Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2008

Palin Email Update

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 5:39 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The young man who may be the Palin email hacker is a college student and the son of a Democratic Tennessee State Representative. Gerard Van der Leun says Palin should give the kid a pass. As the parent of a college student, I say let him sweat for awhile and make him reimburse Mom and Dad for those attorneys’ fees (Edit: if he did it). The best lessons are the ones we learn the hard way.

And I may put on my jammies now that I’ve discovered Jammie Wearing Fool was as bothered as I was by the AP’s refusal to turn over the stolen emails to the Secret Service.

H/T Instapundit.

ADDENDUM: Van der Leun also has the Onion on Obama’s Gmail!

– DRJ

UPDATE BY PATTERICO 9:29 P.M.: My first quick read of these stories about this was that the father had admitted the son’s guilt. A second read confirms that he did not. This could all be elaborate misdirection by the hacker. Keep that in mind.

UPDATE BY PATTERICO 10:29 P.M.: Also, via an update at Hot Air, we learn that the alleged hacker’s father denies that he or his son have been contacted by any officials about this.

80 Comments

  1. Wow…
    DRJ in jammies!
    Be still my heart.

    Comment by Another Drew (c78d34) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:49 pm

  2. The kid apparently whines about some mental illnesses, but he clearly knew what he was doing is wrong. I think he’s a hideous criminal who belongs in prison.

    G Gordon Liddy went to jail, why not this adult too? I’m sick and tired of the double standard. If I hacked Obama’s private email, stole his pictures, gave his daughter’s cell phone number to the internet, and posted her password on 4chan hoping that people would cram porn on her email a la Cyrus Sanai, I think I would get the book thrown at me. For some reason, we are supposed to be lenient when this stuff happens to Democrats, but the AP will be an accessory if it happens to a Republican.

    The AP is even suggesting Palin used her private email to conduct official state business (as a justification for the attack), after they have read her emails and know that simply isn’t true. Palin should keep the heat on this story through election day, and should at least sue those who are claiming she used this yahoo account for state business when it’s clear she did not.

    anyone familiar with 4chan knows they are absolutely reckless, and many of those people would have inserted child porn on her computer, sent such things to her kids, and done God knows what else, had the anonymous hero not changed the password and alerted the authorities.

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:51 pm

  3. Amazing how much Democrats care about people’s privacy when they are terrorists or terrorists’ friends … but not when they are their own political opponents.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:55 pm

  4. Wouldn’t it be standard fare for a news organization to refuse a request sans subpoena?

    Amazing how much Democrats care about people’s privacy when they are terrorists or terrorists’ friends

    This was wrong. You won’t find many, if any, prominent (D) blogs that disagree with that.

    Comment by jpe (bd88bc) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:56 pm

  5. Palin…should at least sue those who are claiming she used this yahoo account for state business…

    What with the whole “first amendment” deal-y we have, that wouldn’t be much of a lawsuit.

    Comment by jpe (bd88bc) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:58 pm

  6. But, seriously…
    He did the crime, he should be prepared to do the time.
    No telling how this is going to effect any thoughts of continueing in Daddy’s footsteps – are Memphis voters as brain-dead as those in DC?

    Throw the book at him, and throw the key away too.
    An example needs to be made, and if this poor slob has to be the 2×4 to get the attention of the internet-asshole community, so be it.

    Comment by Another Drew (c78d34) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:59 pm

  7. jpe, good plan – set up a “no true scotsman” fallacy.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/18/2008 @ 5:59 pm

  8. I agree – let this go unpunished, you’re only encouraging much more of the same.

    Comment by Dmac (e639cc) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:00 pm

  9. It certainly should be investigated to the fullest to see if this is another Milwaukee case where the college age son of a politician was vandalizing cars to prevent Republican get-out-the-vote efforts the day of the 2006 election. If somebody put him up to this-jail time.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:05 pm

  10. It would make Sarah Palin look good if she publicly forgave the hacker.

    However, the prosecution is presumably not at her discretion.

