PDA

View Full Version : Man faces 50 years in prison for hacking Palin's Yahoo acct



Sporkman
April 20th, 2010, 01:50 PM
Convictions on all four felony charges identity theft, wire fraud, intentionally accessing Palin's e-mail account without authorization and obstructing an FBI investigation could send Kernell to prison for up to 50 years.

...

He is accused of accessing Palin's Yahoo! e-mail account by answering a series of personal security questions, resetting the password to "popcorn," making screen shots and posting the contents online using the nickname "rubico."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKaG9lu3DaZkgjDbJEwUUdTVPoAwD9F6L49O0

Roasted
April 20th, 2010, 01:54 PM
lolololol 50 years? If it was MY yahoo account that got hacked, nobody would care.

bah!

zekopeko
April 20th, 2010, 01:55 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKaG9lu3DaZkgjDbJEwUUdTVPoAwD9F6L49O0

Well thats USA for you. Tough on crime and humanity.

samjh
April 20th, 2010, 02:28 PM
An excessive sentence, from a common sense perspective. Having said that, a fairly severe penalty is warranted. No-one, not even a vice-presidential candidate, should have their personal e-mail account illegally accessed -- regardless of whether that account is used for political correspondence.

zekopeko
April 20th, 2010, 02:33 PM
An excessive sentence, from a common sense perspective. Having said that, a fairly severe penalty is warranted. No-one, not even a vice-presidential candidate, should have their personal e-mail account illegally accessed -- regardless of whether that account is used for political correspondence.

If I remember correctly that account was used for government work. It was intentionally circumventing government transparency laws.

An the potential sentence is inhuman. Ever hear of "punishment should fit the crime"?

Viva
April 20th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Serves him right

V for Vincent
April 20th, 2010, 02:37 PM
Serves him right

50 years? How much is murder on the other side of the pond, these days? A couple of months in jail and a reasonably high fine would seem warranted, but if it was someone else's account, no one would give a damn.

zekopeko
April 20th, 2010, 02:40 PM
Serves him right

I hope not. At most community service.

Roasted
April 20th, 2010, 02:40 PM
50 years? How much is murder on the other side of the pond, these days? A couple of months in jail and a reasonably high fine would seem warranted, but if it was someone else's account, no one would give a damn.

+34895840985039840958340980398500893845093

So true. 50 year penalty is SEVERE overkill. After all, it's just Palin. Pfft.

MaxIBoy
April 20th, 2010, 03:04 PM
If memory serves, the only thing he did was guess the password. That's hardly "hacking" by any definition.

If it was being used to circumvent transparency laws, then it should have been broken into and made public, and it's disappointing that an agent of the government didn't beat this guy to it. Whereas if it was actually being used for secret documents, then why the hell are secret documents being kept in a yahoo account!?

In my opinion, it was Palin's responsibility to keep her own information secure. That means choosing a secure password, and not storing it on some cloud service, especially not yahoo! So yeah, she had it coming.

chucky chuckaluck
April 20th, 2010, 03:08 PM
wow! he probably could've gotten half that if he'd just killed her instead.

Roasted
April 20th, 2010, 03:10 PM
wow! he probably could've gotten half that if he'd just killed her instead.

:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:

sydbat
April 20th, 2010, 03:52 PM
wow! he probably could've gotten half that if he'd just killed her instead.Unfortunately true. It's sad that minor, even inconsequential things garner such severe punishment in the US, while serious things get the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'...

craigeo
April 20th, 2010, 05:12 PM
Nah... murder still gets you the death sentence or life in prison depending on the state. Of course that all depends on if they actually convict you of 1st degree murder or it's pleaded down, etc.

darthmob
April 20th, 2010, 05:22 PM
Quoting Rammstein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydlX7c8HbY): "Amerika ist wunderbar!" :roll:

Doctor Mike
April 20th, 2010, 05:45 PM
The man is facing 50 years only if, he is convicted on all counts and receives a maximum non-concurrent sentence. This should never happen. If the Jury is involved in the sentencing phase and the judge can't overturn (not familiar with specific state laws) the jury sentence, then he, rubico, may be in for a bit of trouble. Any undue harsh sentence will be appealed and likely overturned. The media is not know for being realistic...:)

The fact that his actions exposed Palin's attempt to evade transparency laws should be taken into account. If not during the trial, then during the sentencing phase.

swoll1980
April 20th, 2010, 06:13 PM
To put your minds at ease: The 50 years would be if the judge handed out maximum sentences on all counts to be served consecutively (one sentence after the other, then another, then another). The media always throws these huge numbers out there to get a response. No judge in their right mind would ever do this. He will give him the max on one count the rest will be served concurrently(all at the same time) With good behaver, this kid will do a year in prison, and 5 years probation. The only times you ever see judges hand out consecutive sentences is for violent repeat offenders.

nikhilbhardwaj
April 20th, 2010, 07:10 PM
An excessive sentence, from a common sense perspective. Having said that, a fairly severe penalty is warranted. No-one, not even a vice-presidential candidate, should have their personal e-mail account illegally accessed -- regardless of whether that account is used for political correspondence.

I beg to differ.
If a user sets his password to "password" and is hacked, then you tell me whose fault it is.
Sarah Palin or for that matter anybody is responsible for their security online.

As for 50 years
thats an absolute joke
i think 50 years is excessive even for murder of the first degree.

swoll1980
April 20th, 2010, 07:17 PM
I beg to differ.
If a user sets his password to "password" and is hacked, then you tell me whose fault it is.
Sarah Palin or for that matter anybody is responsible for their security online.

As for 50 years
thats an absolute joke
i think 50 years is excessive even for murder of the first degree.

What planet are you from? You're saying if your sister leaves the door unlocked, and some one rapes her, the rapist should get nothing, because she should have locked the door. :roll: You're walking down the street at night, and get hit by a drunk driver. It's not his fault you shouldn't have been walking at night. If I leave my door wide open, it doesn't give you the right to commit a crime.

CharlesA
April 20th, 2010, 07:26 PM
To put your minds at ease: The 50 years would be if the judge handed out maximum sentences on all counts to be served consecutively (one sentence after the other, then another, then another). The media always throws these huge numbers out there to get a response. No judge in their right mind would ever do this. He will give him the max on one count the rest will be served concurrently(all at the same time) With good behaver, this kid will do a year in prison, and 5 years probation. The only times you ever see judges hand out consecutive sentences is for violent repeat offenders.

+1.

Huge numbers = huge number of hits.

zekopeko
April 20th, 2010, 07:27 PM
What planet are you from? You're saying if your sister leaves the door unlocked, and some one rapes her, the rapist should get nothing, because she should have locked the door. :roll: You're walking down the street at night, and get hit by a drunk driver. It's not his fault you shouldn't have been walking at night. If I leave my door wide open, it doesn't give you the right to commit a crime.

I think the point is that damage in this case is negligible. Its not like Palin's public image was tarnished.

Sporkman
April 20th, 2010, 07:30 PM
I think the point is that damage in this case is negligible. Its not like Palin's public image was tarnished.

Her privacy was violated, and Yahoo's image was tarnished...

swoll1980
April 20th, 2010, 07:32 PM
+1.

Huge numbers = huge number of hits.

Most murderers, and I'm talking in the high 90 percentile will only do 25 years, or less in prison, unless they re-offend while they're in there.

swoll1980
April 20th, 2010, 07:36 PM
I think the point is that damage in this case is negligible. Its not like Palin's public image was tarnished.

Ok lets reword it then, even though the principle stays the same. Your sister leaves the door unlocked, it's ok to enter the house, take photos of her in the shower, and raid her pantie drawer.

V for Vincent
April 20th, 2010, 07:46 PM
Poor security does not make the hacking acceptable. That said, making your secret question "guessable", especially if you're a governor who ran for vice-president trying to avoid transparency regulations, is plain ridiculous.

whiskeylover
April 20th, 2010, 07:46 PM
Ok lets reword it then, even though the principle stays the same. Your sister leaves the door unlocked, it's ok to enter the house, take photos of her in the shower, and raid her pantie drawer.

Lol, I agree with swool. The law was broken. But whether it deserves a 50 year sentence is debatable.

I also think Palin should be charged with mishandling information. Although, she might just plead mental retardation.

/Pawley Ticks

Chronon
April 20th, 2010, 08:20 PM
Nah... murder still gets you the death sentence or life in prison depending on the state. Of course that all depends on if they actually convict you of 1st degree murder or it's pleaded down, etc.

I haven't observed that to be true.
http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/murderguidelines.htm

That link suggests that with no prior convictions the sentence is typically 10 years in the state of Oregon.

MCVenom
April 20th, 2010, 08:44 PM
To put your minds at ease: The 50 years would be if the judge handed out maximum sentences on all counts to be served consecutively (one sentence after the other, then another, then another). The media always throws these huge numbers out there to get a response. No judge in their right mind would ever do this. He will give him the max on one count the rest will be served concurrently(all at the same time) With good behaver, this kid will do a year in prison, and 5 years probation. The only times you ever see judges hand out consecutive sentences is for violent repeat offenders.
Thank god -- the one thing I've noticed about Linux is that it has a pretty international audience (especially in the UK, that's why both of the Linux magazines I buy want me to pay $120+ for magazine subscriptions. That's around 80 pounds, you people and your snobby European economy! :lolflag:).

Anyway, I figure between Bush, Microsoft, and some of the craziest laws I have ever seen, this could be at times an awkward world for an American to be in :lolflag:.

And of course, I will end this awkwardly posted post with a scientific fact!
"Today, international public opinion of America has dropped 5%, coming out to... -9504385 percent."

Danny Dubya
April 20th, 2010, 08:51 PM
Ok lets reword it then, even though the principle stays the same. Your sister leaves the door unlocked, it's ok to enter the house, take photos of her in the shower, and raid her pantie drawer.
Unless nude photographs of Palin are floating around in her Yahoo e-mail account, I'd believe that "taking a pile of letters from the kitchen table and taking photographs of each of their envelopes, before tossing the key into a nearby pond and locking the doors on your way out" is far, far more comparable to what happened here than any sort of frightening or perverted scenario you can come up with to try to justify a harsh sentence for this little turd.

beetleman64
April 20th, 2010, 09:01 PM
50 Years!? You only get 15 years for murder in this country (and that's if the judge really hates you). Still, that's America for you.

But in all seriousness, no-one should have their e-mail account hacked and I do believe that, excessive or not, you should get a stiff penalty for this. Mind you, someone could have my e-mail account as well as everyone of my Facebook friends list and no-one would care/notice.

zekopeko
April 20th, 2010, 09:05 PM
Unless nude photographs of Palin are floating around in her Yahoo e-mail account, I'd believe that "taking a pile of letters from the kitchen table and taking photographs of each of their envelopes, before tossing the key into a nearby pond and locking the doors on your way out" is far, far more comparable to what happened here than any sort of frightening or perverted scenario you can come up with to try to justify a harsh sentence for this little turd.

