×

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!

Alaska Must Release Palin E-mails By May

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the hitting-fwd-is-complicated dept.

Communications 211

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from msnbc.com: "The state of Alaska has until May 31 to release about 25,000 pages of e-mails from former Gov. Sarah Palin and senior members of her administration, the state attorney general declared Wednesday. ... the delays in dealing with public records from the Palin administration will have stretched out longer than the Palin administration itself. She was governor for 966 days. By May 31, the request from msnbc.com for the official records will be 986 days old. State regulations usually require records to be made available within 10 days, but state officials said they were overwhelmed by the volume of the e-mails."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

211 comments

Slashdot: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35038978)

News for nerds, stuff that matters.

Oh, no! (2, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35038984)

Oh, no! They have only until May 31st to deliver 25,000 pages of e-mails to the metaphorical shredder? What ever will they do?!? /humor

Seriously, though, any chance that they're poking through those e-mails more and reading them more carefully than they did when they were originally written/read, and "shredding" those e-mails which make Sarah Palin look like even more air-headed? Either way, I highly doubt the lengthy delay in release of these records is due to anything other than a PR spring cleaning for her almighty. As it stands, they should be able to suppress quite a bit of them, anyway.

How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature? I would like to assume there are adequate data-retention policies in place to make this exceedingly difficult, but who knows..

Re:Oh, no! (-1, Offtopic)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039030)

How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature?

I'd say it's pretty easy, considering they can send to jail anybody who reads them [knoxnews.com]

Re:Oh, no! (2)

joshki (152061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039484)

Oh come on. That's flamebait and you know it -- he got sent to jail for illegally accessing an email account.

Re:Oh, no! (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039084)

I don't really see what can be taking this long other than censoring them; just locating the relevant files and dropping the few gigs of data on a flash drive would take a few days, at most. If it's taking years, it means that something is being done with the actual content. According to TFA there are rules allowing certain messages to remain private, so some of the censorship will be legal, but I imagine that they'll just stamp a big red "privileged" restriction on anything that's too embarrassing to Palin.

Re:Oh, no! (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039100)

According to TFA there are rules allowing certain messages to remain private, so some of the censorship will be legal, but I imagine that they'll just stamp a big red "privileged" restriction on anything that's too embarrassing to Palin.

My thoughts exactly.

Re:Oh, no! (0, Troll)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039350)

If they redact everything embarrassing to Palin... that's pretty much everything she's ever said, isn't it?

Really? (5, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039434)

I know that /. is full of cynical and borderline paranoids, but really. Think about this for a second...

There there is probably one state IT guy that this got dumped on. Being that he is a state employee in IT, he probably has plenty of other shit to do, and picking through 25k email is a huge time sink. It will need to be evaluated, because a Governor could be, in theory, privy to sensitive material. So, he will probably catch hell if a missed sensitive e-mail goes out, especially in light of the whole wiki leaks thing.

In addition, there is probably a clause that says personal mail doesn't have to be released, and so he has to pick through this idiot woman's mad rambling about pointless shit that shouldn't be on a state mail server anyway. I don't envy the people who have to pick through all the e-mail that is out there when information requests come in.

But in general /., don't be so quick to see a conspiracy, when idiocy and ineptitude are so much more likely.

Re:Really? (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039510)

I see your point, but I don't think it too far fetched that, when more-or-less given carte blanche to mark certain emails as 'not for release', those doing the marking will choose to use that power for a little pre-emptive damage limitation. Sure, there are probably strict rules, but in reality nobody with clearance to see the un-redacted archive will ever bother checking, and on the off chance that something is noticed as mis-marked it's easy to put down to human error.

I don't see it as some great Orwellian cover up, but I do see people with motive, opportunity and almost no risk being given the ability to limit the release of data.

Policy solution: (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039716)

1) All government emails are released regardless; except security issues which are DELAYED x years
2) All private emails are recorded solely for litigation and archival purposes.
3) use private emails for government business is prohibited and punishable by mandatory JAIL TIME upon completion of the job. Yes, I think every gov should spend a week in jail for their mistakes... but the number grows rapidly as the infraction count gets higher!

Idiocy and ineptitude are the easiest defense and with so many sympathetic people (who understand ineptitude...) there are hardly any consequences for unintentional acts. Kill somebody with a DWI and you get extra punishment simply because it otherwise you could kill people easily by just getting a little drunk (well some people would have trouble at that level while others are minimally impacted by the DWI alcohol levels.) Seems to me that similar measures should be applied in other areas.

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039806)

I doubt some poor IT guy is sifting through these emails checking for sensitive information. Having worked in public higher education, I had to respond to these types of requests, either for subpoenas or freedom of information act requests. Our procedure was to produce an archive file for the legal staff to handle. The legal staff was aware of what could or could not be released in order to comply with the release. If there is one thing state governments have, it is lawyers. Of course, we are talking about Alaska and judging by the debatable competence of the governor in question, one could speculate about the abilities at all levels of the state government.

Re:Oh, no! (0)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039220)

Seriously, though, any chance that they're poking through those e-mails more and reading them more carefully than they did when they were originally written/read, and "shredding" those e-mails which make Sarah Palin look like even more air-headed?

Your analysis falls apart completely with the phrase "more carefully". It's possible they're poking through, but the most likely scenario is that they'll shred the wrong emails; how will they distinguish which of her statements are embarrassing? Sarah should hire Keith Olbermann as a consultant, as he has a couple months off, and no one in Palin's camp seems able to warn her when she is being offensive.

Re:Oh, no! (1, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039340)

How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature?

Do what Bush did and arrange for a conversion from Lotus to Exchange or vice versa and let the inconvenient bits get dropped on the floor in the process.

As we don't like republicans. (0, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039008)

This must be news on Slashdot. If it was for a predominant democrat. it would be less newsworthy. As probably just some crazy propaganda from Fox News.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (-1, Troll)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039036)

you are aware that Palin was completely corrupt and is a total idiot right? DO you really think someone who received a communications degree after transferring universities 5 times and thinks a baby gate can keep boys out of her daughter's room is smart?

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039174)

you are aware that Palin was completely corrupt and is a total idiot right? DO you really think someone who received a communications degree after transferring universities 5 times and thinks a baby gate can keep boys out of her daughter's room is smart?

Do you really think someone who gets to be Governor of one of the states in the US and become the de facto leader of a multi-million person movement is "a total idiot"? Are YOU really that downright fucking stupid?

No wait - hold that. Please don't fuck. We don't need morons like you reproducing.

I may not agree with Sarah Palin, but I don't subscribe for one moment the arrogant, imbecilic, and self-serving belief that she's stupid. One would have to be as dumb as a post to think that.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (-1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039236)

She is either stupid or evil.

So according to you, she's evil.

Got it.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (0)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039676)

She is either stupid or evil.

So according to you, she's evil.

Given that she's a member of the Evil party rather than the Stupid party, duh. If this internet thing gets too hard and frustrating for you, you can always take a break and play with your dolls for a while.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039242)

I think anyone has to agree that she has a cognitive problem that makes it difficult for her to present intellectual arguments in a internally coherent and/or factually correct way...

Call it what you want.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039248)

Do you really think that no elected officials are idiots? What faith you have in government! Do you think that a movement of morons can not be lead by a moron? Why not? History holds plenty of examples of the dumb leading the stupid.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (-1, Troll)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039254)

George W Bush was elected president of the United States, and he's a total idiot, so it's not shocking that Alaska could have a total idiot as a governor.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (-1, Troll)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039732)

George W Bush was elected president of the United States, and he's a total idiot, so it's not shocking that Alaska could have a total idiot as a governor.

Compared to who? Slick Willie or the Obamessiah? They all have their really stupid moments. Slick Willie couldn't keep it in his pants, Bush took stubbornness to a ridiculous extreme (for example, failing to change a losing strategy in Iraq for three years), and Obama fell for some of the dumbest snake oil in academia (and blew a huge Democrat advantage in Congress).

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Troll)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039414)

Do you really think someone who gets to be Governor of one of the states in the US and become the de facto leader of a multi-million person movement is "a total idiot"?

Yeah, pretty much. Plenty of stupid people vote you know. Half the populace has an IQ less then 100.
I'm sorry if that sounds elitist, but anyone that would willingly want to put her in a place of political power is a bigger idiot then she is.