    Comment by Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:06 pm

  11. Dmac…
    Yes, it’s unfortunate that the first serial spammer wasn’t staked to an ant-hill, and wired to a routing-server to get a little muscle-toning from every stroke of every keyboard on the net.

    Comment by Another Drew (c78d34) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:07 pm

  12. jpe,

    you drank the cool aid, I guess. I never said that Palin should sue people for publishing the results of this heinous crime. Email hacking is morally the same as an illegal wiretap, but I realize the email doesn’t have the same protection yet and such a lawsuit would fail… on 1st amendment grounds.

    I am talking about libel. Libel IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:07 pm

  13. OK, give the kid a pass.

    But here is my price:

    Tell us about Rezko, Ayers, discussions with the Iraqis (and anybody else off-base).

    Tell us about Fannie.

    And so forth.

    Comment by Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:11 pm

  14. jpe, good plan – set up a “no true scotsman” fallacy.

    I’ve never heard that term before, but it sure is useful. Fantastic, and thanks for the new lingo. That said, that’s not a problem here; had I said “legit” or some such, that kind of question begging might be at issue. The prominence of the blogger is analytically distinct from whether I find them credible.

    To anticipate the objection: I think the lefty bona fides of a particular blogger are pretty cut and dried, and capable of being agreed upon prior to, and independent of, this inquiry)

    Comment by jpe (bd88bc) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:12 pm

  15. I am talking about libel. Libel IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

    It’s tough for public figures to prevail, though.

    It would make Sarah Palin look good if she publicly forgave the hacker.

    I sure wouldn’t do it. I hope the kid gets what-for.

    Comment by jpe (bd88bc) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:15 pm

  16. So….let me see if I get this right: the son of an Alaskan governor, a young man who is now in Iraq, a young man who made a man’s decision to enlist in the military, to fight and possibly die for our country.

    Versus, the son of a Tennesse legislator, a young man of similar age to the Governor’s son, is just a poor misguided kid, who should be taken off the hook for making a “little mistake”, because, you know how immature college kids are……

    Two young men. Same age. One mature enough to make a decision to enlist in the military versus one too immature to face the consequences of his criminal actions? What’s the standard here?

    Comment by Lesley (d671ab) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:20 pm

  17. Kudos, Lesley.

    Comment by nk (189a81) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:24 pm

  18. I’m not familiar with any First Amendment defense to the crime of identity theft.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:27 pm

  19. As I understand it, AP doesn’t have anything that isn’t available for everyone to see on Gawker and other sites. Only a few screenies were posted before someone else changed the password, and AP references the same screenies that everyone (who cares to look) have seen. (Michelle Malkin posted what seems to be the definitive explanation of what happened from a reader familiar with the group identified with the hacking.) Takes about a half hour to Google and figure that out, and makes the Secret Service look inept for not understanding that.

    Comment by Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:29 pm

  20. Aplomb,

    Maybe the AP was easier to contact at 2 AM than the other sources.

    How come everyone is trying to give the AP a pass here? They had information relevant to a crime. They were asked to provide it and they refused. Maybe they refused for a good reason but, if so, they didn’t state that reason in anything I’ve read.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:32 pm

  21. jpe, I do agree with you that Palin has a tough tough battle to fight to win, and I also grant that she has a cooler head than I do and probably wouldn’t even consider a lawsuit.

    But a lawsuit would keep this issue targeted at the real villians of this mess: a persistently dishonest media. What they have said about Palin is demonstrably wrong… they know it’s wrong and keep saying it. They are part of the Democratic party, and eventually someone has to stand up to them and tie it together, from Dan Rather to Andrew Sullivan. Palin has an opportunity to demand the media accept that it is utterly unfair and unprofessional. She has a chance to talk to the American people about how the media’s excesses hurt people (for example, the WAPO’s leaking of the Dem’s file on Palin helped get 4chan the cell phone number of Palin’s kid).