A better analogy would be your sister has a "secret" password with the mailman. Somebody guesses the password and the mailman gives him photocopies of your sisters correspondence which is largely compromised of official governmental business which is a matter of public record and should have been available to anyone who asked for it.

Your transaction with the mailman is happening on the Moon, thousands of kilometers from your sisters home.

After that you go to a public square and read some parts of it. After that you offer to copy free of charge the mail they would like to take home and read.

Simian Man
April 20th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Keep in mind that "facing" 50 years is a lot different than "sentenced" to 50 years. That's the maximum charge for all of his potential offenses added together. I doubt any judge would sentence him to that. Sometimes a defendant will face something absurd like 300 years in prison and be sentenced to 10 or 20.

I just wish there would have been something more controversial in her email :).

Tristam Green
April 20th, 2010, 09:15 PM
ITT:

- Silly analogies.
- Drugstore law degrees
- Sweeping generalizations.
- A quote of Rammstein, which has evidently not yet gone out of style :confused:
- America-hatin', which is another "it" thing to do.
- Politics

Am I missing anything?

whiskeylover
April 20th, 2010, 09:26 PM
ITT:

- Silly analogies.
- Drugstore law degrees
- Sweeping generalizations.
- A quote of Rammstein, which has evidently not yet gone out of style :confused:
- America-hatin', which is another "it" thing to do.
- Politics

Am I missing anything?

Underwear fetish

Half-Left
April 20th, 2010, 09:41 PM
This is the country remember that actually give people 200 years, just in case you happen to live that long. :lolflag:

50 years for that is stupid, since this guy may as well have gone out and murdered her and got less. :p

swoll1980
April 20th, 2010, 09:59 PM
Unless nude photographs of Palin are floating around in her Yahoo e-mail account, I'd believe that "taking a pile of letters from the kitchen table and taking photographs of each of their envelopes, before tossing the key into a nearby pond and locking the doors on your way out" is far, far more comparable to what happened here than any sort of frightening or perverted scenario you can come up with to try to justify a harsh sentence for this little turd.

How do you know there weren't any nude photos? The guy that hacked the E-mail had no Idea what was in it until he opened it. No different than someone going in your house, and opening your drawers. I'm not trying to justify anything. Saying It was ok to take stuff because "it should have been public" or "It didn't hurt anybody" is justifying. There's not going to be a harsh punishment. Don't believe every thing the media says, and you will be fine. I was making it clear that practicing poor security, doesn't make it ok for people to commit crimes against you. My analogies had nothing to do with the crime it's self. read the thread.

miles2152
April 20th, 2010, 10:22 PM
I agree the guy violated her privacy and has soiled Yahoo's image in all of this but 50 years does seem excessive. The government is really cracking down on white collar and computer crime and handing out harsh punishment to send a message to the public that it won't be tolerated.

zekopeko
April 21st, 2010, 12:06 AM
Keep in mind that "facing" 50 years is a lot different than "sentenced" to 50 years. That's the maximum charge for all of his potential offenses added together. I doubt any judge would sentence him to that. Sometimes a defendant will face something absurd like 300 years in prison and be sentenced to 10 or 20.

I just wish there would have been something more controversial in her email :).

Depends on the statutory minimums. What if he ends up a couple of years in jail?

swoll1980
April 21st, 2010, 12:21 AM
What if he ends up a couple of years in jail?

He should have thought about that before he did it, as my father always says.

wilee-nilee
April 21st, 2010, 12:45 AM
wow! he probably could've gotten half that if he'd just killed her instead.

As long as it wasn't premeditated, good comment though.

agnes
April 21st, 2010, 01:31 AM
I assume it's the image of Yahoo and/or Palin that makes this such a big deal. For as far as I know, the hacker didn't publish the mails.


No different than someone going in your house, and opening your drawers.
If your door would have a hypothetical stupid 1-digit-lock and the person did nothing with the content of your drawers and left everything as it was... I doubt non-famous, non-public-image-holding people would care to sue such a person.
Of course it's technically illegal - but why would the "victim" care about the situation? Nothing changed for him/her. It would be a lesson for the "victim", that real burglars could come into his/her house.

It's like when somebody hacks your webserver but does nothing to the website itself, but you see it in the logs. Good for you to know.
Imho, it's simply lame if you then would track and sue such a person.

For politicians and Yahoo, it might be different because of their image, but should a judge find "image" a reasonable ground for sueing+punishing such a hacker?
That would depend on totally other things, like who told the media.

swoll1980
April 21st, 2010, 01:35 AM
If you walk in someones house, and open there drawers you're going to prison. Just like if you hack some ones E-mail you're going to prison. You don't even have to go into their house. Go to your neighbor's mailbox next door, and start opening his mail. See how fast you go to jail. It's a silly thing to argue about. It's wrong, it's illegal, and you wouldn't want someone doing it to you.

Simian Man
April 21st, 2010, 02:00 AM
I wonder what her password was. Maybe "LadyMaverick2008"?

wilee-nilee
April 21st, 2010, 02:24 AM
I wonder what her password was. Maybe "LadyMaverick2008"?

I heard it was greentea.

Frak
April 21st, 2010, 02:50 AM
Here's what happened when my Yahoo Mail account was accessed:

AT&T: So your account was accessed by an unauthorized party?
Me: Yes
AT&T: OK, we have changed your password, have a nice day!

Anyhow, since (from what I understand) the account was used for Government purposes, the case *might* be thrown out. All government emails must pass through the appropriate government routes. Failure to do so breaks many Government transparency acts. He might have uncovered a goldmine of dirt on Palin.

lovinglinux
April 21st, 2010, 03:41 AM
I wonder if any corrupt politician would ever get such harsh sentence for all the bad things they do under the table...