And WHY have I decided that she's an idiot?
Well, from every instance I've seen of her on television, most of her political decisions, and from a judgment of the crowd that supports her, both the general populace and individuals I've met and chatted with.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

SnickleFritz (17110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039566)

Don't count out the quality of the staff. I've seen some elected officials that are indistinguishable from rocks with staffs that can get anything done.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039046)

Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever. As I read your comment I couldn't help thinking of a quote from shitmydadsays: "Everyone thinks their opinion matters. Don't argue with a nobody. A farmer doesn't bother telling a pig his breath smells like shit."

Have a nice day sir

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039128)

Yea because seeing the gov's email admins not being able to export 25,000 pages of email ( probably less than 25,000 emails ) isnt news worthy?
I can understand if some info has to be redacted or filtered for confidential info but that is quite a long time to be sitting on someones task list.
Also who picks up the tab for having this data made available?

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

MTTECHYBOY (799778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039320)

Wild guess - the email was archived on backup drives - and the state of Alaska didn't have the 'extra' hardware to restore the archives quickly - plus I am sure the "redacting" process took a LOT of time. ...and of course, they delayed as long as they could, just in case everyone forgot about it...

Re:As we don't like republicans. (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039134)

Well, we don't like Democrats either, by-and-large. If it was a prominent Democrat whose office had been spending years scrubbing emails subject to a state equivalent of FOIA, it would be news also.

Your attempt to derail the conversation with "B-b-b-ut this is biased against Republicans" has nothing to do with the FACT that this is about Sarah Palin's governance of Alaska, and potential misuse of government communications channels. It has nothing to do with whether people on slashdot lean right or left. So drop your silly persecution complex, it adds nothing to the conversation other than the idea that conservatives have no possibly valid points other than how much they are discriminated against.

And FWIW, I see conservative viewpoints, when expressed clearly, modded up all the time here on slashdot. I see the same of liberal viewpoints. What cracks me up is how often conservative viewpoints are modded up right alongside a post complaining of slashdot bias against conservatives.

Let's face it... Palin is a divisive subject, but given her power as a public figure, she's worthy of discussion -- for what she has to say, for what she has done, and for what impact she has on the American political scene. I believe she's a greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare... but I don't let that get in the way of my recognition of her importance as a topic of discussion in general.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (2, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039362)

I am just personally tired both of Sarah Palin and of the left's hatred of her that borders on psychotic. She is a mediocre politician who would never be talked about if McCain didn't make a mistake of choosing her as his running mate.

Having said that, all the vitriol about her just doesn't make sense to me. Whenever I ask a liberal, who at the mention of the name starts foaming at the mouth and screaming something like "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare" why exactly they hate her so much, I never get a satisfying answer. She misspoke a bunch of times but so has Obama and don't get me started on Biden. She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much. It seems to be a pattern that any woman with strong political beliefs, particularly on conservative side, tends to bring out really deep hatred in both women and men who disagree with her politically.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039418)

It could be that strong women engender more hatred. Or it could be that she really is a "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare." She certainly seems greedy, look at her spending of campaign money. Selfish? Surely she has demonstrated that. Uneducated? By her own words, obviously so. Calculating? Okay, every politician is that. An egotistical nightmare? Look at this very story and tell me she isn't!

Perhaps people despise her because they feel that her brand of political discourse is damaging to the country. Perhaps they feel it is unfair that someone like her can become a millionaire, a governor, a candidate for vice president, and a well paid political consultant without having any of the skills or qualities usually required by those jobs. She is just one more piece of evidence that we do not live in anything even resembling a meritocracy, and that galls some people.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (3, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039494)

Perhaps people despise her because they feel that her brand of political discourse is damaging to the country. Perhaps they feel it is unfair that someone like her can become a millionaire, a governor, a candidate for vice president, and a well paid political consultant without having any of the skills or qualities usually required by those jobs. She is just one more piece of evidence that we do not live in anything even resembling a meritocracy, and that galls some people.

What galls me is that people are stupid and mentally lazy. Stupid and lazy enough to fall for her schtick. I know it shouldn't bother me that a lot of people are idiots; for some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.

