussion on it but please don't make me go back YOU CAN'T FORCE ME OH GOD.

Re:Hacking? (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046277)

If the hacker didn't know that in advance it is still hacking.

Re:Hacking? (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046403)

If the hacker didn't know that in advance it is still hacking.

Yeah, I caught my cat hacking my computer the other day. Fucker had typed all kinds of shit into the login box.

Re:Hacking? (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046335)

What would you rather it be called then? Since he wasn't given the password, it was unauthorized access (meaning he had to circumvent some security measures). Besides, what is brute forcing it but more guesses that are less educated? Unless you mean that in order to hack something you have to take advantage of an exploit, but that's not really as useful a definition.

Hooray for women's rights! (5, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046209)

Sarah Palin is proof that there is no glass ceiling for women, as long as you're not ugly, have fufilled your reproductive obligations, don't have any actual power, will be subordinate to a man, seem clueless, and hiring you will keep a black man out of the white house.

Re:Hooray for women's rights! (4, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046359)

Have you seen what the White House does to people? It sucks their life right out of them. White House years are like dog years. I predict that if elected, McCain will die of a stress-induced heart attack within 2 years and Palin will be President.

Scrutiny (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046211)

I keep reading from a variety of sources that using personal email means surely she was hiding things from public scrutiny, from possible subpoenas, etc.

Okay, if you see proof of illegal activity in her email, then she was likely hiding it. But the public can't read her work email either. Using personal email does not necessarily prove motive or wrong-doing.

Re:Scrutiny (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046291)

Actually you can request all her emails through FoIA.
Add to that the fact that she may have her mailed monitored during an investigation, and be using this to gt around certain laws.

Re:Scrutiny (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046317)

Seriously, emails through Freedom of Information Act? What are the laws on government email retention?

And if she was trying to get around certain laws, it would be discovered here in her email, but the summary suggests all that was found were family photos.

Re:Scrutiny (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046367)

Of course it doesn't prove anything. Any more than government officers having closed door meetings on major policy issues with industry insiders while forming official policy.

(for those accusing me of being partisan, I was thinking of both energy policy and healthcare, which would cover both parties)

Re:Scrutiny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046435)

The point is that there are rules and records and backups and stuff about what happens with government email addresses. If she's using her yahoo account to do government work, then those emails won't be a part of all that.
 
Just like the whole thing a few months back where the republicans were in "trouble" because a bunch of old emails and backups were "lost".
 
Both scenarios have the same result - Government emails that skirt the system.

Re:Scrutiny (4, Insightful)

JaiWing (469698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046483)

Repeat after me: STATE/FEDERAL business MAY NOT use NON-STATE/NON-FEDERAL Email servers.

It is not legal, it violates records retention acts and it is unethical as well as it
keeps the business of OUR government from OUR scrutiny.
To head off the quips, yes the business of government is not normally availible to the public,
however it MUST BE MADE PUBLIC upon lawful order. If the exchanges are not on STATE/FEDERAL
servers, then the public release of it may not be possible.

exposure? (3, Funny)

quonsar (61695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046219)

famed for its exposure of unethical behavior by the Scientology cult

yah, 30+ years after it was known to the general public.

No way to tell... (0, Flamebait)

Brandee07 (964634) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046227)

Why it's real:

  • There are emails dated months ago, so if it's a hoax, it was set up months before Palin was a VP candidate.
  • One of the people whose emails are shown has confirmed that she sent that email, according to Wired. Many of the other contacts are actual people Palin would have corresponded with regularly, including her husband's legitimate email.
  • If it were a hoax, you'd expect something more incriminating than a picture of her making a retard face while holding her Downs baby.
  • It's not just a couple of doctored screenshots, the password to the account was on /b/. Forging a screenshot, easy. Forging an actual email account, complete with old messages, not so much.

Why it's a hoax:

  • 4chan

Go figure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046229)

that a right-wing country-bumpkin would be using 'yahoo'.. who woulda thunk?

Encryption, maybe... (4, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046261)

This wouldn't have even been an issue if she'd used encryption.

Maybe high-profile leaks like this will help convince the public at large that encryption is beneficial, even if you aren't doing anything wrong.

This is why you use official email systems (4, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046283)

This is a really good reason why they should NOT be using their private email. Sure, using the government systems opens them up to having their corruption on record, but having it on something like Yahoo mail opens it up to something like this, potentially exposing WAY more information than that. Not that government email is unhackable, but I'd certainly expect it to be at least a little bit more secure.

This might be what she deserves (0, Flamebait)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046293)

When you use a private account to conduct public business, it really seems just that the account suddenly becomes a public one.

My employer gives me my own e-mail address to use for work and my work and personal e-mails never end up in the wrong account. For anything else to happen would be more than a simple mistake.

Re:This might be what she deserves (1, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046315)

Good. Turn over your personal "public" email account and pw to everyone here on Slashdot. What? It's public!

Re:This might be what she deserves (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046363)

He's not a public official and therefore doesn't have to.

Re:This might be what she deserves (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046379)

I am not a public servant who is suspected of conducting public business on a personal account in order to avoid public scrutiny of my dealings.

Re:This might be what she deserves (2, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046463)

I think you misunderstood him. His private email is private. His work email is also private (as it is a private business). There is no reason anyone should see any of his email.

Palin's personal email is private. As a public servant, her work email is public...at least to some degree. Not that anyone should have immediate access to it, but there are legal procedures in place on how the public can gain access, for example, in the case of a lawsuit. She tried to circumvent that by using a private email address. It's only fitting that everything in that account becomes public. That fact that she was stupid enough to mix private and personal email...well, thats just too bad for her.

What will happen in retaliation? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046311)

If this is true, I think it's possible that Anonymous has just painted a gigantic bulls-eye on a free internet.

I am all for ferreting out corruption, but what I worry about is how many will paint this: "Terrorist Rogue Hacker attacks Vice Presidential Candidate."

What limits are there on privacy now? I hope I am wrong.

Palin using Yahoo? (1, Flamebait)

SyntaxFeline (1288272) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046333)

She should have been using Hotmail.

First impression: not cool (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046371)

I tend to put myself in other people's shoes, and here I definitely feel I would feel miserable if my e-mails and family photos were exposed to the world. Not because I have something terrible to hide, but just because it's such a cruel thing to do.

Slashdot readers and posters are very big on privacy - well, this is one grave (and I think extremely insensitive) breach of a person's privacy.

Re:First impression: not cool (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046543)

I tend to put myself in other people's shoes, and here I definitely feel I would feel miserable if my e-mails and family photos were exposed to the world. Not because I have something terrible to hide, but just because it's such a cruel thing to do.

Slashdot readers and posters are very big on privacy - well, this is one grave (and I think extremely insensitive) breach of a person's privacy.

Yea, but this is slashdot. Probably most of us here wouldn't be too bothered if everyone saw our private e-mail. You'd have to have a social life in order to have anything to be embarrassed about. If someone saw my private e-mail they'd just see forwarded e-mails, lots of ads and ticket confirmations. Sometimes it pays to be an anti-social nerd.

You'd think this may actually hurt her but.... (1, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046401)

it occurred to me the other day, the real reason for McCain choosing Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her leadership capabilities, its that she distracts people from the horrible failures of the Bush presidency. If the pundits tongues are wagging non-stop about Palin, that probably means they aren't spending too much time talking about Bush which is good for McCain. If the American people are repeatedly reminded of what a horrible failure the Bush White House has been, and what a big cheerleader McCain has been for said administration(at least since the Iraq war anyway), the less likely they are to vote for McCain.

All Palin has to do is keep the spotlight on her for the next 2 months and McCain may actually stand a chance.

God DAMN IT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046413)

That "Anonymous" is an IMPOSTER!!! I'm the Real Anonymous. I'm SO gonna kick that poser's ass! You don't believe me? Look up my handle.

Slooooow (2, Informative)

pi8you (710993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046419)

As noted by others, its already been confirmed, but what they got into was not the juicy gov.sarah@yahoo.com address that's the potential subject of investigation [arstechnica.com] , just her personal yahoo address. Since then though, both gov.palin and gov.sarah have been removed - pastebin.com/f652c44fb [pastebin.com] .

Wow, no spam! (4, Funny)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046425)

I can't believe she gets so little spam at yahoo. My yahoo account is overrun with spam, even years after I've stopped using it. She's definitely paying someone off...

Re:Wow, no spam! (5, Funny)

VoltCurve (1248644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046487)

she is close enough to Russia that all the spam comes by boat.

I really wish... (0, Flamebait)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046449)

I really wish that they would post most of the messages and their contents online. I think it would be very interesting to see the quality (or lack) of thought in her communications with other people. In the one sent sample in the zip file, it seems like she might actually be a little nutty. great.

Let me guess... (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046461)

Password was Lipstick or Mooseburger?

Who's improperly using private email? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046481)

Let's see, hackers break into her personal email account... and SHE's the one "improperly using private email"???? Right...

The smear-galore (-1, Troll)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046485)

which calls them evidence that the GOP vice presidential candidate has improperly used private email

Oh, yes, right. Whatever excuses can be found to (try to) justify publishing illegally-obtained [yahoo.com] materials...

That the other site carrying these is Gawker [gawker.com] ought to tell you, how low Obama's fans are willing to stoop.

McCain, they said, is unqualified, because he is not using e-mail (never mind, that his repeatedly-broken hands make typing painful for him). And Sarah Palin is unfit because she has a personal e-mail account (with pictures of her children)?

Sorry, I don't believe this "change". So much so, one would be excused for suspecting, an anti-Obama provocateur has done this...

This is evil (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046493)

Sure, they CLAIM it's "evidence" blah blah blah but a first year law student would know that regardless of the content it would be inadmissible in court because it was obtain illegally. Given that, the only conclusion is that this is yet another pathetic attempt to try her in the court of public opinion which was, is, and always will be a crock of excrement.

Slashdotted; check the Coral Cache (3, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046497)

The site's either been Slashdotted, or the Secret Service has had the people who run it killed. In either case, you can see the article [nyud.net] via the Coral Cache if you want.

Aw shite... (1)

ProfessionalHostage (1110801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25046513)

This is no fun, you mean I don't get to DoS anyone this time?
'For the horde', 'We are legion', and all that jazz...

No?

What, excatly, is the law on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25046517)

While this is clearly unauthorized access, what law would be used to prosecute?

It's not a governmental or official account, it's personal email.

Nothing of "value" was stolen (remember, this is private correspondence), and nothing seems to have been added or destroyed.

Obviously, if this were US Mail it would be a crime, but it's not. It's email, which is far less protected.

I suppose one might claim that using your zip code for your password is really not much more secure than ROT13, and wouldn't necessarily pass muster as a strong defense, but clearly these people did not have Palin's permission (everyone with tin foil hats and their hands up - no, I don't think this isn't a political stunt).

So, /. non-laywers, what offense would this fall under, what are the punishment guidelines, and what is the case law?

(sorry for posting anonymously...I'm not on my PC and don't feel like logging in)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...