Frak
April 21st, 2010, 03:43 AM
I wonder if any corrupt politician would ever get such harsh sentence for all the bad things they do under the table...
Considering how the president has the ability to pardon anybody they choose, no.

CarpKing
April 21st, 2010, 04:59 AM
For as far as I know, the hacker didn't publish the mails.

They're all on Wikileaks, if you can find anything on that site.

I guess this guy should have used a better proxy.

ubuntuman001
April 21st, 2010, 07:43 AM
****ing ridiculous

Crunchy the Headcrab
April 21st, 2010, 08:25 AM
I wonder if any corrupt politician would ever get such harsh sentence for all the bad things they do under the table...
Politicians never get seriously punished for the things they do, even when it's screwing with established laws, taking bribes etc. I think this guy should be punished, but 50 years is ridiculous!

Giant Speck
April 21st, 2010, 08:37 AM
I seriously doubt he's actually going to get fifty years.

Fifty years is the maximum amount of prison time he could receive if he is convicted of all four felony charges: identity theft, wire fraud, intentionally accessing an e-mail account without authorization and obstructing an FBI investigation.

It will depend on which charges his convicted of, and how many years the judge decides to sentence him for said felonies.

Frak
April 21st, 2010, 08:42 AM
I seriously doubt he's actually going to get fifty years.

Fifty years is the maximum amount of prison time he could receive if he is convicted of all four felony charges: identity theft, wire fraud, intentionally accessing an e-mail account without authorization and obstructing an FBI investigation.

It will depend on which charges his convicted of, and how many years the judge decides to sentence him for said felonies.
What gets me is that I know, for sure, that Palin won't receive any reprimand for:

A) Having a simple password, and
B) Using a non-government sanctioned account for government work.

xpod
April 21st, 2010, 08:44 AM
I wonder if any corrupt politician would ever get such harsh sentence for all the bad things they do under the table...

Probably not. They actually give the thieving scumbags legal aid (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7582362/MPs-expenses-Politicians-granted-legal-aid.html) over here to fight any potential court cases when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Frak
April 21st, 2010, 08:50 AM
Probably not. They actually give the thieving scumbags legal aid (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7582362/MPs-expenses-Politicians-granted-legal-aid.html) over here to fight any potential court cases when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
They don't even need that over here, the president has the ability to pardon any criminal for any reason (unless the president is being impeached). They don't even have to worry about the sentencing, as they're almost guaranteed a pardon.

xpod
April 21st, 2010, 08:55 AM
They don't even need that over here, the president has the ability to pardon any criminal for any reason (unless the president is being impeached). They don't even have to worry about the sentencing, as they're almost guaranteed a pardon.

They were actually trying to wriggle out of it here with the Parliamentary privilege argument. A complete farce so it is.

Frak
April 21st, 2010, 08:57 AM
They were actually trying to wriggle out of it here with the Parliamentary privilege argument. A complete farce so it is.
Where I live, it's considered one of the biggest mistakes made in the constitution. It was abused in Monarch England, so the Anti-Federalist warned that it would be abused in the same way again in the future.

They were right.

Giant Speck
April 21st, 2010, 09:10 AM
What gets me is that I know, for sure, that Palin won't receive any reprimand for:

A) Having a simple password, and
B) Using a non-government sanctioned account for government work.

The first one is an obvious and non-sarcastic "of course not" and can be thrown out. I mean, who is going to reprimand her? Her husband? Yahoo! It was a personal e-mail account, not a government one.

The second one is another "of course not" on the grounds that she's become untouchable. She's become the Oprah of the political world. It doesn't matter what is placed out there in an attempt to tarnish her career; she has amassed so many followers that she could easily recover from such an event and she has.

ubuntuman001
April 21st, 2010, 10:04 AM
The second one is another "of course not" on the grounds that she's become untouchable. She's become the Oprah of the political world. It doesn't matter what is placed out there in an attempt to tarnish her career; she has amassed so many followers that she could easily recover from such an event and she has.
Which is completely sad in and of itself. The fact that she has even one follower shows how much gone to **** the political atmosphere in the US has gone. (yes that's worded badly, but I don't care)

Heh, well now this has turned sortof political...sorry OP, I guess I'm a thread killer! :popcorn:

Sporkman
April 30th, 2010, 09:24 PM
Convicted...


The federal court jury reached its verdict against David Kernell, 22, after four days of deliberation. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and unauthorized access to a computer, but was acquitted on a charge of wire fraud.

The jury deadlocked on a charge of identify theft. Prosecutors reserve the right to have a new trial on that charge. The charge of obstructing an investigation carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence and unauthorized access to a computer is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum one-year sentence.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_hacked

samalex
April 30th, 2010, 10:38 PM
This guy did do something he wasn't supposed to, but I think just because Palin is a high profile person the prosecutors are thumbing through their books trying to throw anything they can at the guy. Yes he broke the law, but he's no criminal mastermind or terrorist, just someone who took advantage of Palin's simple answers to her security questions, which doesn't make him a hacker -- just lucky.

Also I'm no fan of Palin The Tool, but other then some community service or some class on the Internet and maybe a small fine, this guy does not deserve prison time. He ain't no Mitnick :)

Sam

JDShu
May 1st, 2010, 01:57 AM
This case angers me. Anything over 1 year is RIDICULOUS. You're going to ruin a guy's life because some idiot couldn't keep proper care of her email account?