It's not that I think conservatives are idiots because of their political views. Surely it must be possible to have conservative views without being an idiot. It just seems that the willfully ignorant followers of demagogues are just too legion for this nation to withstand.

Another reason I get irritated by Palin and her ilk is because I believe I have the ability to do EXACTLY what they do. And that I could be very successful at it. But I can't do it, because I believe it is immoral. So I guess the real reason I despise Palin et al is because I think they made an immoral personal choice to exploit others, and are therefore, to a certain extent, evil. And deep down, I'd like to believe that the good should win. Yeah, it's an idealistic hope... which is why I've turned into a cynic. I hate Palin, Bush, Reagan's puppetmasters, et al for turning me into one.

And that, my friend, is the end of the navel-gazing I'll do tonight.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039532)

Well, greedy, selfish and egotistical more or less amount to the same thing, looking at her own self interests above anything else. I am not really sure about the evidence that this is the case with her to an unusual degree, but it might be. The same is true about most politicians, actually people in general. Same with calculating. Uneducated. Well, we all know there are many successful people without much formal education. The first thing I look for in a politician is where they stand on issues, how they have voted in the past and will likely vote in the future, not so much if they are nice people. Part of me is annoyed by the treatment she gets because it seems unfair, and part of me is just annoyed that she is kept in the spotlight and made to look like a victim which might only increase her support.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039470)

Palin gets so much flak because she is always putting herself in the spotlight. Her liberal use of ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (3, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039536)

Whenever I ask a liberal, who at the mention of the name starts foaming at the mouth and screaming something like "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare" why exactly they hate her so much, I never get a satisfying answer.

Because I believe she's not qualified to be a good leader of people. Because she's a demagogue out to serve her own ends.

She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much.

It has nothing to do with how conservative she is. It has to do with her immorality. Please see my post below (in response to a post by Spun) for a little more info on why I feel the way I do about her.

The fact that so many people fawn over her is why people who don't like her need to react strongly. She is an abhorrence on the idea of a well-qualified statesman serving their country for what is best for that country.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (2)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039386)

What cracks me up is how often conservative viewpoints are modded up right alongside a post complaining of slashdot bias against conservatives.

Actually, it's not just alongside. Surprisingly often it is the post complaining of Slashdot bias against conservatives that gets modded up.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039406)

Sorry . . . the first sentence above ("What cracks me up . . .") is a quote and should have been italicized. It doesn't show up that way in some browsers. I guess I should have used the "quote" tag instead.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039426)

Persecution complexes and other paranoid delusions are rarely rational.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Troll)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039138)

Actually I'm surprised Sarah used a public e-mail account while the Gov of Alaska...I would have thought she would have subscribed to the George W. Bush school of...wait did Bush go to school?

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039270)

Actually I'm surprised Sarah used a public e-mail account while the Gov of Alaska...I would have thought she would have subscribed to the George W. Bush school of...wait did Bush go to school?

There were mentions that much of the govt business was indeed being done over private email accounts. And now all this scrubbing is just pointing more towards apparent destroying evidence of wrongdoing. Which is now even worse.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039210)

We need the emails because Sarah Palin instigates the same morbid fascination that a train wreck does. We need to know why she's so damn stupid.

The only person stupider than her is Michele Bachmann, who isn't even bright enough to look into the network cameras and thinks that John Quincy Adams "worked tirelessly until slavery was ended"

I think Republicans in general are cool and "don't afraid of anything" but the Teabagger Base (use your fundament, baby) is odious, despicable, and one misfired suicide bomber from being American Taliban.

"Spiritual Warriors" - pfui.

--
BMO

P.S. Palin/Bachmann 2012 - to immanentize the Eschaton.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039456)

Well, Bachman was looking into the cameras of the group that sponsored her, the Tea Party. Let's not even talk about where she was looking, it distracts from the stupid that came out of her mouth. And Palin had her own gaffe, she had no idea what "sputnik moment" meant, and attributed the collapse of the Soviet Union to sputnik. Seriously. She thought "sputnik moment" refereed to the launching of sputnik, rather than our response to the launching of sputnik. And she thought that launching it was what bankrupted them, so having another "sputnik moment" would be a bad thing.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (1, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039560)

The only person stupider than her is Michele Bachmann, who isn't even bright enough to look into the network cameras

You deserve your Troll rating just for this comment. Michele Bachmann looked into the appropriate camera. Just because CNN/MSNBC didn't pony up for a feed off that camera doesn't mean she's dumb.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/114802314.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl [startribune.com]

Re:As we don't like republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039836)

You're right. The speech and her complete misrepresentation of American history is what makes her dumb.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039282)

Correction, we don't like complete fucking morons. Of which, Sarah Palin is a prime example.