    Sorry if I’m coming across as brash, but I don’t really care if Palin wins or loses in court. She has to put the media on the defensive. My opinion.

    Lesley, It’s funny that no one is going to be calling this hacker’s dad a bad parent, even though he’s a crazo felon who likes a child-porn site. But Palin, half the media accepts as fact that she’s a hick mom who can’t raise her kids and work.

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:33 pm

  22. ….let him sweat for awhile and make him reimburse Mom and Dad for those attorneys’ fees. The best lessons are the ones we learn the hard way. Sorry, but this is a crock. Letting him off the hook is not forcing him to learn the hard way. He is twenty years old…an adult. He admitted he knew it was a federal crime.

    There are 18 year olds getting their asses shot off in Iraq. Giving this punk a pass would be a signal to the other scumbags that if caught doing the same thingthat all they would get is a slap on the wrist.

    Comment by fake nose, glasses and moustache (fcf819) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:33 pm

  23. I’m the one saying not to let him off easy if he did it and my solutions are in addition to any criminal law outcome.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:35 pm

  24. It is well established that the First Amendment does not shield the press from having to give evidence of a crime.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:37 pm

  25. Excuse me?

    “The young man who may be the Palin email hacker”

    “who may be”

    The guy is only the target of an investigation.

    Isn’t this a board of innocent until proven guilty?

    And privacy?

    Neither myself or anyone else here has any idea if he’s the dude or not. Let’s be patient.

    Comment by jharp (f4bed7) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:37 pm

  26. jharp,

    You actually have a point. But the fact is, this kid is guilty as sin. His dad is a politician, and has not made any statement denying this? All calls and emails are ignored?

    I am not suggesting this kid shouldn’t go to jail without a trial, of course. And it is a shame when people get tarred with public accusations without a fair hearing (such describes the treatment Palin gets).

    And as dpe pointed out, this young adult is a public figure now. He won’t win a libel suit against me since I am trying to tell the truth about him. :)

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:43 pm

  27. Innocent until proven guilty is a burden of proof at trial. It has nothing to do with my opinion or DRJ’s opinion or anyone else’s opinion nor their right to engage in the expression of it.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:45 pm

  28. Yeah, let’s not jump to any conclusions – I mean, it’s not like he’s a state trooper that’s been caught threatening the local citizenry or anything…oh, wait…

    Comment by Dmac (e639cc) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:48 pm

  29. If he’s properly debriefed, he may be able to help us find more of those “anonymous” anarchists. In any event, he presents a pathetic public example of their cadre, lampooning their community.

    Comment by gp (78ea4b) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:50 pm

  30. Harp is worried about privacy.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have a bulletin for the moonbats who wrote that Bush couldn’t fire the SEC chairman.

    He can.

    If McCain is elected, I suggest Cox begin packing.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:53 pm

  31. DRJ 20: It’s easy to say the AP could have just complied, but it’s also understandable why they didn’t. First, it was completely unnecessary. The internet never closes so it doesn’t matter if it was 2 a.m. (which it wasn’t). Second, anyone here who clicked on Gawker has the evidence on their computer assuming they didn’t clear their cache. If the Secret Service contacts you asking for help, are you willing to have them come in and start rooting around your hard drive to make sure you pointed out all the relevant records? My thoughts would be, I found it with minimal casual web surfing, you don’t need me to help, you are the Secret Service and should be able to find it yourself well before an agent drives out here.

    It’s not like this involved an imminent planned crime, or that the AP had unique information not available anywhere else. They reported on stuff that was on the internet. It isn’t surprising that they wished to avoid the hassle and intrusion of complying with a Secret Service request for information when the Secret Service could have spent a few hours searching the internet like the AP reporter did.

    I mean, if some AP reporter covering the internet can find stuff and slap together a story in a couple of hours, but the Secret Service is totally stymied but for help from the AP, then the Secret Service is totally worthless as an investigative arm of the law.

    Comment by Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/18/2008 @ 6:53 pm

  32. aplomb, you’re assuming that the Secret Service is public with every aspect of this case. I think that’s extremely unlikely.

    You think they only wanted the public information? What if… say, someone emailed the AP from Palin’s yahoo acount? There are a million scenarios. Of course, they could have just asked the AP if they have any information that would help, and the AP overreacted. The AP, after all, is a pretty lousy outfit.

    The Secret Service seems pretty competent to me.

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:01 pm

  33. “Neither myself or anyone else here has any idea if he’s the dude or not. Let’s be patient.”

    Hey, harp. Isn’ t that what your team is saying about Obama?

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:03 pm

  34. Aplomb, as I understand it, the AP is apparently in contact with the person who broke into the email account.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:06 pm

  35. Everybody seen this? http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2008/09/regarding-rep-mike-kernell-and-his-son.html

    Comment by gp (78ea4b) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:08 pm

  36. gp, that blog post appears to be untrue, because most media outlets are desperately trying to contact these people, and they are refusing to interview.

    Saying ‘no one’ has contacted them is just not true. Saying the Secret Service has not contacted the father is a lot different from saying that no one has contacted anyone.

    This blog post is based on a lie: the father has not been contacted specifically, so he says “I haven’t been called” and says he cannot say whether or not his son has been contacted. He cites father-son confidentiality.

    It’s just Clintonian quibbling.

    Comment by Juan (f48840) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:15 pm

  37. Rob 34, if so, that’s interesting, but was that true when the AP published the article (which seemed wholly based on the information available on the internet) or when the Secret Service made the request and the AP denied it?

    It’s a fast moving story so perhaps everyone should just wait a bit for it to settle before posting our kneejerk reactions, myself especially.

    I’m assuming the AP found stuff on the internet posted by some hackers, and the Secret Service asked them to turn over their records in response to the story, which was unnecessary because the information was quite prominently on the internet. I could easily be wrong in my assumptions, but so could anyone else be wrong in their current assumptions.

    Comment by Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:20 pm

  38. See how it ends. Palin feigns annoyance and disappointment. Then in act of graciousness, forgives him and gets her Pope John Paul, moment. Then the polls begin to tilt back towards McCain/Palin. Palin the merciful!

    Comment by love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:34 pm

  39. Aplomb,

    Here are my assumptions:

    1. The Secret Service asked the AP to turn over information that it thought was relevant to this case.

    2. The AP refused for an unstated reason. Maybe the AP claimed some kind of privilege or maybe it requested a subpoena, but I haven’t seen anything that suggests the AP did either.

    Law enforcement agencies investigate crimes and that involves gathering information from sources that the investigation leads them to believe has relevant information. I’m not aware of any rule that requires law enforcement agencies to request information from the “best” or most convenient sources. Further, what you think was necessary might not be what the law enforcement agencies think was necessary, no matter how unskilled you believe the government is at internet sleuthing.

    And I’d still like to know the basis for the AP’s refusal to cooperate.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:37 pm

  40. Arrogance, DRJ. Its their only defense.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/18/2008 @ 7:39 pm

  41. “And I’d still like to know the basis for the AP’s refusal to cooperate.”

    The article didn’t mention any subpoenas. I’d expect the press to not turn over information on sources without those. Though they may say things like, “hey check out wikileaks or gawker”

    Comment by imdw (513533) — 9/18/2008 @ 8:13 pm

  42. imdw,

    I’d expect that, too, but then I’d also expect the article to say the AP referred the matter to counsel. Yet everything I’ve read suggests the AP issued a flat No.

    Look, I hope I’m making a mountain out of a molehill but it sounds like the AP is treating this like Daniel Ellsberg turning over the Pentagon Papers. If so, I think that’s crazy.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 8:24 pm

  43. May I say, let this twirp hang and swing in the breeze. I have no sympathy. I could have had sympathy with his family, but that evaporated long ago with Obama’s “in your face” war call!!!

