×

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!

Sunlight Foundation Announces 'Sarah's Inbox'

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-very-much-unveiling dept.

Government 227

Eponymous Hero writes "In a sequel to elenasinbox.com, the publicly released emails of Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, Sunlight Foundation has unveiled sarahsinbox.com to offer you easy access and search to Sarah Palin's recently released emails. If that doesn't flip your bits, have a gander at some of the tools Sunlight Foundation offers relating to government watchdogging, like Poligraft, or Inbox Influencer."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

227 comments

First post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467050)

I would hit it.

Re:First post. (2, Funny)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467306)

I prefer to hit the outbox just to hear the squeals she makes.

Sure that's a good idea, given the evidence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467866)

If you've ever referred to her as "completely full of shit" (as many of us have), I fear that comment is about to come back to bite you in the...well, you get the idea.

Re:First post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467788)

You want to hit blown-out, redneck vagina?

Re:First post. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468130)

You want to hit blown-out, redneck vagina?

You must be new here.

When the only other option is the palm... yeah, I'd hit it.

Can we get access to Obama's info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467066)

Oh well, I guess he isn't newsworthy enough.

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467166)

IIRC, Congressional and Executive communication records are not subject to the FOIA. Governers', however, are.

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467196)

But all the records of when he was mob boss protection in Chicago should be...

Re:Can we get access to Obama's info? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467248)

Well, we already know that Barack Hoover Obama is a war criminal.

Um... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467110)

Why is sarahsinbox.com a link but elenasinbox.com isn't?

If Ashton Kutcher isn't cool with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467112)

Then I'm not cool with it.

Just like another Weiner scandal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467122)

Keep our attention off of what is really happening that could make a difference in our lives. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467186)

Indeed. Call me when we have a similar facility for people on this list [forbes.com].

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467222)

Why stop there? How about for everyone who makes over, say, $30,000/year?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467342)

Because someone making $30,001/year almost certainly does not have the ability to make a seriously damaging impact on the world.

What an odd question. Were you trying to make some point?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467404)

i'm assuming he's wondering the same I am.. why do people have a hard on for reading email?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467556)

I think his point was that you've chosen an arbitrary amount. You attempt to hand-wave it, but you have shown no more justification for your number than he does for his. There are people with a lot of power who are not on that list, and there are people on that list who are not much involved in politics. You need to show why the people on that list are lesser citizens than yourself, deserving of fewer rights.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467456)

Because most of america prefers privacy... you realize that is below median income right? Or you haven't realized you are getting screwed by coding for minimum wage in your mother's basement?

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467530)

I'm pretty sure I want careful scrutiny of every other human being on Earth besides myself, because you can't trust any of them, rich or poor. (Of course, I'm trustworthy... just ask me!)

And, in your heart, you know you want exactly the same thing.

The tricky part is backing down from that very unreasonable desire and coming to some kind of reasonable compromise where, perhaps, the people with the greatest power bear the burden of the greatest transparency.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467608)

As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468146)

As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.

Are you saying that if you are not a citizen of Alaska, you have not business reading Sarah Palin's email?

If so, I agree. There is no reason for the governor of Alaska's email to be national news other than a classic smear campaign.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467742)

So, you don't see the difference between someone making $30k/year and a billionaire?

Note that I'm not arguing one way or the other on the issue of who should have their email in the public eye; I'm just wondering how far your mental deficiencies go. Reductio ad absurdum only works if you don't have to make incredibly stupid leaps to get there.

Re:Just like another Weiner scandal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467622)

Well...?
What IS really happening? What else should the media be reporting on? Yet another story about Fukushima?

No thanks (-1, Troll)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467142)

Why the hell would I want to read Sarah Palin's inbox? I am already convinced she is up to no good.

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467172)

Being convinced and being educated are two totally different things. I'm not saying i want to read through all her mumblings, but if you really have a theory about her, prove it.

Re:No thanks (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467294)

My theory is all the interesting, embarrassing, or damning stuff was removed before this release anyways.

Re:No thanks (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467682)

Or sent from her private account that she isn't going to disclose. Yeah, it would be really hard for politicians to create separate email accounts, and use them for nefarious things. Really, really, hard. Good thing none of them have ever thought of that.

Re:No thanks (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468124)

Yeah, I mean, she couldn't possibly have an email on a provider like Yahoo that's not subject to scrutiny (unless someone "hacks" it by inputting easily accessible answers to security questions) and use it for state business, that would be illegal!

Oh wait...

Re:No thanks (-1, Flamebait)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467344)

People are anxious to see her fall, for the simple reasons that she is unbearably unintelligent, and she's equally prideful. It's like a person speeding on a twisting road in the mountains. You know there's gonna be a crash, you just don't want the nation in the back seat when it happens.

Re:No thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467500)

she is unbearably unintelligent, and she's equally prideful.