Re:As we don't like republicans. (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039396)

This must be news on Slashdot. If it was for a predominant democrat. it would be less newsworthy. As probably just some crazy propaganda from Fox News.

Hmm... those slashdotters who are not biased, that's obviously not true for. Those of us who are biased think we have good reasons for said bias, and don't really care.

Yes, I dislike Palin already and most republicans. I don't know of a single democrat I'd want as president less than her. I make no apologies for that. She'd be a terrible president in my opinion. But that's beside the point in this case. What's the fucking holdup? The only e-mails to be released are the non-privileged ones:
""records that are not privileged" refers to the process, as allowed by law, for the state to withhold records, or parts of records, if release would violate privacy of individuals or meet other exemptions in the public records law. " She was the governor of Alaska. She doesn't have to scrub nuclear launch codes or the names of operatives in Afghanistan. As TFA says, this has been delayed longer than she was actually governor.

Either there's something in there that they don't want released, or someone is pointlessly impeding the public's right to open government. True I might care less if a democrat I trusted did it, but that doesn't change anything besides my interest level in the story. This is still unacceptable no matter what party she is.

I'll save everyone the trouble (4, Funny)

neoevans (179332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039032)

It's all lolcats and forwarded emails from people who swore they received checks from Microsoft, sprinkled with the occasional note to the president (at the time) somewhere along the lines of,

"Do you like me? Check one:

-Yes
-No
-Maybe"

Re:I'll save everyone the trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039192)

Mod parent hilarious.

Overwhelmed? (3, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039044)

Overwhelmed? They really must try to come up with better BS than that. Even princess half-term can spout off more believable nonsense.

Re:Overwhelmed? (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039392)

No joke. I'd hate to see how long it takes them to release the records of a governor who actually served a full term. And they're saying the volume of requests was a factor? Whether they get 1 request or 1 million, they only have to go through the data once. This is some combination of administrative incompetence and whitewashing the Tea Party's golden gi-- oh wait, even they're sick of her, and they're on the Michelle Bachmann bandwagon now.

Dun da da da duuuuuuun! (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039060)

Openleaks! To! The! Rescue!

Would actually make a great soft-pitch, first at-bat for the start-up. Would be refreshing to see what these celebrity politicians really say and think... You know, without the cameras and the scripts.

more interesting (4, Funny)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039076)

Just add a colon and it becomes a more interesting story..."Alaska Must Release Palin: E-mails by May"

Re:more interesting (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039272)

No, not the punctuation mark, like so: "Alaska Must Release Palin's Colon, Emails by May" Not sure what we'd do with Palin's colon, but I imagine we could find some use for it.

Re:more interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039394)

Bukkake.

Re:more interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35040110)

It's okay to insert a colon, but please make sure that she doesn't miss a period!

Irony (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039112)

So the kid who guesses her security questions with answers that were guessable based on her Wikipedia profile gets hard time for posting her private emails online (not to mention that she used her private account for some work emails as well allegedly), all the while Palin Inc. LTD LLC is taking its sweet time releasing the actual campaign emails because I'm guessing (this is pure speculation) that there is content in there that the GOP is afraid the Palinites won't cherish dearly.

I hope she runs for office, and is put to shame at the ballot box. I am so sick of hearing about this washed up nobody anti-intellectual and her following of people who have been fleeced by her PR handlers into thinking she actually has the mental cahones of more than a donut.

Re:Irony (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039268)

all the while Palin Inc. LTD LLC is taking its sweet time releasing the actual campaign emails

It's the State of Alaska, not Palin's political supporters. While there probably are a couple of Palinites left in the state, most Alaskans would just as soon use her for wolf bait. She's an embarrassment for a state that has a long line of political embarrassments.

grep? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039154)

Seriously, what's the problem with running a search on the 'From:'?