    Comment by Mescalero (c6f79f) — 9/18/2008 @ 8:55 pm

  44. “I’d expect that, too, but then I’d also expect the article to say the AP referred the matter to counsel.”

    Why would that be? I’d expect their policy would be subpoena or go away. No need to refer to counsel if there is no subpoena. No need to discuss privileges or whatever if there is no subpoena.

    “Look, I hope I’m making a mountain out of a molehill but it sounds like the AP is treating this like Daniel Ellsberg turning over the Pentagon Papers.”

    I don’t see that at all. That was the issue of people printing the papers, but people knew who it came from. Here there’s no attempt to silence the press.

    Comment by imdw (7c85b9) — 9/18/2008 @ 8:58 pm

  45. First, we don’t know who did this and that’s why the authorities are investigating. They not only have to find out who did it, they have to gather evidence that proves it.

    Second, I agree there doesn’t seem to be an attempt to silence the press. If so, then why would the AP refuse to turn over the information — as opposed to referring the matter to counsel for service of a subpoena?

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:06 pm

  46. “If so, then why would the AP refuse to turn over the information — as opposed to referring the matter to counsel for service of a subpoena?”

    I’m assuming they refuse to turn over information as a matter of course for non-subpoena requests, and get counsel involved once they receive a subpoena. I don’t see a problem with that.

    Comment by imdw (934684) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:27 pm

  47. DRJ 45: There has been no direct attempt to silence the press, but you have to understand the concept of chilling effect.

    If every time a reporter gathers and reports news that might be important to a potential government investigation, and the government can simply ask for the documents, sources and other information underlying the story with the expectation they would automatically get it, and have people cast aspersions on the media that refuses the request without a subpoena, it would have a huge chilling effect on the free press.

    The press in a free country isn’t to serve as a ring of junior detectives rooting out crime, ready to turn over evidence at the request of government. The sources would dry up immediately, the reporters would not investigate anything aggressively because they don’t want government pawing through all their records and files looking for even legitimate evidence, and any refusal would tend to look like an obstruction of justice.

    The press needs to keep itself at arm’s length from the government as much as possible in order to remain free. Otherwise, the press is just an ancillary arm of government. Most journalists of all persuasions are instinctively leery of turning over their work product to the government on a mere request, and will often fight even seemingly valid subpoenas to keep the line between government investigation and free press distinct.

    In this case, if the AP reporter who saw this stuff on the internet ever thought he or she would be subject to questioning and turning over records supporting the story to the Secret Service, the story would probably never be written. While in this case that might have been a good thing, it’s easy to imagine others where a reporter investigating government corruption would also be dissuaded from reporting the evidence. Some measure of distance between media and government is a positive for freedom and democracy, in my opinion. Automatically turning over files without legal checks and protections is not conducive to freedom.

    Where you draw the line is a debatable issue, sometimes the press withholds information that could lead to a conviction standing for the greater principle that a free press can’t and shouldn’t divulge everything to the government without legal process, sometimes the press turns over everything at a mere request out of laudable intentions that justice be done but eroding the confidence in a free press and actually hampering their ability to gather news important to the citizenry if embarrassing to the government.

    This case seems particularly silly, the Secret Service has and should use every tool to prosecute the hackers without any help from the AP. There was no ticking time bomb, the hacking was done and over and the trail either can or can’t be uncovered with what I assume are powerful detection tools available to the Secret Service apart from the help of the AP.

    Comment by Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:32 pm

  48. imdw,

    Perhaps so. The AP is a novel business if it knows there are legal issues but declines to notify its attorneys until after a subpoena arrives, although that might explain some of the odd things the AP does.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:33 pm

  49. I have put up an update that reiterates that we don’t know who did this.

    It wouldn’t be shocking to learn it’s misdirection by the hacker.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:33 pm

  50. That’s good. The articles do not say who hacked Palin’s email, and I don’t want to give the impression we know who did this.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:35 pm

  51. She should be like “My son is in Iraq fighting for his country, this punk is sitting in his dorm room undermining our civil society. Fry him.”