Frak
May 1st, 2010, 02:05 AM
This case angers me. Anything over 1 year is RIDICULOUS. You're going to ruin a guy's life because some idiot couldn't keep proper care of her email account?

This.

Let the punishment fit the crime, lest be compared to Stalin.

djchandler
May 1st, 2010, 02:24 AM
This.

Let the punishment fit the crime, lest be compared to Stalin.

David Kernell did do something he shouldn't have done--one felony and one misdemeanor conviction so far. Any further conviction doesn't look likely unless there is a mis-trial and the young man gets tried all over again.

http://www.memphisflyer.com/JacksonBaker/archives/2010/04/30/kernell-state-reps-son-convicted-of-a-felony-in-palin-e-mail-case

Any prison time for this would be cruel for one so young. We may call people adults at 18 or 21 for some purposes, but IMO hardly anyone is mature these days in this society until they are 30. Kernell is not a hardened criminal. Look at what kind of overcrowding there already is in the prisons. He's not violent or a threat to society at large. Not only that, AKAIK this is the young man's first offense.

Community service should be the extent of his sentencing.

Frak
May 1st, 2010, 02:28 AM
Community service should be the extent of his sentencing.

The US Legal system is a very interesting specimen. Even if something appears to be one way, there's a just as likely chance the court will sway to the other extreme.

craigeo
June 3rd, 2010, 01:17 PM
I haven't observed that to be true.
http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/murderguidelines.htm

That link suggests that with no prior convictions the sentence is typically 10 years in the state of Oregon.

Actually yes they do still give the death sentence...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/02/nevada-jury-sentences-man-death-lethal-injection-rape-murder-college-coed-reno/?test=latestnews

Eisenwinter
June 3rd, 2010, 02:58 PM
If Sarah Palin used a yahoo mail account for work, I feel sorry for her.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 03:42 PM
Exactly how much damage does trying to rig a political election cause?

I see it like I see attempted homicide. Does that mean he should get a light sentence because he didn't kill anyone, or does it mean he should get twice the sentence because not only is he likes to murder people, but he sucks at his chosen profession as well?

Like the second option. Here is a man who wanted to invalidate democracy at the highest levels in of the free world. He thought that was a good idea. AND he sucks at being a sociopath too!

When it was the break in at the Watergate Hotel, they threw the guys in jail, and the President, while he was not directly involved was forced to resign because it was his staff who did it.

This is about the same, except the perp is an idiot. His father should resign, but won't.

zekopeko
June 3rd, 2010, 03:55 PM
Exactly how much damage does trying to rig a political election cause?

I see it like I see attempted homicide. Does that mean he should get a light sentence because he didn't kill anyone, or does it mean he should get twice the sentence because not only is he likes to murder people, but he sucks at his chosen profession as well?

Like the second option. Here is a man who wanted to invalidate democracy at the highest levels in of the free world. He thought that was a good idea. AND he sucks at being a sociopath too!

When it was the break in at the Watergate Hotel, they threw the guys in jail, and the President, while he was not directly involved was forced to resign because it was his staff who did it.

This is about the same, except the perp is an idiot. His father should resign, but won't.

He wanted to invalidate democracy by exposing Palin's crookedness? Really?

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. The attempted homicide hyperbole demonstrates that pretty clearly. I would love to see you in his shoes. I think you would sing a different, less self-righteous, tune.

Roasted
June 3rd, 2010, 04:40 PM
I like how you can kill somebody and get less time. Yet you hack Palin's email and it's, gasp, seriouz buzinezz.

Come on, it's Palin. Just give him a fine and let him go on his way. ](*,)

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 04:42 PM
He wanted to invalidate democracy by exposing Palin's crookedness? Really?

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. The attempted homicide hyperbole demonstrates that pretty clearly. I would love to see you in his shoes. I think you would sing a different, less self-righteous, tune.

If he were not a spoiled millionaire's son, and was a 20 year old minority from the inner city who committed a felony, he'd already be in prison.

I just don't believe there is a difference between rich crime and poor crime.

And no, I would no more go into somebodies email system than I would break into their house. Guess I'm from a different generation.

I missed the story about Mrs. Palin has been convicted of a crime in the matter. Last I heard he was trying to dig up dirt to rig the election, but came away empty handed. And he gave people Mrs. Palin's daughters telephone number to try and stress out the family.

It's time for the world to understand that crime has evolved just like CPU's have. Just because you use a crowbar or a gun to tread on your neighbors instead of a computer, doesn't make you more of a criminal. If anything, the computer makes you a coward AND a criminal.

PS - He's rich. Rich people seldom do time in the US. That 50 years nonsense is just that. You don't get 10 years if are rich and steal billions of dollars. You would have to rob a liquor store for $20 to get that kind of sentence.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 04:50 PM
If he were not a spoiled millionaire's son, and was a 20 year old minority from the inner city who committed a felony, he'd already be in prison.

I just don't believe there is a difference between rich crime and poor crime.

And no, I would no more go into somebodies email system than I would break into their house. Guess I'm from a different generation.

I missed the story about Mrs. Palin has been convicted of a crime in the matter. Last I heard he was trying to dig up dirt to rig the election, but came away empty handed. And he gave people Mrs. Palin's daughters telephone number to try and stress out the family.

It's time for the world to understand that crime has evolved just like CPU's have. Just because you use a crowbar or a gun to tread on your neighbors instead of a computer, doesn't make you more of a criminal. If anything, the computer makes you a coward AND a criminal.

PS - He's rich. Rich people seldom do time in the US. That 50 years nonsense is just that. You don't get 10 years if are rich and steal billions of dollars. You would have to rob a liquor store for $20 to get that kind of sentence.

So you no longer assert he's trying to rig an election & subvert democracy?

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 04:55 PM
So you no longer assert he's trying to rig an election & subvert democracy?

No, I'm saying his goal was to subvert democracy by rigging an election, and he's rich. So he will normally get no jail time.

doas777
June 3rd, 2010, 04:56 PM
what punishment will Palin receive for using yahoo to intentionally violate sunshine laws? If the HP execs didn't see prison time for doing the same thing, i have to wonder how this kid gets 50 years.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 04:59 PM
No, I'm saying his goal was to subvert democracy by rigging an election, and he's rich. So he will normally get no jail time.

How would hacking an email account lead to the rigging of an election?

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:01 PM
what punishment will Palin receive for using yahoo to intentionally violate sunshine laws? If the HP execs didn't see prison time for doing the same thing, i have to wonder how this kid gets 50 years.

Exactly where are you finding the 50 year sentence? I'm not seeing it. If you are repeat offender, and ineligible for probation, and the actions of the crime are particularly heinous, perhaps 50 years could be given. It doesn't seem this is the case.

I'm predicting less than 2 years, suspended sentence, or time served, plus probation.

doas777
June 3rd, 2010, 05:01 PM
No, I'm saying his goal was to subvert democracy by rigging an election, and he's rich. So he will normally get no jail time.
you can't really call releasing information to be "rigging an election". additionally, none of the information in her state-related email accounts would be hidden from a FOIA request in compliance with state and federal sunshine/transparency laws. nothing in her email could be considered an inappropriate release of information, unless she was using the yahoo account to bypass transparency laws. I'd say that intentionally hiding that information was more of an attempt to subvert democracy than anyone elses actions.

don't get me wrong, I don't defend pretexters, but using federal hacking law to attack password guessing is just plain silly.

varunendra
June 3rd, 2010, 05:04 PM
Well thats USA for you. Tough on crime and humanity.

zekopeko's location (in profile) says: /earth/europe
I'd say: multiple errors found:
Invalid location /earth/europe (maybe /Solar-System/Earth/Europe?)
File not found: /earth/europe/zekopeko (maybe some levels missing? Like /earth/europe/<country>/<state/province>/<city>/<street>/<No.>/zekopeko?)

doas777
June 3rd, 2010, 05:05 PM
zekopeko's location (in profile) says: /earth/europe
I'd say: multiple errors found:

Invalid location /earth/europe (maybe /Solar-System/Earth/Europe?)
File not found: /earth/europe/zekopeko (maybe some levels missing? Like /earth/europe/<country>/<state/province>/<city>/<street>/<No.>/zekopeko?)


you only need that level of verification for web sites in the US.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:08 PM
How would hacking an email account lead to the rigging of an election?


There was a rumor published as fact that Mrs. Palin was conducting criminal actitivies. The crook tried to find it, but found it was groundless instead.

But instead of shutting his mouth, he decided to see how much damage he could muster out the breech. That's why he's an idiot. He was so committed to tearing another human down, that when he found he was wrong, he continued unabated.

He's a malicious piece of dung. I imagine we will see him in the news again. Usually it will involve date rape or white collar crime (Kennedy Syndrome). If you have no moral compass you eventually run into fixed objects; it's a navigational dilemma.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:12 PM
you can't really call releasing information to be "rigging an election". additionally, none of the information in her state-related email accounts would be hidden from a FOIA request in compliance with state and federal sunshine/transparency laws. nothing in her email could be considered an inappropriate release of information, unless she was using the yahoo account to bypass transparency laws. I'd say that intentionally hiding that information was more of an attempt to subvert democracy than anyone elses actions.

don't get me wrong, I don't defend pretexters, but using federal hacking law to attack password guessing is just plain silly.


So you won't have any problems if somebody tries 100 different keys on your car or house to see if they can get in?

Just because a computer is involved doesn't change morality. There are evil things you can do with a computer, and pretty much everything else that exists.

Do you believe the Watergate Break-in (back then, you needed to get paper files, not emails) was valid because they were looking for political dirt? I don't. I think they should have gotten 20 years, but they didn't.

zekopeko
June 3rd, 2010, 05:15 PM
There was a rumor published as fact that Mrs. Palin was conducting criminal actitivies. The crook tried to find it, but found it was groundless instead.

But instead of shutting his mouth, he decided to see how much damage he could muster out the breech. That's why he's an idiot. He was so committed to tearing another human down, that when he found he was wrong, he continued unabated.

He's a malicious piece of dung. I imagine we will see him in the news again. Usually it will involve date rape or white collar crime (Kennedy Syndrome). If you have no moral compass you eventually run into fixed objects; it's a navigational dilemma.

You're projecting your political and social biases. Making unfounded accusations and being a heartless human being.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 05:19 PM
There was a rumor published as fact that Mrs. Palin was conducting criminal actitivies. The crook tried to find it, but found it was groundless instead.

But instead of shutting his mouth, he decided to see how much damage he could muster out the breech. That's why he's an idiot. He was so committed to tearing another human down, that when he found he was wrong, he continued unabated.

He's a malicious piece of dung. I imagine we will see him in the news again. Usually it will involve date rape or white collar crime (Kennedy Syndrome). If you have no moral compass you eventually run into fixed objects; it's a navigational dilemma.

Sorry, still not seeing how this ties to election rigging...

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:24 PM
You're projecting your political and social biases. Making unfounded accusations and being a heartless human being.

If not believing that computer crime is victimless makes me heartless, I suppose I am.

If believing that elections should not be decided by criminal acts makes me heartless, yup heartless.