At 986 days we're talking about processing at a rate of twenty-five emails a day.

Re:grep? (2)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039266)

Seriously, what's the problem with running a search on the 'From:'?

At 986 days we're talking about processing at a rate of twenty-five emails a day.

foreach (string s in ToFromFieldCollection) { (if s == "Sarah Palin")
{PointAndLaugh();}
}

Needless to say the programmer has been promoted for his hilarity. It is either that, or she sends each email one letter at a time, which wouldn't surprise me at this rate.

Plenty of time to *fix* this mess (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039194)

As in preparing explanations for the questionable, illegal activity she was up to. Or, outright scrubbing the logs where possible.

Re:Plenty of time to *fix* this mess (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039218)

Well, they have to redact all of the "state secrets"... after all, Alaska is our first line of defense against invasion from Russia!

What if she doesn't release them? (1)

jrozzi (1279772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039202)

What can really happen if she doesn't release the emails?

Re:What if she doesn't release them? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039312)

As far as I'm concerned, on day 11 they should have gotten a court warrant and just taken all the records, there is no reason to give anyone any extension of a legal obligation, especially not from 10 days amost 1000. The law is not supposed to be malleable to your schemes.

Re:What if she doesn't release them? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039600)

As far as I'm concerned, on day 11 they should have gotten a court warrant and just taken all the records, there is no reason to give anyone any extension of a legal obligation

State "sunshine" laws usually have a very short "normal" response time (the 10 days indicated for Alasks is fairly typical of the one's I've seen), they also fairly usually allow the response given within that 10 days to be either the requested documents or an explanation of the justification of the delay in releasing the documentation, along with an expected date of release. Some (as Alaska's apparently do, from TFA) require some official to approve extensions, others make the extensions essentially automatic within certain limits, but allow them to be challenged in court by the requester.

Re:What if she doesn't release them? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039712)

There are exceptions for when e-mail may have sensitive records. Not everything that goes into e-mail is a record accessible to the public. For example, e-mail regarding personnel issues, health records, or ongoing litigation may be subject to redaction or withholding. That can provide a reasonable reason to extend beyond ten days. However, anything much beyond a month, even for many thousands of records, is not generally considered acceptable. (I'm not saying that this kind of information is the case here, just that there are situations that can delay such releases.)

Re:What if she doesn't release them? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039800)

For example, e-mail regarding personnel issues, health records, or ongoing litigation may be subject to redaction or withholding.

Don't care. On Day 11, release everything to the public. If anyone is harmed by the release of private data, they can sue the public official who failed to meet her legal obligations. It's not like she didn't know she was going to have to release these documents, she had all the time in the world, starting from day one of her term to redact them.

She? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039554)

What can really happen if she doesn't release the emails?

Using the pronoun "she" to refer to the State of Alaska is somewhat unusual.

Palin the Populist Plutocrat (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039256)

You might read that subject line and go "wait, that's totally impossible! A populist is someone who believes in power of the people for the people and a plutocrat is someone who believes in the power of the rich and wealthy, and those two just can't really mix". Except that they can. I would guess that Palin thinks she should be the rich and wealthy of the 'people' so she can then be more powerful, all of course 'for' those same people while being a part of them. The pretext for this sort of situation would be that she is the one most qualified to wield the power for the people and hence deserves much of the wealth.

This is why she scares me. Because she thinks she's qualified to be that person, the Plutocrat amongst Populists, the Ideology Transcender, and I simply do not agree. Disclaimer: I live in Alaska.

Re:Palin the Populist Plutocrat (0, Flamebait)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039324)

I used to live in Alaska. I still can't believe half the people up there were stupid enough to vote for this dizzy bitch. Please tell me you weren't one of them! My biggest complaint about Sarah and all the other "conservatives" is that they seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy... they've adopted self-delusion as a lifestyle, and it fits them well.

Re:Palin the Populist Plutocrat (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039694)

I used to live in Alaska. I still can't believe half the people up there were stupid enough to vote for this dizzy bitch. Please tell me you weren't one of them! My biggest complaint about Sarah and all the other "conservatives" is that they seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy... they've adopted self-delusion as a lifestyle, and it fits them well.