    Comment by Molon Labe (640aad) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:41 pm

  52. aaacckkkk!!! i can’t believe this is going on. some punk that is the son of a lefty loon breaks the law and hacks into the private e-mail of sarah. how disgusting. and then the liberal media won’t cooperate with the cia or fbi or whatever. why oh why did mcain ever nominate someone idoitic enough to leave her e-mail open to hacking?? it ain’t that hard to hack into a yahoo account (not that macpain would know that). could someone on the republican side get a clue. (or may the republicans should get better hackers-not likely)

    Comment by smellyt (ef1310) — 9/18/2008 @ 9:52 pm

  53. Aplomb, and it burns my soul to admit this, makes a good, concise, rational argument on the neccessity of a free, unfettered press in a democracy.
    Unfortunately, the press has not kept itself at that arms-length that you describe; but, has inserted itself, part and parcel, into the political process on the side of one participant: The Democrat(ic) Party.
    As a partisan, they have no protection, or should have no protection, provided under the Free Press Clause of the 1st Amendment.
    As we have previously seen, the AP is, as an orginization, vigorously – if not rabidly – anti-Bush. I doubt if their general attitude towards the GOP as a whole is any different.
    All citizens have a responsibility to report violations of the law. The press as a whole, and the AP as an individual (at least under Corporate Law) also has that responsibility. We are a Republic where no person is above the law, and that includes the Press.
    If the Press, collectively and/or individually, cannot uphold their responsibilities as citizens of the Republic, they need to re-think where they might best fit in, for they are not what I would want for neighbors.

    Comment by Another Drew (c78d34) — 9/18/2008 @ 11:09 pm

  54. *sigh* Yet another “the victim was an idiot” post. That kind of stupidity is becoming tiresome.

    Comment by Icy Truth (ef009a) — 9/18/2008 @ 11:10 pm

  55. AD,

    I believe in freedom of the press and I understand how revealing sources can have a chilling effect on a free press. A reporter has a legal privilege to protect his sources and if that’s what is at issue here, I’m sure the AP will vigorously assert the privilege. Has it done so? I haven’t seen it but maybe that will happen in time.

    Members of the press also have the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures but I don’t think that right is greater than the one that protects us all, absent a claim of privilege. Have AP reporters asserted search and seizure protections as a basis not to comply? I don’t know but I haven’t seen that either.

    Thus, I think the first issue is whether the AP acquired the information in a manner that brings it within the reporter’s privilege … but that may not be the end of the story. A reporter’s privilege is not absolute so we need to know how the reporter’s shield law applies to this situation. To decide that, we need to know which laws apply since I think reporters’ shield laws vary from state-to-state. Maybe this would be governed by Alaska law, or the laws of the state where Yahoo is headquartered, or the state where the reporter is domiciled/employed, or someplace else.

    And it could also be that the AP has no information to reveal and/or that I’m completely missing the point. I’m thinking out loud so take it with a grain of salt.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:00 am

  56. DRJ

    Go

    To

    Bed.

    Comment by wls (c1b09d) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:04 am

  57. Am I rambling?

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:11 am

  58. No – the comment is excellent. Its just way past any sane person’s bed time where you are.

    Comment by WLS (c1b09d) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:28 am

  59. “The AP is a novel business if it knows there are legal issues but declines to notify its attorneys until after a subpoena arrives”

    That would be novel. I’d expect the attorneys to be involved in writing the policy and also given a heads up that the AP just got a request that the policy is to say no to.

    Comment by imdw (688568) — 9/19/2008 @ 4:56 am

  60. To decide that, we need to know which laws apply since I think reporters’ shield laws vary from state-to-state.
    .
    The crime of invasion of stored electronic records is a federal offense, not a state offense, so the investigation and indictment (if one is warranted following investigation) uses federal resources and laws. There is no federal statutory press shield.
    .
    Not pertinent here, but press privilege can be pierced in civil cases too. Hatfill sued the government for Privacy Act violations, and was prevailing in his efforts to pierce press privilege there when the government settled the civil case.