Sounds like the US population in general.

What's the point? (1, Troll)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467180)

It's public information. You can FOIA Jerry Brown's email. Are we uncovering a scandal here or are some libtards trying to be funny?

Re:What's the point? (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467316)

I'd like to see the email headers myself... the question is not whether you are paranoid, it's whether you are paranoid enough. :p

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467350)

Is Jerry Brown using a Yahoo account to try to sidestep state open records laws?

The guy who brought this information to light is in jail.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467492)

dunno.. is obama using his personal blackberry to side step something? remove your tin foil bennie..

Re:What's the point? (1, Informative)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467594)

Only Score:0 Troll? Can't we go for -1?

This whole article is a troll.

Anybody who has ever had a mail account on a government system knows that all email is archived specifically to comply with the FOIA. It's not like some savvy whistleblower stumbled across Palin's personal emails.


Let's try an experiment:

BUSH IS EVIL!

Now the lemming liberal moderators will blow a fuse trying to figure out which way to mod this.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467672)

Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.

Re:What's the point? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468160)

Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.

If that research is funded by tax payer dollars or is used to form public policy, shouldn't those emails be public? Also, isn't science supposed to be open?

Re:What's the point? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467860)

The point has not been that people wanted access to records that are allowed under FOIA. The point is that it took 2 years to get them and the state made it more difficult than necessary.

Re:What's the point? (3)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467916)

Sounds like a certain long form birth certificate. And equally unimportant.

Re:What's the point? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468120)

No that story was that the long form was not required but people made up all sorts of stories why it wasn't released and questioned the existence even though the state legally could not release it but acknowledged it existed.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468094)

That's the point. People assumed that she was using this outside email service to avoid having her conversations archived, so they are anticipating finding something in the emails that she didn't want made public. Still, since 4% of the emails weren't released, even if nothing is found in this 96% people will wonder about the rest.

Is Palin in the govt? (2, Informative)

CLaRGe (2267700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467210)

I can understand govt watchdogging; we need that. But she's not even in the govt.

Re:Is Palin in the govt? (3, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467428)

But the emails stem from a time when she was in government. Just because of that, I say that they are fair game. Now.... if people would stop reporting on her every waking minute (and don't watch it, for god's sake!), she would disappear into the night. She is nothing without publicity.

Re:Is Palin in the govt? (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467478)

Don't you know We don't like her so its big news when something you can use to make fun of her is released. I mean, in all honesty this is probably reasonable in aspects that it will not be used for. Really it'll be used for making fun of a dumb girl. Its what the internet is for.

Re:Is Palin in the govt? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467886)

It wouldn't have been much of a story had Alaska released them 2 years ago when the first requests were made. The story is it took this long.

Re:Is Palin in the govt? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467714)

The FOIA request for the mails was put up when she actually was in the government. They just managed to drag the process along until these day. Telling in itself.

Hatred goes a long way (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468064)

The number of justifications given is just endless. Whenever I encounter someone with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) I have learned it is best just to walk away. It gets really silly if they start spouting Tina Fey lines when they try to show their intelligence.

If anything the e-mail episode proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the partisan traits of two certain papers.

Now, lets see someone try this with those on the other side of the political spectrum, say someone who ain't white, and see how far it gets.

Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (5, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467242)

...this ...this ...what do they call it? "Palin Derangement Syndrome." Yeah. "PDS." But I see it now, with this whole e-mail witch hunt, and man, is it ugly and perverse. And from the people who typically whine the most about "privacy," no less!

Pathetic.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467400)

Public servants do not have an expectation of privacy on their official e-mail accounts. In fact, public access and scrutiny is essential to validate that they are behaving as the public wishes in their official capacity. Your concern is invalid.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467454)

You're right. Except Palin isn't in public office (at least not at the moment), so your response is invalid.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467522)

Wait ... did I miss something, are these CURRENT emails, or when she was in office? No, so your point is moot.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467542)

Which is why we aren't demanding to see her emails from least week. These are emails she sent while in public office, so they are fair game. You can question the motivations all you want, but it's perfectly legal, and frankly, an awful lot of corruption goes unnoticed while the official is in office only to result in charges brought years later after the investigation is complete. I am not implying there is any evidence of wrongdoing in this case; I am only pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that these emails are irrelevant because Palin is no longer in office.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467732)

You're right. Except Palin isn't in public office (at least not at the moment), so your response is invalid.

She was in public office. These emails are from the time she was in public office. It took a while to get them, because forwarding emails is beyond the capability of her IT people, or they were just stalling.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (2)

SengirV (203400) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467850)

So you are in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's subpoena to get the climate research data from Michael Mann then.