You mean like Nancy Pelosi's travel expense:

* Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international CODEL is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House Speaker’s family.
        * One CODEL traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
        * According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29—April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.”
        * The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to “view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.” The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.

Oh wait. She's a lib so it doesn't count, right? I'm sure it's in the Constitution somewhere that the Speaker of the House can spend thousands on hard liquor while traveling abroad.

Re:Palin the Populist Plutocrat (0)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039630)

This is why she scares me. Because she thinks she's qualified to be that person, the Plutocrat amongst Populists, the Ideology Transcender, and I simply do not agree. Disclaimer: I live in Alaska.

That describes a lot of politicians (any rich populist, pretty much) including a few others from Alaska. Ted Stevens comes to mind as an example. You must lose a lot of sleep over the sheer quantity of people you are afraid of.

Consequence of failure? (1)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039258)

What consequences does the state of Alaska face if they aren't published by that date?

Re:Consequence of failure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039264)

We'll stop shipping them beer.

Yeah riiiiight.... (1)

twebb72 (903169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039284)

Volumes of emails huh? 900 huh? Apparently Alaska doesn't have copy/paste functionality yet.

I mean, if it were any more, the whole Alaskan infrastructure would need to switch from punch cards to Microsoft Access.

Under the same law, how about we ask for (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039358)

visibility of ALL public government officials emails starting with Boehner and Pelosi. I dont care that much about crap from Alaska, but I do want to read what the people holding the real puppet strings are emailing about. Does MSNBC have the sack for that?

Re:Under the same law, how about we ask for (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039684)

visibility of ALL public government officials emails starting with Boehner and Pelosi. I dont care that much about crap from Alaska, but I do want to read what the people holding the real puppet strings are emailing about. Does MSNBC have the sack for that?

Here you go:

Dear [Redacted],
Thank you for [Redacted] my [Redacted]. I [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] toothpaste in my [Redacted] while you [Redacted] on a cherry [Redacted] Episcopalian [Redacted] extension cord [Redacted] wetness [Redacted] with a parking ticket.
Thank you, [Redacted]

That's the quality you get with any FOIA request, and why it's taking so long for Palin's emails. I guarantee they're forcing people to meet for a couple hours of overtime once a week and argue whether the word "is" should be redacted in the third email. Then they order pizza and beer on the state dime. Next week, next word.

The same law won't work (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039792)

Under the same law, how about we ask for visibility of ALL public government officials emails starting with Boehner and Pelosi.

Because the "same law" would be an Alaska state law that only applies to agencies and officials of the State of Alaska, and neither Boehner nor Pelosi (at least not the Boehner and Pelosi I would think you are referring to) are employed by any agency of the State of Alaska.

# of comments not on front page? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039366)

Hey... the front page used to show the number of comments posted to a story, which was useful for deciding if something (that I'd probably otherwise skip) might have some interesting comments to read. Now there's just the "Read the comments" link... Is there any way to get the # of comments back?

Commenting System or User Fail (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039378)

Is it just me, or in the "new layout" are comments seriously hidden if their parent isn't within the current threshold, but the child is? This [slashdot.org] comment contains a +5 child, but since it is under a troll-rated parent, I can't see it when browsing on a 5-2 threshold range. How does this stuff even make it to deployment?

Re:Commenting System or User Fail (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039424)

Is it just me, or in the "new layout" are comments seriously hidden if their parent isn't within the current threshold, but the child is? This [slashdot.org] comment contains a +5 child, but since it is under a troll-rated parent, I can't see it when browsing on a 5-2 threshold range. How does this stuff even make it to deployment?

Well, as the author of the post you cite...

It's not a big deal. If the OP in the thread was a troll (I don't think it was... I think the writer of that post was trying to make a serious point, albeit a misguided one)... then my response was trollfood. If my response was indeed trollfood, then it's probably just as worthless as the troll I responded to.

I guess what I'm saying is... nothing of value was really lost when the slashcode decided my comment was not worth displaying to you. If the parent to my post wasn't visible, then there's no reason to display my post.

