
Sarah Palin’s email hacker is imprisoned, against judge’s recommendation - thedoctor
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/01/13/sarah-palins-email-hacker-imprisoned/
======
ajays
Instead of the blather at this blog, read the original news report here:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463>

The judge didn't "recommend" that he serve it in a half-way house; he just
said that 'even a half-way house would be sufficient punishment' . That
doesn't mean he said "it must be in a half-way house".

Also: he's been sent to a low-security prison, and not a Super-Max.

~~~
xbryanx
The burden of being sentenced to a prison significantly far away from your
current home and family is a terrible burden, regardless of security level.
The justice system understands the punitive damage of this sort of measure,
and surely took this into account in sentencing.

~~~
tptacek
The facts of the case are (almost) undisputed. What the guy did implicated him
for several felonies. He had exceedingly good legal representation --- just
read any of the court record to see that. His team managed to deadlock the
jury on the most serious charge he faced. The one felony he got dinged with
resulted from his destruction of evidence. And all this after (quick reminder)
the guy broke into the still-active email account of John McCain's running
mate during the 2008 election.

It is very, very hard for me to imagine mustering much sympathy for him.
People are routinely imprisoned for computer-related crimes less blatant than
this one. More importantly, people are routinely imprisoned for truly
victimless crimes like "intent-to-distribute" escalations of simple drug
possession. None of them have the resources this guy seems to have had.

I'm not sure the "burden" of a low-security prison far from his home is an
injustice of a cosmic scale.

~~~
marcusbooster
There's so such thing as being "dinged" with a felony. He will wear that
albatross around his neck for the rest of his life.

It's not an "injustice of a cosmic scale" so it may not rise to your threshold
of caring, but he's still a young man going to prison for what is essentially
a prank. Have a little compassion.

~~~
jerf
This isn't a prank. This is an attempt to influence the election of the most
important position in the land using felonious means. He's _lucky_ he's only
getting what he's getting, what he did is far more serious.

It is blindingly obvious that most expressions of sympathy here are because
people approve of the target of the felonious actions. Had he hacked Biden's
email the press would have called for his head and wrung their hands so hard
about the evils of people who oppose Obama/Biden that they might have fallen
off due to lack of blood flow.

But creating an environment where it's OK or acceptable to do this sort of
this thing to "acceptable targets" is creating an environment where one day,
_you'll_ be an "acceptable target". Take a stand. Attempting to influence
elections like this is wrong and can't be tolerated, in addition to the fact
that hacking emails is wrong and can't be tolerated. Being sympathetic because
you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law.

~~~
jbooth
Had he hacked Biden's blog, he probably wouldn't have found official business
illegally done on a personal email.

How come Palin hasn't been charged with anything? She just resigns and people
don't bother to follow up. That's fine and all, but it's a nice backdrop to
this kid getting the book thrown at him.

~~~
tptacek
There is immense incentive within the state of Alaska --- where Palin is
_extremely_ unpopular (in Wasilla, her hometown, her memoir is shelved at a
bookstore under "Alaska Fiction") --- to charge Palin with crimes. She has
been under near continuous investigation since assuming statewide office.

The only people I see suggesting that this email spool contained evidence of
wrongdoing are partisan armchair legal theorists. And, for the record, I think
Palin is a genuine force for evil in our country.

~~~
jbooth
Is there, though? I mean, she was being investigated for a bunch of things,
going after people who had p'd off her husband and such, and then it just
dropped after she left office. Bush is unpopular too, but I don't see anyone
going after any of the stuff that his admin did.

Meanwhile, if your email was hacked? No way the feds take the case. That's
what I'm upset about, mostly. The dufus broke the law but it seems we have an
entirely different standard for enforcement.

RE: evidence of wrongdoing, state business over personal email is illegal,
period, and for very good reasons. This is professional ethics 101 if you've
taken an oath to serve the public in elected office. If you're doing public
business, it has to be on the record. It's legal not theory, it's legal fact..
if it applies to an Alderman, it applies to the Governor.

------
protomyth
from the other thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2099885>

The flip side to "I want my e-mail treated like normal mail" is that the same
penalties will need to be levied. Private citizens can get in a lot of trouble
for tampering with regular mail.

------
bugsy
Just be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's
yahoo mail security question "Where did you meet your spouse?" to which the
answer was "Wasilla High".

source: <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/>

He didn't even have to guess or crack a password. This is really a major
security flaw on yahoo's part, which still exists. The fix in the meantime is
to avoid accounts with such questions, or to answer them with random strings
of characters.

Should this even be a crime? I propose that to keep something secret you
should have reasonable security measures. Easily guessable security questions
like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate
protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be
considered the same as a chain and padlock.

~~~
raganwald
Using a bag twisty to hold a gate is considered _exactly_ the same as a chain
and a padlock for the purposes of trespassing.

If it's clear to you that you aren't to enter my property, you don't enter my
property and it doesn't matter how difficult I make it for you to do what you
already know is wrong.

The issue here is the severity of the sentence, not his guilt, and especially
not blaming the victim.

------
pothibo
That's ridiculous. That means that EVERYONE who has used
<http://codebutler.com/firesheep> can go to prison.

~~~
m0nastic
I don't see how that's ridiculous.

Firesheep is a tool whose sole purpose is to facilitate hijacking a user's
session. If you use Firesheep to gain access to a user account which you don't
own, you're guilty of breaking the law.

The fact that the tool makes this easy has no bearing on its legality.

So yes, everyone who has used Firesheep to gain access to another user's
account without their permission is guilty of breaking the law.

~~~
pothibo
I'm well aware of that. But I think that's ridiculous, it's Internet, not your
house. Even though people nowadays seem to think that you have privacy on the
Internet, you don't. Do you go to jail if you open another phone in your house
while your sister is talking to someone on the phone? You don't. Yes I think
he did put some effort in guessing the question and took control of her
account, and yes he should be punished. But jail?

That's ridiculous. He didn't deform anything, he just presented the
information he had. You also break the law when you go too fast on the highway
and you don't go to jail.

~~~
m0nastic
This isn't listening in on the phone to your sister's phone call. This is
closer to listening to someone else's voicemail by guessing what their PIN
number is (also not legal).

There are things which are yours, and there are things which are not yours. In
many instances, accessing things which are not yours without the express
permission of the actual owner is a crime.

And I'm not going to argue with you if you're saying that the sentencing for
computer-related crimes is ridiculous. I agree, I think it's totally out of
whack (like a lot of sentencing in this country).

And depending on how fast you are going on the highway you do indeed go to
jail (most jurisdictions will charge you with reckless driving).

------
maeon3
"Palin went on to claim to the court that the email hack paralysed her
campaign to become the USA's first female vice president."

Palin has done 100x worse than this kid, but she doesn't get caught because
she paralyzes other candidates campaigns the legal way. By not getting caught
when dredging dirt on other people's campaign. However Palin was still
unsuccessful because now we have a muslim Kenyan extremist turban-wearing
islamic terrorist fist-bumper as president.

~~~
tptacek
Yes. That is how it works. When you do things the legal way, even if they are
evil things, you tend not to end up in prison. On the other hand...

------
postfuturist
If this was really the tipping point for keeping that lunatic out of public
office I would have done it myself.