Good, because Mann received funding from the state of Virginia.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468152)

Mann wasn't elected or appointed to serve in a political office. He is an employee of a public university which happens to receive a portion of its funding from the Virginian government. The two are only superficially similar.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (2)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467882)

They also have no expectation of privacy for what they put in the dumpster behind their office, but people generally don't sift through public figures' trash. There's little reason to expect to find anything of interest and this is the FOIA equivalent of a fishing expedition.

Of course FOIA fishing expeditions aren't illegal and you're welcome to sift through her trash. However, I can also exercise my right to tell you that you're sifting through trash.

I can't stand the woman but this whole thing is petty.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (1, Flamebait)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467502)

"Palin Derangement Syndrome."

Ah yes, I have seen this brought up before. Instead of wondering WHY people are intensely looking at what the politician in question has done, both now and in the past, they immediately start attacking those who are inquiring, calling them "deranged." It couldn't be because her political history is sketchy. It couldn't be because a woman who was almost VP and is still adored by the Tea Party, has made many statements that draw her value as a representative into question.

People want to see what she has said and done, in public office, before. But hey, she's a popular Republican politician so any inquiry or criticisms are just deragement. Time for congress to go on another $40 million dollar witch hunt again against whatever Democrat they can.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467786)

But you just defined "witch hunt" as intensely looking at what a politician in question has done, both now and in the past... So how is that any different?

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468102)

I have seen this brought up before

The fact that you think you're actually saying something there is telling. This particular meme is difficult to miss for those that haven't confined themselves exclusively to self-affirming punditry.

intensely looking

The emails produced nothing. Several news organizations employed teams of journalists to rapidly examine every word. That is pretty intense.

Nothing of note emerged. This must be because the incriminating bits were withheld, or the nitwit somehow miraculously avoided exposing her criminal enterprise throughout years worth of correspondence, right? The possibility that she was merely an honest and possibly even competent (!) governor that stayed inside the lines while doing her duty must not be entertained.

There is precious little genuine examination of what actually occurred or what was actually said. While you may be among the few exceptions, the others are just parroting their favorite pundits; malcontent lefties immersed in an echo chamber of pure bullshit.

Re:Y'Know, I Never Really Bought Into This... (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467602)

But I see it now, with this whole e-mail witch hunt, and man, is it ugly and perverse. And from the people who typically whine the most about "privacy," no less!

If you don't want the public looking through your work related e-mail, don't get elected to public office.

can't wait (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467268)

I can't wait to vote for Palin in 2012. she might be the catalyst to bring down this outdated empire.

Can we please... (5, Insightful)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467278)

Can we please stop paying attention to this nitwit? Wasn't her 15 minutes up a LONG time ago?

Re:Can we please... (2)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467402)

Its not people that support her that are calling all this attention to her, its the people that have the irrational dislike/hatred of her.

Re:Can we please... (-1, Flamebait)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467498)

Which then makes her few fans say "She must be doing something right! The left freaks out over her!" Then they wipe the drool off their mouth and make love to their sister.

Re:Can we please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467516)

Its not people that support her that are calling all this attention to her, its the people that have the irrational dislike/hatred of her.

What scares me the most is there are people that does support her. She is horrible for government!

(and funny enough. My word validation is "cringe")

Re:Can we please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467580)

She did a decent job in Alaska. Is she Presidential material? No, But did she do a better than average job as governor? Yeah. So "horrible"? meh.

Re:Can we please... (-1, Flamebait)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467668)

no...no it is pretty rational.

It isnt because of her ignorant statements about the "lame stream media", blaming them for all of HER mistakes.
It isnt because she knows less about USA than an immigrant 5th grader than came into the USA in the middle of 4th grade
It isnt because she is a hypocrite that advocates good parenting, yet her own daughter had a kid under 18 (societies social norm)
It isnt that she had her own "reality show" that was just as fake as she is

It isnt that she climbed to fame because Republicans were looking for the "counter" to Obama and no other reason
It isnt that she used that fame to spread her ignorance throughout the world.
It isnt that she couldnt even finish half a term as an elected representative.
Its that she blatantly lies about things and then backs it up with ignorant statements.

See she represents all that is BAD in the USA.

Re:Can we please... (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467740)

Funny, i think that Nancy Pelosi, her polar opposite, is "all that is BAD in the USA". Want to compare the two?

Re:Can we please... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36468232)

Funny, i think that Nancy Pelosi, her polar opposite, is "all that is BAD in the USA".

Oh, c'mon! Give her a break! Nancy Pelosi is simply misunderstood (understandable, as her face doesn't move). She just wants what is best for you. She'll let you know what that is after she's done passing it into law See? Proactive, with the People's best interests at heart, AND transparent!.

What!?

Strat

Re:Can we please... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467722)

>irrational

Speak for yourself.

As someone living up here in the Northeast, when you come up here to lecture us about history (there are 391 years of it here), you'd better know your shit.