That said, I wish the new slashcode would strictly use the threshold, or make it clear that even if you view at +2, you're going to miss posts above your threshold when the parent is below your threshold.

Re:Commenting System or User Fail (2)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039522)

I don't know, I still think its a big deal, because if it is as I suspected above, downmodding one parent with 100 children could hide a handful of +3 to +5 insightful comments for no reason other than their parent was rated unworthy. That seems like a design flaw to me, and good and final reason to not obsessively press F5 on this site any more.

Re:Commenting System or User Fail (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039582)

If the parent to my post wasn't visible, then there's no reason to display my post.

Suppose you made +5 Funny riposte to a -1 Troll. I'd want to see it.

Mod parent up (1)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039640)

Looks to me like this is correct, and this would be a major and unnannounced change to slashdot

Comment system fail (1)

davros-too (987732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039528)

Its not just you. The +5 child post is only visible if the parent is not abbreviated. I want to see ALL posts, with low-rated posted abbreviated, as per my comment settings. I've tried to be open to change, but I am really starting to dislike the recent 'upgrade'!

Re:Comment system fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039700)

The old one was even worse imho. Half the time the tab to show more comments was in the address bar and unclickable regardless of browser. WTH happened to the slashcode over the past two years? It's gone from awesome to crap to crappier. I'm just an artist so I am unsure how hard it is to code, but this is the only web site I visit that consistently displays wrong in IE, Firefox, AND Opera. Nerds need to fix shit.

Re:Comment system fail (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35040082)

Yup, I agree, the new code is really broken in a lot of ways, though it's hard to tell whether it's bugs, or simply bad design.

I actually really liked the immediately previous incarnation of slashdot -- it was much nicer than "traditional" slashdot, because many things like expanding comments were dynamic and didn't require jumping to a new page (which I used to hate about the traditional code), but also seemed to be reasonably solid and well thought-out. This new slashdot is basically a regression in almost every way (except that perhaps the actual code is cleaner, but that's a bit hard for me to tell).

Hopefully all the problems with the new system are just shallow bugs and easily-rectified design mistakes, which will be quickly shaken out...hopefully...haha..."

MsDoS (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039490)

As a friend mentioned during a FOIA discussion, it's easy to do a Meat-space Denial of Service on a public entity by requesting "all of X" records, and forcing them to go through and redact. It's even worse when they ask for "all of X" where X is a department in NASA with highly trained people, like engineers or scientists. And they have to redact it instead of letting some bureaucrat decide what should be included. Just imagine a case like this where everyone and their mother did a FOIA request. It's a DMsDoS!

What... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039804)

A treasure trove of retardedness this will be.

On second thought, I apologize to retarded people.

The Prog Meltdown = Hilarity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35039830)

Poor Progressives!

The American people have awakened and rejected you and your Progressive, Utopian, elitist, nanny-state agendas. The psychotic rants from the Left are already LOL-worthy, but I expect them to attain Cosmic Joke status once either Palin or Bachman becomes the first woman POTUS in 2012 as is quite likely.

You can rant all you want. Nobody is listening to the Progressive propaganda anymore. 100 years of Progressive policies are responsible for the economic and social problems today, and people have finally awakened to that fact.

The Progressive movement in the US is effectively dead. It's proponents are just too blind to realize it yet.

Re:The Prog Meltdown = Hilarity (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#35039888)

I don't disagree too much, but let me fix something for you:

The psychotic rants from Sarah Palin are already LOL-worthy

Now, when you calm down and come out of left-vs-right land, do realize that the vast majority of politicos suckle the tit of the corporations and do not work for you. Not left-or-right, just a collective them screwing you. The 'poor-progressives' are no worse than the 'evil-neocons'. They are the same turd, one wrapped in handouts and sunshine paper, while the other is wrapped in American flags and chest-thumping. But still turds.

Kenya (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35040078)

So any word on that birth certificate?

Did anything ever happen with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35040112)

...those work related emails Anon uncovered in her private email box? Slap on the wrist? Anything?

Essentially just a back door way to avoid FOIA requests.

or read them on Wikileaks next week (1)

Petronius (515525) | more than 3 years ago | (#35040128)

c'mon Alaska! there has to be someone who can send this to Julien Assange pronto.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...