This is a computer crime issue that happens to have been politically motivated. I see it as no different than when the Chinese government tried to silence political dissent by hacking. If that makes me heartless, I agree. It has nothing to do with any political stance, and everything to do with the nature of crime today.

doas777
June 3rd, 2010, 05:24 PM
So you won't have any problems if somebody tries 100 different keys on your car or house to see if they can get in?

Just because a computer is involved doesn't change morality. There are evil things you can do with a computer, and pretty much everything else that exists.

Do you believe the Watergate Break-in (back then, you needed to get paper files, not emails) was valid because they were looking for political dirt? I don't. I think they should have gotten 20 years, but they didn't.

I believe that the reason the CFAA has such harsh punishments in it, is because this law will be used to prosecute people who use sophisticated computerized means to steal millions, sabotage national infrastructure, corporate espionage, and other extremely serious crimes. as such this is not a crime that can be committed without serious technical skills, technologies, and methodologies. if a 9 year old with a ceral box decoder ring can break an encryption cipher, is that really hacking, or just a poor cipher?

I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be prosecuted, but not under so called 'hacking' legislation.

zekopeko
June 3rd, 2010, 05:25 PM
Sorry, still not seeing how this ties to election rigging...

It doesn't. McRat has poor understanding of the kid's (and other US citizen's) right to Free speech.

kamaboko
June 3rd, 2010, 05:25 PM
He probably had access to her observations regarding international politics such as how she can see the Russians on the other side of Alaska. Palin is a door knob. Too bad he may serve that length of time for hacking an idiot's email account.

Penguin Guy
June 3rd, 2010, 05:25 PM
it's disappointing that an agent of the government didn't beat this guy to it.
Maybe they have, but weren't stupid enough to put it on their blog.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:36 PM
To bring this out of the "political" area, cases like this are important milestones.

Today, the odds that a digital crime will be committed against you are now higher than that of a physical crime. Will humanity migrate towards a legal model that accepts this? It hasn't so far. Malware and CrimEmail are climbing wildly with no matching resources put up against them. Prosecutions are very few.

The fact that Mrs. Palin is not a popular citizen changes NOTHING. I would hope that if a criminal broke into our computers in an attempt to shut down my business that something would be done about it. Sadly the answer is no.

Somehow, somebody got our Dell account information and tried to buy $25,000 worth of computers. Dell called and gave me all the info. I turned it over to the police and they refused to investigate, even when given the shipping address. "We don't do digital crime" was the answer. I'm tired of that attitude, and by reading a lot of the responses here, it looks like that attitude isn't changing in the near future. "It's only a crime if it does serious damage" is what I'm reading.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 05:40 PM
To bring this out of the "political" area, cases like this are important milestones.

Today, the odds that a digital crime will be committed against you are now higher than that of a physical crime. Will humanity migrate towards a legal model that accepts this? It hasn't so far. Malware and CrimEmail are climbing wildly with no matching resources put up against them. Prosecutions are very few.

The fact that Mrs. Palin is not a popular citizen changes NOTHING. I would hope that if a criminal broke into our computers in an attempt to shut down my business that something would be done about it. Sadly the answer is no.

Somehow, somebody got our Dell account information and tried to buy $25,000 worth of computers. Dell called and gave me all the info. I turned it over to the police and they refused to investigate, even when given the shipping address. "We don't do digital crime" was the answer. I'm tired of that attitude, and by reading a lot of the responses here, it looks like that attitude isn't changing in the near future. "It's only a crime if it does serious damage" is what I'm reading.

Nobody's saying it isn't a crime, just that 50 years is excessive. Particularly when you factor in that it was political snooping versus fraud or financial damage (like what you experienced).

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:46 PM
It doesn't. McRat has poor understanding of the kid's (and other US citizen's) right to Free speech.


You're saying that giving out a minor's unlisted phone number on the internet with malicious intent is Free Speech?

Tell us how you believe that is Free Speech. This I have to hear. I like a good laugh in the morning.

:popcorn:

zekopeko
June 3rd, 2010, 05:53 PM
If not believing that computer crime is victimless makes me heartless, I suppose I am.

It's non violent and Palin could have simply asked for damages for invasion of privacy. Wanting to severely punish a kid for a minor crime does make your heartless.


If believing that elections should not be decided by criminal acts makes me heartless, yup heartless.

What criminal acts? The password-guessing "hacking"? Please.


This is a computer crime issue that happens to have been politically motivated. I see it as no different than when the Chinese government tried to silence political dissent by hacking. If that makes me heartless, I agree.

So you are equating a minor offence with an action by a authoritarian government regime that would result in long term prison sentence for expressing what would fall inside First amendment rights. Nice.


It has nothing to do with any political stance, and everything to do with the nature of crime today.

Nature of crime hasn't changed. Only the political reaction to it has. US penal policy sucks. Death and long-term prison sentences aren't a serious deterrent. Not to mention the War on Drugs that is extremely counter productive.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 05:54 PM
Nobody's saying it isn't a crime, just that 50 years is excessive. Particularly when you factor in that it was political snooping versus fraud or financial damage (like what you experienced).


I still haven't found a serious legal reference to the 50 years. That is a media push to minimize the situation by protraying the prosecution as malicious. They don't tell you that Tennessee isn't exactly Palin country, but that slipped their mind.

Time for a Ghoul Pool:

I bet he will serve less that 12 months in jail. Which will still be 12 months more than Ted Kennedy got for manslaughter (drunk driving death at Chappiquidick)

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 05:59 PM
I still haven't found a serious legal reference to the 50 years. That is a media push to minimize the situation by protraying the prosecution as malicious. They don't tell you that Tennessee isn't exactly Palin country, but that slipped their mind.