But no, she came up here, didn't know, tried to make some sort of point that I'm still trying to figure out, and is arrogant about it. And that's just recent history. Just trying to parse her word salad on a day to day basis must make any political aide or reporter go insane.

Yet she has aspirations to be President some day.

Stupid isn't bad, if you're not bull-headed. Arrogant isn't bad if you know your stuff. Stupid *and* arrogant? You really want that?

The hatred is not irrational.

--
BMO

Re:Can we please... (5, Insightful)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467990)

I would like to introduce you to Joe Biden, Vice President and first in line to become POTUS. . . . . You were saying?

What did she get wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468052)

What exactly did she get wrong about the history?

Re:Can we please... (0, Troll)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467518)

Can we please stop paying attention to this nitwit?

Until she's assuredly NOT a presidential candidate, she will be in the public eye. The best thing to do is expose her for who she truly is, and make her go away sooner.

Re:Can we please... (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467610)

People are drama addicts. Palin's 15 minutes was just enough time to launch a whole new domain of reality TV. It's a brilliantly manufactured PR campaign. no less.

Re:Can we please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467680)

Yeah, this nitwit that drives the leftwing moonbats insane. Thank you Sarah!

Not necessary (4, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467282)

This sort of email sifting is more about drumming up negative publicity for one's political enemies than watching out for government abuse.

If you really want to find government abuse all you need is thomas.loc.gov. Most if it is documented there.

Re:Not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467546)

There's no point going through these emails, it's already been published all her dodgy stuff went through a web account.

Everyone is now dumber (4, Funny)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467304)

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Re:Everyone is now dumber (1)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467560)

^^^ THIS. I lack mod points, but this form of recognition I feel is much more public...

Re:Everyone is now dumber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468046)

If whoever said that had to involve "god", then how much dumber can he really get??
It's like being angry at someone for throwing him off the carpet... in the basement. ;)

Just skimming through for the heck of it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467380)

Check out this customer service issue [sarahsinbox.com] if you think you have it rough when you call for tech support.

Photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467442)

If this thing doesn't include photos, so that we may fight photos of her nude or having sex... then it's pointless.

GET OUT OF POLITICS AND TAKE IT OFF ALREADY!

Worth it? (1)

doktorstop (725614) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467512)

I bet 50% of those reading Slashdot have access or run all of those Exchange servers... so they are used to the *possibility* to read other people's emails. So what's the big deal? Her minute of fame has passed a long time away. And then, for most of the audience that lives in strange countries like Europe and Asia, who the hell is she anyways?

Watch the Prez Instead (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467528)

Palin's not running for office. Focus on the currently elected leaders instead. This article sums it up pretty well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/11/welch.palin.email/index.html [cnn.com]

Re:Watch the Prez Instead (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467906)

She was in office when this FOIA request was made. It's just that the stated purposefully delayed for enough years that it wasn't until after she left office that they released anything.

Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36467678)

This is childish, a diversion from the real criminals in government. Slashdot should ignore this, but most on here are anti-American anything so it gets posted. You idiots do realize both parties are screwing us over?

Re:Weird (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467918)

This is childish, a diversion from the real criminals in government. Slashdot should ignore this, but most on here are anti-American anything so it gets posted. You idiots do realize both parties are screwing us over?

I think you're reading the wrong website if you're expecting balanced news reporting from all sides of the political spectrum - Slashdot is not a political website (though they do certainly run politically slanted aricles on geek political issues like net neutrality and freedom of speech issues).

This issue has some geek interest since the documents were released on paper (apparently as a big F*ck you! to everyone that wanted to make them public, since a CD-ROM or DVD release would have been trivial and saved a lot of paper, if you can print something you can capture it as a PDF), and a website scanned in the emails to make them publically available and searchable.

If they hadn't tried to obfuscate them with a paper-only release and released the emails online like any agency interested in transparency would have done, then this issue would have likely not made the pages of slashdot since all of the mainstream news outlets would have published a link to them.

Why (1)

JB19000 (1389999) | more than 2 years ago | (#36467810)

Why would anyone actually want to read this? The media can steal their snippets for headlines, but after that, who cares?

Incompetence and coverups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36468012)

It only takes two years if you have to sift through the mailbox and find nooks and crannies to stuff dirt, or otherwise cover shit up and corroborate stories with peers. Its also an Exchange server as evidenced by the in alot of headers:

"[/O=SOAIOU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=....]",

so these two commands could have dumped her mailbox in short order.

Add-MailboxPermission -Identity sarah.palin -User TheAlaskaStateITAdmin -AccessRights FullAccess

Export-Mailbox -Identity sarah.palin@alaska.gov -PSTFolderPath c:\lots-o-dumbshit-and-dirt.pst

Similarly there are programmatic ways to redact info to/from or "containing X". Incompetent IT staff, or mountains of dirt to hide. Pick one (or both).

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...