    [Thanks for your perspective, cboldt. That makes sense. -- DRJ]

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:20 am

  61. Sorry if I’m coming across as brash, but I don’t really care if Palin wins or loses in court. She has to put the media on the defensive. My opinion.

    I see what you’re saying now. FWIW, the southpaw critique of the media comes into play: if there were a suit, the media would cover it like anything else. They’d “cover” the merits of the case, but in typical, lame, unhelpful “on the one hand on the other” style. It would be have to be a really clear-cut case for the merits to shine though the muddying coverage.

    Comment by jpe (08c1dd) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:23 am

  62. A reporter has a legal privilege to protect his sources and if that’s what is at issue here, I’m sure the AP will vigorously assert the privilege. Has it done so?

    No one needs privilege to refuse a request. One needs privilege to refuse a request made under color of law (a subpoena, a duly authorized & official request pursuant to this or that statute, etc)

    Comment by jpe (08c1dd) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:25 am

  63. Compared and contrast the self-Lefteous outrage over the passport applications and the actual invasion of Gov. Palin’s privacy.

    Comment by JD (41e64f) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:38 am

  64. to blame some dumb hacker as part of the Left Wing conspiracy??

    Ah get a life!!!

    I just had to remove av2009 from my computer. thx hackers.

    isn’t the hacker story a bit of luck for Sarah who is trying to avoid more scrutiny for her involvement in Troopergate? yeah, good job VRWC.

    Comment by datadave (e0f125) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:53 am

  65. The correct term is Tazergate, asshat. And if you think that defending a person that uses a tazer on his 10-year old is a person worth defending, that will come as no shock to me.

    Comment by JD (41e64f) — 9/19/2008 @ 6:16 am

  66. I just had to remove av2009 from my computer.

    That’s nice – now, what about doing something about that chip implanted into your cerebellum?

    the hacker story a bit of luck for Sarah who is trying to avoid more scrutiny for her involvement in Troopergate? yeah, good job VRWC.

    Don’t look out your window, the black helicopters are coming! Karl Rove’s outside your front door! Run for your little life, DD, run!

    Comment by Dmac (e639cc) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:34 am

  67. The only thing he needs is a swift kick

    Comment by Krazy Kagu (50baa9) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:36 am

  68. Will this be another slap of the wrist type punishment for the innocent college student?

    Is this the example we like to portray to our children?

    Is this a country were celebrities pay their way out of court, where professional athletes can be wife beaters yet still be adored by fans, where Presidents can have sex with interns and get away with it because “oh, everybody does that so he should not be critizised”. It seems that when faced with catastrophes the first thing we do is point fingers.

    Its not the politics or economics that’s failing, its the morals and ethics that have been failing for years and have created social caos.

    Lets begin with applying laws equally and justly across the board. This kid should pay for braking the law, plain and simple. We are hurting this country by saying that its ok for him to get a slap of the wrist and continue on on his marry way. This is the education we are providing to our children. Furthermore, if he is underage or living within the economic roof of the parents, they should also should be held accountable. For one, perhaps they should worry more about their kids’ education and ethics.

    This country is based on freedom, yet there is nothing to be said about RESPECT.

    Comment by AmericanJustice (bd7227) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:44 am

  69. isn’t the hacker story a bit of luck for Sarah who is trying to avoid more scrutiny for her involvement in Troopergate? yeah, good job VRWC.

    Actually, she’s inviting scrutiny and that’s why the Personnel Board and the courts are getting involved. She’s just not playing with the Obamatron who has promised an October surprise. That seems quite prudent.

    The hacker story is a bit of a federal crime.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:52 am

  70. isn’t the hacker story a bit of luck for Sarah who is trying to avoid more scrutiny for her involvement in Troopergate

    Didn’t she file the ethics complaint herself, in order to clear the air ASAP?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 9/19/2008 @ 8:08 am

  71. “…This country is based on freedom, yet there is nothing to be said about RESPECT.”
    Comment by AmericanJustice — 9/19/2008 @ 7:44 am

    Though I don’t disagree, respect is about manners (which is a subject for another time);
    What has been truly missing is RESPONSIBILITY!

    Comment by Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 8:27 am

  72. Update on the story…Palin email hacker confesses

    Comment by yourlilsis (095089) — 9/19/2008 @ 11:07 am

  73. I was wondering about those E-mails of Palins that McCain posted for the all the public to see. Could this also have been a way to hack someones e-mail if you didn’t properly erase any sensitive information on them. Surely the man who invented the blackberry wouldn’t miss that. Or did he have Al Gore the inventor of the internet help him!

    Comment by Stephen R. Young (eb8748) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:39 pm

  74. Investigators were waiting to speak with Gabriel Ramuglia who operates an internet anonymity service used by the hacker.
    .
    I didn’t see a confession by any named person.
    .
    At any rate, in addition to trying to backtrace the anonymizing service used to access Yahoo and induce it to send a “this is your password” e-mail, one can also look to the owner of the e-mail account that Yahoo sent the “this is your new password” message to.

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:49 pm

  75. Comment by jpe — 9/19/2008 @ 5:25 am:

    No one needs privilege to refuse a request. One needs privilege to refuse a request made under color of law (a subpoena, a duly authorized & official request pursuant to this or that statute, etc)

    Isn’t that what happened here? It sounded like a law enforcement agency requested copies of the emails from the AP. I assume that request would have been legally made pursuant to a federal or state statute.

    Comment by DRJ (0754ed) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:54 pm

  76. yourlilsis — Where’s the confession? Geez! Yet another lucking fiar surfaces on this site.

    Comment by Icy Truth (3b614c) — 9/19/2008 @ 12:55 pm

  77. Icy Truth,
    Please forgive me for the way I worded my comment earlier. I used the word confess when I should have said something more to the effect that the perpetrator explained how he was able to hack Palin’s email. I was attempting to make a quick link people could go to, while a 2 year old was pulling on my shirt and calling for me, and messed up. Sorry.

    I will say, though, that I am not a liar. Not by any means. Thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

    Comment by yourlilsis (095089) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:31 pm

  78. Nice, #77. I remember those days of being on-call for little ones.

    Wired has an interesting look at the possible charges facing the hackers.

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/palin-hack-migh.html

    Comment by Dana (213b94) — 9/19/2008 @ 8:03 pm

  79. Alaska has a proactive law on the books in terms of the felony of breaking into an email account. Yahoo needs to improve its practices – it is right now a failing company.

    Obama has not come out and censored this type of felony activity. Obama is such a pathetic person when it comes to treating women and executives fairly.

    He has promised to look the other way if people in his campaign do the duty work for him.

    While the parents may beg for mercy for their son, their son needs to pay a BIG TIME PENALTY for his felony and his invasion of privacy and endangerment of children.

    The Democrats – if they were reasonable people – should vigorously denounce this type of invastion of privacty.

    Intstead they think terrorists rights are more important than citizen’s rights and children’s rights.

    The Democrats were so stupid they actually said they had the right to break in to be sure no inappropriate political business was taking place in the email account. This is BIG BROTHER at his worst and an invasion of privacy.

    Its time for all Americans to be afraid of Obama not denouncing this act.

    Comment by Contented with Alaska (e80c70) — 9/20/2008 @ 1:24 am

  80. I used the word confess when I should have said something more to the effect that the perpetrator explained how he was able to hack Palin’s email.

    – Understood, but do we even know that this explanation actually came from the real hacker?

    Comment by Icy Truth (f6198c) — 9/20/2008 @ 2:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5474 secs.