That is the sum of maximum penalties for the crimes he's being charged with.

Yes Tennessee is Palin country - the original article (or another article about it, I don't recall) discussed that, and when Palin arrived to testify, the jurors were smiling at her in admiration.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 06:06 PM
That is the sum of maximum penalties for the crimes he's being charged with.

Yes Tennessee is Palin country - the original article (or another article about it, I don't recall) discussed that, and when Palin arrived to testify, the jurors were smiling at her in admiration.

Uh, his Dad is a respected Democratic congressman from Tennessee. The Governor is a Democrat also. It's a Democrat controlled state.

Or did they forget that?

zekopeko
June 3rd, 2010, 06:15 PM
Uh, his Dad is a respected Democratic congressman from Tennessee. The Governor is a Democrat also. It's a Democrat controlled state.

Or did they forget that?

LOL. I guess nobody told you but the jurors probably aren't Democrats.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 06:25 PM
LOL. I guess nobody told you but the jurors probably aren't Democrats.

In fact, most are.

Few working class people can afford to be jurors unless they are paid by their employer, which is rare. It's too much hardship.
Only Government, Union, and Unemployed can do it easily. And this is mostly a democratic pool.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 06:26 PM
Uh, his Dad is a respected Democratic congressman from Tennessee. The Governor is a Democrat also. It's a Democrat controlled state.

Or did they forget that?


Pre-trial maneuvering by the defense showed concern that some jurors in heavily Republican East Tennessee could be dazzled when the conservative star testifies.

...

"If I was the individual being charged I would be concerned, particularly the other party," East Tennessee State University political analyst David Briley said. "Politics and religion are pretty close to the vest here."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/20/palin-set-stand-tenn-hacking-trial/


Sarah Palin was the most anticipated witness and she smiled through 30 minutes of testimony last Friday about how disruptive and hurtful the posting had been. Some jurors smiled at her as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36875777


As Palin walked to the witness stand, some jurors smiled at her. The first question from Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Weddle was, "May I call you Governor Palin?"

http://www.startribune.com/politics/91912574.html

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 06:26 PM
In fact, most are.

Few working class people can afford to be jurors unless they are paid by their employer, which is rare. It's too much hardship.
Only Government, Union, and Unemployed can do it easily. And this is mostly a democratic pool.

That is BS.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 06:34 PM
Question::

If you could gain illicit access to the President's private email account, would you do it? Say you were given the password, no hacking involved. You would never be found out, guaranteed.

If the answer is no, why not?

And the same question if was your best friend's account?


Something to think about today.


My answers would be:

No, because that would violate his privacy, for both questions.

Frak
June 3rd, 2010, 06:37 PM
Just a last thought:

If you could gain illicit access to the President's private email account, would you do it? Say you were given the password, no hacking involved. You would never be found out, guaranteed.

If the answer is no, why not?

And the same question if was your best friend's account?


Something to think about today.


My answers would be:

No, because that would violate his privacy, for both questions.
At the same time, she shouldn't have been doing anything government related on that account anyway.

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 06:40 PM
That is BS.


I've done jury duty a couple times. It's retirees, Union, and Government Employees for the most part. My Union (UAW) paid for it, so I went. When I didn't have coverage, and I had to feed my family by working at factory, I found excuses. I'm not an unusual case.

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 06:53 PM
I've done jury duty a couple times. It's retirees, Union, and Government Employees for the most part. My Union (UAW) paid for it, so I went. When I didn't have coverage, and I had to feed my family by working at factory, I found excuses. I'm not an unusual case.

Really, you polled those people?

I've done Jury duty once before. One of the guys there was retired, I think. Others were gainfully employed by private employers, as was I.

BTW your biases are showing again. ;)

LeifAndersen
June 3rd, 2010, 07:08 PM
I have one question, why hasn't this thread been closed for politics yet? (Sorry, I skipped pages 9-11, maybe it was done in there).

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 07:14 PM
I have one question, why hasn't this thread been closed for politics yet? (Sorry, I skipped pages 9-11, maybe it was done in there).


Perhaps because it's a computer security topic?

Sporkman
June 3rd, 2010, 07:16 PM
Perhaps because it's a computer security topic?

Really? :) Is that way we are arguing about how this is election tampering, subversion of democracy, and how the jury system is compromised by unproductive Democrats in Democratic Tennessee? ;)

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 07:32 PM
Really? :) Is that way we are arguing about how this is election tampering, subversion of democracy, and how the jury system is compromised by unproductive Democrats in Democratic Tennessee? ;)

Naw, we are arguing about how unfair it is that a little boy who was just playing on his computer was sentenced to 50 years hard labor in a cruel witchhunt.
:P

McRat
June 3rd, 2010, 07:35 PM
Wait. Scratch that. I think we were arguing about how spying on somebodies emails is a really, really rotten thing to do.
:popcorn:

The only area of contention is whether spying on your ENEMY's emails is wrong, or just your friends. In that aspect, there is a lot of disagreement.

doas777
June 3rd, 2010, 10:00 PM
Wait. Scratch that. I think we were arguing about how spying on somebodies emails is a really, really rotten thing to do.
:popcorn:

The only area of contention is whether spying on your ENEMY's emails is wrong, or just your friends. In that aspect, there is a lot of disagreement.
You obviously didn't read my arguments then. I am talking about the automatic elevation of anything even remotely computer related to the level of "criminal hacking" under the ill-convieved CFAA.