
Accused Palin Hacker Says Stolen E-Mails Were Public Record - vaksel
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/palin-hack
======
newy
Kid did a dumb thing, but from what I know of the facts (no malicious intent)
this seems like a waste of public resources to send this to trial and possibly
keep this guy in jail. Proportionality seems a bit out of whack here, a stiff
fine seems fair enough.

~~~
anamax
> Kid did a dumb thing, but from what I know of the facts (no malicious
> intent)

How do you know that there was no malicious intent? (I'm not saying you don't
- I'm asking how you gained access to this information.)

Putting on my "what if it had happened to {someone else}" hat, I'll ask if
folks would be so forgiving if it had been Biden or Obama?

~~~
newy
You're right, I suppose I was just inferring his intent. But from the facts
that have been released, it looks like he just posted screenshots of his
successful "hack" on 4chan, and didn't try to do anything more nefarious like
steal her identity. I could be wrong.

I think my reaction would have been the same had it been Obama, Biden, or any
public figure. One big difference for me anyway, would have been if he had
accessed a @whitehouse.gov address (whether Bush, Obama or other official).
Being able to figure out her pet's name or whatever seems somewhat trivial to
merit a jail sentence.

~~~
anamax
> But from the facts that have been released, it looks like he just posted
> screenshots of his successful "hack" on 4chan,

Are you saying that it didn't matter to him whose account it was? If it did,
what definition of "not malicious" are we using?

------
adnam
It doesn't matter if the content of the emails was public, breaking into
someones email account is wrong. PG: can we ban wired articles for a while?
There's been a glut of them recently that have little to do with hacking or
startups.

~~~
paulgb
I agree that breaking into someone's account is wrong, but the argument isn't
about that. It's about whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor.

~~~
frossie
Moreover, the legal standing of privacy for e-mails is very interesting and I
doubt I am the only one crious to see where this line of argument goes. For
example, it speaks to the question "If I have consented for my employer to
scan my email, does that mean my employer has the right to make my emails
public"?

