# Notorious Hacker Caught! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 9, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194 "2008-10-09T17:49:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/61 "2008-10-10T17:30:06Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I dunno, **The Tao’s Revenge**. > > I would suspect that if a McCain supporter was caught snooping around Biden’s or Obama’s emails, we would see outrage on this board. That depends. Are they conducting official business via those e-mails, essentially circumventing transparency laws? Is the hacker simply invading their privacy or acting with more ill intent (be it juvenile or malicious)? They’re both bad, of course, but is what this guy did [worthy of a felony?](http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003672) > [@](#): > > …hacking someone’s email account and making use of the information gained is a crime; it may either be a felony or a misdemeanor, depending upon the hacker’s intentions. And here’s the rub. In order to dramatize the case and get a felony indictment, the prosecutors needed to allege that it was “committed in furtherance of a criminal or tortuous” act…I’d put the likelihood that the prosecutors will secure a conviction on a felony charge at right about zero–unless, of course, they get a jury that would convict a ham sandwich, as can be found often enough. What motivates this prosecutorial overreaching? > > Cyber crimes are rampant in America today. Frequently they involve theft of identity metrics used to tap the victim’s credit. As I reviewed in a recent piece for the BBC, however, the Department of Justice has allocated few resources to investigate these crimes except in very large scale and systematic cases—that is crimes in which there is a clear criminal purpose and a clear victim, and tens of millions at stake. Generally the Department has not acted in cases in which the result of the intrusion is merely to embarrass the target, for a fairly obvious reason. At best we’re only talking about a misdemeanor. The Palin email hacking case quite plainly falls into this category. So what is going on? > > The Justice Department seems to be setting one of its amazing new rules. When a Republican political figure is damaged in her expectation of being elected to office, it is telling us, that’s a felony. And why is that the case here? Because the hacker helped establish something important: Sarah Palin has been systematically violating the Open Records Act…Palin relied heavily on private email accounts for improper purposes. As governor of Alaska, she was obligated to maintain as public records her communications with respect to her discharge of official duties. Palin skirted this obligation by turning to private email accounts for government related dealings. In fact, the hacker in question helped flush out Palin’s violations. The hacker also helped establish a motive for the illegal conduct: Palin regularly involved her husband in official business, and it’s easy to understand why she did not want to leave behind evidence of her husband’s involvement. > > [snip] > > Then there are the troublesome questions. Why does it mean nothing to the feds when Joe Six-Pack is the victim of Internet identity theft, but the house falls in when a prankster wants to embarrass Sarah Palin? Do you think there might be just a bit of politics lurking behind the scenes? In this Justice Department? And then there is the still-more menacing question: we now know that Palin was systematically violating the Open Records Act trying to keep her official dealings in the dark. By bringing down the hammer on a person who helped expose her misconduct, are the prosecutors actually attempting to cloak the official misconduct of a public servant? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/62 "2008-10-10T17:37:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you saying that, prior to **Tenebras** ’ detailed response, there was enough info IN THIS THREAD or its linked cites for a reasonable person to conclude the law was violated? That there was enough for any reasonable person to agree that an investigation was warranted … yes. Or to quote you: “there [was] no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/63 "2008-10-10T17:43:08Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > That there was enough for any reasonable person to agree that an investigation was warranted … yes. > > Or to quote you: “there [was] no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail.” Here’s why I disagree: every single description of the e-mails danced around the specifics. _The screenshots feature a July e-mail between Palin and Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, an e-mail sent to Palin staffer Ivy Frye from an anonymous member telling her that Palin’s password had been changed, captures of Palin’s inbox, and an e-mail from Amy McCorkell, who serves on the Governor’s Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse._ Are you telling me that there’s no reasonable inference to an e-mail between Palin and Parnell except that it’s official business? Why? Why couldn’t it have been personal? What makes it so strongly likely that it’s business that it’s the only reasonable inference? Are Palin and Parnell personal friends? Are Palin and McCorkell? Why couldn’t those have been social e-mails? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/64 "2008-10-10T17:52:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you telling me that there’s no reasonable inference to an e-mail between Palin and Parnell except that it’s official business? The _most_ reasonable inference is that it is official business. My boss has my email adress. Of the emails he’s sent me, roughly 95% of them have been official business. Why is it reasonable to assume that a boss emailing a subordinate is \*not \*of official business. But I’m growing tired of picking nits with you. On the surface it looks like a certain level of misuse of email took place as it applies to official government business. Just playing devils advocate (to give you the benefit of the doubt) doesn’t excuse that. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/65 "2008-10-10T17:55:05Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > That depends. Are they conducting official business via those e-mails, essentially circumventing transparency laws? I have no cite, but “my gut” tells me that the mere fact that Obama/Biden’s personal email getting hacked would be enough to launch “outrage” several threads on this board, and that the Justice Department would be just as quick to catch the evildoers. (Remember when some candidates passport info got leaked? I think it was Obama’s passport… There was a scramble to catch that person, too.) That was my only point. And it was in response to the point I thought you were making, which was: That this was selective outrage on the Republican side (aided, presumadely, by a compliant Justice Department). I stated no opinion on the treatment of the incident by the Justice department, nor about Palin’s (potential) misuse of her own personal email account. Do I feel that _my_ personal email is going to receive nearly the same level of priority from the Justice Department? No, I don’t. But my emails aren’t going to affect the country like the Presidential election will, either. _shrug_ ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/66 "2008-10-10T17:57:48Z")
It’s about the same reasonable inference as “the man has marajuana, therefore it’s illegal” in a state that allows marajuana for medicinal reasons. Yeah. 95% of the time it’s going to be illegal — but you don’t get to press charges on the ground that it’s _usally_ illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/67 "2008-10-10T17:59:19Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > The _most_ reasonable inference is that it is official business. My boss has my email adress. