"Anonymous" Hacks Palin's Private Email 1733
netbuzz writes "'Anonymous,' best known for its jousts with Scientology, has apparently hacked Sarah Palin's private Yahoo email account. Contents, including sample emails, an index, and family photos, have been posted by Wikileaks, which calls them evidence that the GOP vice presidential candidate has improperly used private email to shield government business from public scrutiny." Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax. Update by J : Genuine.
The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Interesting)
Attacking Scientology is one thing. We all know that it is a crock of crap. However, when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Funny)
He and John are still in Stan Marsh's closet, so noone will hear them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Alrighty then... (Score:5, Funny)
HEY TOM CRUISE!!!!
If you're reading this, then I tell you that your hokey sci-fi, pseudo-religion CULT is a crock of crap.
And I also think you're a faggot weenie too.
So there.
PS: Your acting sucks too.
Re:Alrighty then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alrighty then... (Score:5, Funny)
PS: Your acting sucks too.
Insult the man's beliefs, fine, they are crap, but his part in "Tropic Thunder" was hilarious.
Re:Too much attention to entertainers (Score:5, Funny)
And just what have the Romans done for us?
The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!
Bloody Romans....
Ha! Insightful Python!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I love it! A whole post, consisting of nothing but a long Python quote, gets modded "5, Insightful". I love it!!!!
And all these years people thought I was just trying to be funny!
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting near the top.... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a posting here from someone that observed the entire episode:
The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking [michellemalkin.com]
Pre-emptive warning: it's a partisan blog, but the explanation is quoted in full.
Short version:
The original cracker attributed his /b/ posting to another yahoo.com address. He claims to have done all this through a single proxy, but admits that he is a bit scared of the FBI at the moment.
Re:Posting near the top.... (Score:5, Informative)
If you believe ANYTHING on /b/ you have no idea what that board is about.
That includes the person that thinks they know what happened.
No facts, no truth.
Re:Posting near the top.... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, first of all if you want to know the truth, ask Michelle Malkin what it is and then believe the exact opposite. Thats her super power. Second, check this excerpt out from the article:
Palin has come under fire for using private e-mail accounts to conduct state business. Critics allege that she uses the account to get around public records laws, as the Bush administration has also been charged with doing.
An index of the e-mails in her inbox, which includes sender, subject line and date sent, indicates that Palin received numerous e-mails from her aides in the governor's office, some of which could be work-related.
An e-mail from her press secretary, Meghan Stapleton, indicates the message is about the "Motor Fuel Tax Suspension".
The subject line of an e-mail from Randall Ruaro, her deputy chief of staff reads, "Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger." Another one from Ruaro says, "Please approve" and another one is about "Court of Appeals Nominations."
Other e-mails from Ruaro indicate they're about employee and budget issues for the DPS. DPS is how Alaska refers to its Department of Public Safety.
Palin's chief of staff, Michael Nizich, sent her an e-mail August 22 with the subject line, "Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans." The subject line of another e-mail from Nizich reads "CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter."
E-mails from the governor's scheduler, Janice Mason, indicate that they're about Palin's schedule for the week of August 10.
Password recovery questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".
Can someone give me the rationale for those password recovery mechanism that are usually far weaker than the passwords themselves? They seem like such a blatantly bad idea, that I must be missing something in failing to understand why they exist at all
Re:Password recovery questions (Score:5, Funny)
They're not. Of course I've changed it since, but yesterday my answer to "Where did you meet your spouse" was "At the intersection of Beta Sirius and EO5F4KNwSfIWsTv94VyXSCRXbRrOeUzcAOozDUpeYRHFmmKJbRImqt5XPr5lDZ1"
Re:Password recovery questions (Score:5, Funny)
Of course I've changed it since, but yesterday my answer to "Where did you meet your spouse" was "At the intersection of Beta Sirius and EO5F4KNwSfIWsTv94VyXSCRXbRrOeUzcAOozDUpeYRHFmmKJbRImqt5XPr5lDZ1"
What a coincidence. That's where I met mine, too.
Re:Password recovery questions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Posting near the top.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".
What's with that anyway? Sites insist on a long gobbledygook password (God forbid we use something that doesn't have digits and capital letters) and then let us change the password by typing in something where a list of 100 covers about 99% of the answers. Just how stupid are these supposed security experts?
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Informative)
This was on CNN a few minutes ago and they confirmed that the Secret Service was already involved in the investigation.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not. The US Secret Service working out of DC that protects former PsOTUS and FLsOTUS for up to ten years upon exiting their respective offices (it used to be lifetime), candidates for president are covered under this as well.
They also had a number of duties that until only recently put them under direction of the US Treasury and oversaw most if not all of the investigations therein. Before their move to the DHS they were assigned to investigate federal computer crime laws, a jurisdiction not removed with their transfer of ownership, as it were. Although publicly perceived as only protecting the president they are much like a handful of other somewhat small federal law enforcement agencies that do many other things than just what the public thinks they do. They were originally created in 1865 to go after currency counterfeiting, only being given the duty to protect presidents-and only informally-in 1901.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand.. I agree they crossed the line.. on the other I kind of understand people's motives. Now I am in no way shape or form advocating hacking someone's email account, but there's something important to consider here. There's a great article at NY Times [nytimes.com] which talks about Palin's rise in politics. Here's one excerpt:
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
If she does infact use her private email address for correspondence with other staff members or governmental bodies, can you really consider it a private email account anymore? I'm not asking for response from slashdotters with analogies here, but if she does infact potentially use her personal email to avoid subpoenas then why the hell should it be considered personal. She is paid by the taxpayers and they have a right to know what is going on. Why have her staff members been studying the use of personal email accounts for official business anyways?
Maybe the deal with her using personal email for work is just a rumor, and maybe the whole deal with "Anonymous" is not true, but still things aren't just black and white here.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
When the McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I recognized quickly it was quite an ingenious move on their part. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the big reasons she was picked was because of all the issues and drama surrounding her. It is enough to create a media feeding frenzy, diverting the major coverage away from the issues that could defeat them. As they say no publicity is bad publicity, and all the negative coverage paints her as the victim or underdog, whom literature has taught us to root for.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
"no publicity is bad publicity"
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about marketing. One of the first things I was taught in my marketing classes is how that is a crock.
Bad publicity has bankrupted companies, people and countries. It's drove people to suicide. There IS bad publicity.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand. Bad publicity is bad publicity. No publicity is also bad publicity. Sometimes slightly bad publicity can drown out the really bad stuff, or divert attention without hurting too much. Especially when the issue is not selling a product to make a profit (like a business), but flinging mud at a political opponent.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is a socialist. I don't want that kind of change. On the other hand McCain isn't any better, just another version of the current administration. So, the choices appear to be keep the poor status quo or make a change toward socialism.
You think Obama is a socialist? Silly American, you have no idea what socialism is.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Define "socialism" as you meant it above.
2. Why not?
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
If you vote for a third party, you may as well vote for whichever of the two candidates you hate the most because that's what you're doing.
Voting for a third party does not, never has, and never will, send a message. The two major parties are well aware of what the outliers in their party want. They don't care. Democratic candidates are not going to move further left, the Republicans are not going to move any further right, no matter if you vote for a Pat Buchanan or a Ralph Nader.
They're not going to do this because catering to the lunatic fringe loses you the middle which is where elections are determined. No one gives a rats if you vote for a lunatic fringe party because catering more towards your ideology would lose them the election faster than losing your vote.
As a side note, before you start throwing around the word "Socialism", learn what it means. By any global standard, Obama is not even remotely socialist. He believes in things like universal health care, but that's not socialism, it's just universal health care. If you don't agree with universal health care say you disagree with it, but don't try to claim that it's socialist and bury it under the "I hate the commies" pile.
You might also want to consider that the current Republican Administration currently owns controlling shares in the largest insurance company in the country, as well as two major investment bankers.
The "free market" ideals of the current government have forced them to take a more "socialist" control of the economy than any previous government in US history, just to fix up their mistakes.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Interesting)
Palin was a trap that the Democrats walked into. There are many substantive policy issues upon which one could attack Palin, instead she was attacked personally and her family was made the center of attention. Within a week, Obama's poll numbers took a nosedive and McCain led in both national polls and electoral vote count. The Guardian commentary [guardian.co.uk] summarized it nicely:
Two weeks ago an Obama volunteer who knew from class came up to me and gave me that well-tread talking point about Palin's lack of experience, and the hilarious "heartbeat away from the presidency" cliche.
The bottom line is that both Obama and Palin have been at their presidency-qualifying jobs (Senator & Governor) for less than four years. Obama having two years on Palin is insignificant compared to the experience that McCain and Biden have: 25 years and 35 years in Congress, respectively.
It's also insignificant compared to the experience that our three youngest presidents--TR, Jack Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton--had before assuming the presidency. TR had already been Asst. Sec. of the Navy, Governor of New York, and Vice President. Jack Kennedy was in the House and Senate for a combined 13 years. And William Jefferson Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for 14 years.
The major difference between Obama and Palin, in terms of experience and bracketing their policy differences, is that the former is running for the presidency, whereas the latter will only assume the presidency if McCain keels over. The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president. Doublethink. On experience alone, neither Obama or Palin should be in the race, both are bad choices (again leaving aside their policy positions and "vision").
What's so unbelievably hypocritical on the Democratic side of things was their opposition to Hillary's "experience experience experience" propaganda that she used against Obama. Now they're turning around and reproducing the same failed strategy by doing exactly what Hillary did, giving lie to their protestations that experience wasn't the most important thing when defending Obama against Hillary's OMGTHREEINTHEMORNINGPHONECALL attacks.
There are significant substantive problems with Palin. Instead Democrats emphasized their own weaknesses in attacking Palin. Dumb.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Interesting)
I would imagine though that hacking into a yahoo e-mail account, even if it's a political figure, is not really going to get any serious penalties. It's not like they hacked into a government e-mail account. It's also not as if she has launch codes yet. McCain has to be elected, then die of a heart attack for her e-mail to be of much real importance. ... of course, if she did, they would probably end up in her yahoo account. And we'll be dead soon anyway. As Matt Damon said, someone who belives in creationism should not be an (old) heartbeat away from the football.
But I suspect secret service is investigating mostly to determine if there's a real security risk IE if she e-mailed out that there was a spare key to her house under a fake rock in the garden, or she was going to be in room 287 of the doubletree hotel.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
But I suspect secret service is investigating mostly to determine if there's a real security risk IE if she e-mailed out that there was a spare key to her house under a fake rock in the garden, or she was going to be in room 287 of the doubletree hotel.
I suspect the Secret Service is investigating mostly because this is high profile and will end up being publicly embarrassing. Not so much to Palin as to the people she was communicating with.
No doubt someone archived the entire account in their e-mail program and will dump it all online sometime before the election.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit. How you believe we originated really matters on whether you should have control of nuclear codes?
Presumably the connection is that a creationist clearly lacks even a modest helping of critical and independant thinking.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that's just not true. People put blinders on when it comes to their religion. For example, the best mathematician I've ever met personnaly was a prof at Rice University--an altogether brilliant man--who was a devout Christian. I doubt he was specifically a creationist, but he believed in literal interpretation of equally odd parts of the Bible. The last day of class before finals he would always give a lecture on the importance of developing a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and pass out Bibles or portions thereof. The students always put up with it because he was a once-in-a-lifetime combination of genius and great lecturer.
I can't explain it, but it's true nevertheless. Heck, look at William Buckley, certainlt a critical and indpendent thinker, who would present profund insight into the value of personal libery and personal choice, and then in the next breath condemn legal abortion as a great evil.
It just doesn't hold that believing in some crazy religious BS entails being stupid in other areas.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
It just doesn't hold that believing in some crazy religious BS entails being stupid in other areas.
No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. But being a creationist shows that you're willing to overlook overwhelming evidence in order to believe something written in the bible. What happens when there's a Second Cold War and the fundamentalist with their finger on the big red button starts reading about Noah and how God killed everyone but Noah and his family?
And remember, Bush's "crusade" is still killing people every day.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need religion to be pro-life and anti-abortion (Two separate topics in my opinion).
I simply cannot find a more definitive point at which 'life' begins than at conception. It has nothing to do with my religion, but it is the most logical point at which you can say "Before that point, it was definitely not a human" and after that point "If we do not interfere, it will become a human". I've tried to rationalize abortion by looking at different stages of pregnancy, but I cannot find, or it hasn't yet been identified, that there is a singular event that bridges alive and not alive. Conception, is the most definitive point.
Of course, I'm also very much opposed to the death penalty.
I also, thankfully, have not had my beliefs tested at any extreme level (Child with downs syndrome, or due to rape, or had a loved one murdered and the suspect caught). I am very thankful for that. So while I do not know if I'm strong enough to hold to my convictions, I hope that I never have to face them, but if I do, that I remain true to my beliefs.
So please don't assume that it is just the religious that are against abortion. You can have completely secular objections against it.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't you make something useful and sell it?
It must be nice on your planet where all knowledge is directly sellable and profitable! Biology is not all about making cures for the common cold and viagra. The most important work going on today is understanding the basics. Discovering a gene that maintains chromesomal integrity will get you absolutely nothing that you can sell but would be absolutely essential to a real cure for cancer. Just not directly. That's why the government gives grants, because the research that it buys proves its worth in the long run and isn't rewarded by market forces. Same reason the military isn't a private enterprise.
Being dependent on the federal government especially does not entitle you to run any portion of it.
I was explaining my reasoning for my statement that I didn't want a creationist in the white house, not saying I get to decide the next president. Keep up with the conversation or go play with your toys somewhere else.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit. How you believe we originated really matters on whether you should have control of nuclear codes?
Maybe not, but if she's getting the launch codes, I sure as hell care about whether she is counting on the Rapture.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Informative)
In that case, you should worry if she is a dispensationalist and not if she is creationist as only dispensationalists believe in a rapture. BTW Woodrow Wilson was a creationist, fundamentalist and dispensationalist.
Fuck yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I want the person with their finger on the button to think that they're going to murder billions, not send them all to happy fluffy fucking cloud world.
POTUS is no job for someone with a world view that's more conservative than the one espoused by the Catholic church.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I think Scientology is a dangerous cult, the actions of Anonymous to date have been demonstrating that they are just a group of dangerous radicals. Anonymous is dangerous because they attack and slander groups they disagree with and hide behind masks so that their opponents can not adequately defend themself. Now, I know many of the people who hate Sarah Palin and the Republicans won't see a problem with this, but for a moment imagine how you would feel if a similar group performed the same action on Barack Obama (or a political leader in your own country) and see how 'wonderful' it would be.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, remember this is the same group that hacked an epilepsy support page to try to induce seizures. Also realize this is pretty much the opposite of constructive: Palin is being used as a distraction to keep us from thinking about real issues. This only furthers that distraction. It would be one thing if they found evidence of corruption, but this is merely digital tabloid fluff.
Anonymous is doing this entirely to feed their own egos.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous most likely are doing this because they got lucky. I would guess hack attempts are made at a number of public and political figures. If they have a successful strike, then I'd expect them to run with it. I wouldn't overplay the deliberateness of this.On the other hand if a possible vice- or actual president is daft enough to have unencrypted emails floating round a public system, then it's hardly surprising those emails surface. And anyone can be Anonymous - that's it's greatest strength (even more so than the technical competence of some of its members).
Now if they have found that she was conducting official business through private email accounts and was doing so to avoid scrutiny, then that is interesting.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Informative)
There's no evidence that Anonymous was behind the epilepsy thing, and many have suggested that Scientologists did it to discredit Anonymous.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Insightful)
You're giving 'Anonymous' a bit much credit there. Anonymous doesn't have an agenda, per se. They do it for the Lulz [encycloped...matica.com]. Scientology is an easy target. Mrs. Palin is, if anything, an easier target due to her sudden and dramatic rise. I have no doubt in my mind that if Anonymous could find Mr. Obama's personal email account, they would do the same thing with exactly the same glee.
'Anonymous' extends from the anonymous posting habits on 4chan and certain other message boards, where it's easy to bullshit, dickwave, and otherwise behave in a sociopathic manner. They hate because it's fun and not because it serves any purpose. It's not about supporting one candidate or the other. It's about hatred, misanthropy, ego gratification, and taking sadistic pleasure in torturing someone. Bigotry, sexism, and racism probably play into the mix as well.
Anonymous published Mrs. Palin's email address with exactly the same glee that they would report a Camwhore's secrets to her family and school administration.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that I understand the reasoning of anonymous actions, in that s/he thinks Palin is doing wrong, and s/he wants to call attention to it.
This may just backfire, and generate support for Palin, thereby defeating his actions purpose. Indeed, this type of attack could even be used as a method for generating support by Palins camp.
The end is not justified by the means, and these types of attacks should not be pursued, either by the attacker, nor by the readers of such "information".
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
I respect your opinion on this issue, though I don't agree. Sarah Palin has done the exact same thing that Bush did - hide governing related communications on non-government servers. I believe this is illegal. I also think republicans have been doing this since Nixon got caught with tapes. Rather than reform their integrity, they reformed their communication systems to illegally hide their activities. Sarah Palin is scary, and Anonymous is doing us a favor. Only the light of scrutiny will reform our government.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
If that had actually said "Democrats have been doing it for just as long", then yes, citation would have been needed.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Funny)
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
But 4 lefts do.
Sadly, that's incorrect. 4 lefts makes you go straight. Try three next time :)
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Informative)
She's not a private citizen, she's a public person in a public position. By conducting work business on the Yahoo account, it basically became the State of Alaska's email address, NOT Sarah Palin's. So, while it's illegal to break into email, that information should be considered public records anyway. It was her mistake, and someone busted her. Maybe they "hacked" or whatever, but who cares? It was a good hack because it broke hidden public records out. Justice is served. Information wants to be free. This is way bigger than the individual now. He may perish for hacking, but the information will live on forever, and Justice will be served to Palin for breaking the Public Records laws.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
In a election campaign, a trial isnt required to do damage.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Or any evidence.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Informative)
You thought wrong.
Evidence seized illegally by law enforcement is inadmissible, unless it can be proven that they certainly would have come across it anyhow.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, its the Alaska Public Records Act.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Interesting)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html [washingtonpost.com]
This is from the Washington Post
"Among the e-mails released as part of the records request in June were several from Frye asking a state official whether private e-mail accounts and messages sent to BlackBerry devices are immune to subpoena, then reporting the answer to the governor and her husband, Todd, who also uses a Yahoo! mail address."
She's screwed. She's using her personal address to ask if here blackberry account can't be subponea'd. It looks pretty conclusive to me that she was doing or planning to do bad things with her personal accounts to keep the courts from getting ahold of it easily. So says the Washington Post, and well, that's about as good as it gets.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's more of the fact that they have view points that are different than Sarah Palins. And therefore targeted here.
If they really were trying to prove corruption they'd have surely hacked the other candidates as well. Especially McCain and Biden who have been in Congress long enough to have a thousand times what either Palin or Obama would have.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really were trying to prove corruption they'd have surely hacked the other candidates as well.
It's also possible that their 'hacking skills' don't go too far beyond guessing a password and the other candidates aren't stupid enough to use a Yahoo account for official government correspondence.
Re:Intended purpose of hacking the e-mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. GP keeps a lot of monkeys in the basement.
Re:The crossed the line this time (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? Anonymous the name attributed to (and embraced by) the many and varied denizens of 4chan's Random (/b/) board. They rose to fame with their protests against scientology, but anyone who has ever visited /b/ could tell you that:
1) Anonymous is a 'group' only in the loosest sense of the word. There's no organization, no leader, and no real agenda. It works more like flash mobs. One person suggests something, and if enough people go along with it to achieve critical mass, then it's epic. Otherwise, it's just a few internet nerds making idiots out of themselves.
2) Anonymous has no real code, moral stance, or ethical guideline. /b/ frequently delves into such subjects as drug use, murder, petty crime, and child porn.
3) Anonymous does everything they do for their very own personal amusement. Any claim to be standing on principle is really just part of the joke. Since anonymous is kind of an intersection of Slashdot and MySpace when it comes to demographics, you'll find you agree with many of their 'positions.' However, don't expect any real loyalty from them.
No way to tell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation: Wikileaks has been down for hours.... Wonder why?
Re:No way to tell? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No way to tell? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok here's the full list of Wikileaks domains:
* http://www.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]
* https://secure.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]
* https://wikileaks.cx/ [wikileaks.cx]
* http://wikileaks.org.uk/ [wikileaks.org.uk]
* http://www.cauce.us/wiki/Wikileaks [cauce.us]
* https://secure.wikileaks.be/ [wikileaks.be]
* https://secure.freedomsbell.org/ [freedomsbell.org] â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
* https://secure.libertypen.org/ [libertypen.org] â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
* https://secure.ljsf.org/ [ljsf.org] â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
* https://secure.sunshinepress.org/ [sunshinepress.org] â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
Re:No way to tell? (Score:5, Informative)
Have at [thepiratebay.org]
Confirmed by her campaign (Score:5, Informative)
It has been confirmed by her campaign and Amy McCorkell, the sender of one of the emails that has been posted.
Something or Other (Score:5, Informative)
The "something or other" suggested is conducting public business using private email. For Federal officials, that's illegal, because it amounts to hiding your paper trail. Don't know if Alaska has a similar law for State officials, but even if it doesn't, hiding her actions is not what you'd expect from the reformer Palin claims to be.
Of course, even if proven, Palin will just add these charges to her list of Things That Never Happened, like her initial support for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Re:Confirmed by her campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
It's often said you can't believe everything you read on the internet, you're banking on something you haven't even really read yet.
She's probably guiltier than sin, but I try to wait till something is verified before I bring out the tar and feathers, especially if your news source is Anonymous.
History in the making (Score:5, Funny)
This might be the first time the Secret Service has encountered the Streisand Effect.
None of this would have been a problem if ... (Score:5, Funny)
Probably Genuine (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that there is no easy way to tell if the material on Wikileaks is genuine or a hoax.
Wired has confirmed [wired.com] from one sender, Amy McCorkell, that the displayed message from her to Sarah Palin is genuine.
Hacking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hacking? (Score:5, Funny)
Hooray for women's rights! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sarah Palin is proof that there is no glass ceiling for women, as long as you're not ugly, have fufilled your reproductive obligations, don't have any actual power, will be subordinate to a man, seem clueless, and hiring you will keep a black man out of the white house.
Re:Hooray for women's rights! (Score:5, Interesting)
Encryption, maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
This wouldn't have even been an issue if she'd used encryption.
Maybe high-profile leaks like this will help convince the public at large that encryption is beneficial, even if you aren't doing anything wrong.
This is why you use official email systems (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a really good reason why they should NOT be using their private email. Sure, using the government systems opens them up to having their corruption on record, but having it on something like Yahoo mail opens it up to something like this, potentially exposing WAY more information than that. Not that government email is unhackable, but I'd certainly expect it to be at least a little bit more secure.
What will happen in retaliation? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is true, I think it's possible that Anonymous has just painted a gigantic bulls-eye on a free internet.
I am all for ferreting out corruption, but what I worry about is how many will paint this: "Terrorist Rogue Hacker attacks Vice Presidential Candidate."
What limits are there on privacy now? I hope I am wrong.
Wow, no spam! (Score:5, Funny)
The ol' double standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
"McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign Manager Rick Davis: 'This is a shocking invasion of the Governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment'..."
When someone does this sort of hacking/eavesdropping/snooping to a government official, it's called "a shocking invasion of...privacy and a violation of law."
When the government does it to you, it's called the "Patriot Act."
Re:The ol' double standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a wingnut hacker had gotten into a Democrat's account, the drama queens at Fox would be all over what they dug up, spinning like mad.
Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like Palin or the entire McCain campaign in the least... but how is this even remotely acceptable? We cry and bitch and moan about warrantless government wiretapping, yet when some group of a-holes breaks into an elected official's personal email account and posts screenshots on the web, we see it as just some more dirt on a candidate. The best word that describes that is "despicable."
Mark this as flamebait all you want, but people running for public office have constitutional rights too. I've always considered Anonymous a bit shady in their dealings, and this justs seals the deal.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently it's okay to do it to the masses because it might catch THE TERRORISTS OMG!, but when it happens to a candidate they like, suddenly it's the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone.
Personally I agree that privacy is important and Palin shouldn't have been put through this, but that's because I'm against that sort of invasion on principle, and I'm not willing to pick and choose who it's okay for and who it isn't.
A generation gap... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Yahoo e-mail account
2) Password was her zip code
3) Prominent public figure
4) No attempt to disguise her identity in the user name
Are the over 30 year olds really that stupid? This is stuff I'd expect from my grandmother, not a governor/VP candidate.
The sad thing is the media isn't going to note that her behavior was unsafe. Instead it will be the dirty hacker's fault, nevermind that the account has likely been "hacked" several times. Even if it hasn't it sure as hell would be if this info wasn't made public and the account was shut down.
It will really twist my nuts if:
1) Everything in the account becomes a inadmissible when an investigation of the legality of the account is conducted.
2) The issue of the McCain/Palin ticket's technological illiteracy is not brought up. Maintaining the security of your e-mail account is something every user has to be able to do, and that includes using a real password. And, no, I don't think Biden's a competant human either, but the top of that ticket hasn't really given me reason to worry, yet...
Fuck, people are stupid. But nevermind that, it's those damn tricky kids... so crafty these days!
No privacy rights here (Score:5, Insightful)
the fact that we weren't in the know in regard to her violation of law, her illegal act before the hacking, doesnt make her any more right about the matter. a crime is being committed, you just dont have proof.
its like someone filming a gang operation and publishing it, and then gang coming up and claiming that their privacy rights were violated.
How they did it - it was the "Tinkerbell hack" (Score:5, Informative)
account recognizes
b-day 2/11/64
ZIP code 99687
for password change.
The zip code is of course that of Wasilla, Alaska.
It would seem that the republican VP candidate is at least twice as security aware as Paris Hilton [cnet.com]. Paris' had just one security question, the name of her dog (Tinkerbell), while Palin had two extremely obvious security questions.
Of course, two times "nothing much" is not a lot at all..
Clear Evidence of Government us of Personal Email (Score:5, Informative)
Ruaro, Randall P (GOV) Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax Thu, 8/28/08 12KB Read
Ruaro, Randall P (GOV) FW: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues Tue, 8/19/08 11KB Read
Ruaro, Randall P (GOV) Court of Appeals Nominations Sat, 8/16/08 11KB Read
Nizich, Michael A (GOV) another records request Fri, 8/15/08 5KB Read
Nizich, Michael A (GOV) FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter Thu, 8/7/08 5KB Read
wikileaks down - files at cryptome (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll pardon your ignorance if you pardon my advice to just fucking google it.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll pardon your ignorance if you pardon my advice to just fucking google it.
Now that's just rude! The least you could do was provide a link [justfuckinggoogleit.com].
Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fairly certain that this is legit. I'm also fairly certain that members of Anonymous are not all based in the USA and may or may not have anything to fear from the Secret Service.
However, one of the features of a Yahoo Mail account is the ability to download a backup copy of your mailbox as a single file. I believe the file format is the one used by Outlook Express, rather than the more universal .mbox format, but still, if the "hackers" didn't think to grab everything, I would be shocked.
I'd be willing to bet that someone out in internet land has a copy of Sarah Palin's whole mail spool right now.
Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (Score:5, Interesting)
the scuttlebut on /b/ yesterday was that no, Anon did not download a backup file, and got cold feet when he realised where he was and that partyvans would be dispatched shortly. There was much crying and gnashing of teeth among /b/tards yesterday, I tell you, who were hoping for complete copies of the e-mails, and were denied.
Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there is proof...
What she said isn't the story, it's who she said it to.
Re:I've looked. Check Gawker (Score:5, Insightful)
So far only two emails, some personal photos, a contact list and some inbox screenshots have been posted. Nothing incriminating.
Depends how you define "incriminating".
Work email goes to and from work accounts. Personal email goes to and from personal accounts. That's a policy common in corporations and in government, and is increasingly strictly adhered to the higher up the ranks you go.
As a member of public office, she is accountable to the public, and her email pertaining to her office is a matter of the public record, and subject to things like the Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA). Using a personal Yahoo account to conduct government business would be hugely inappropriate for a multitude of reasons; not least of which is undermines her accountability to FOIA.
In Palin's case its evident that a number of her contacts are @alaska.gov... meaning she was corresponding as 'personal palin' to other public officials using their office-accounts.
While perhaps not incriminating, it is hugely inappropriate. Either she was sending them personal messages -- which is inappropriate; she should have sent those to their personal accounts, or she was sending or receiving work related messages which is completely unacceptable.
Palin clearly didn't adhere to this separation of work and personal (hell, her "personal" account is 'gov.palin' which is itself inapprorpiate) and while I'm sure many many people are guilty of it, its still inappropriate, and most of us aren't angling to be 2nd in line to the presidency, so the scrutiny on her is warranted. It would be nice if we could unmask the other canditates personal accounts too, to have a more balanced exposee, but that's beside the point.
Re:First impression: not cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Since she's advertising herself as a candidate with strong ethics who's trying to clean up government and get rid of backroom dealing, she clearly feels that she's not accountable to the same standard of ethics that others should be held to. This is a huge lapse in judgment that voters need to be aware of before they cast their votes.
Re:First impression: not cool (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I don't get, after reading about half of the posts in this thread: About 95% of the posts don't mention the right to privacy, at all. But monitoring e-mail traffic by secret service in order to catch terrorists or prevent possible terrorist attacks, is frown upon by the great majority of Slashdotters.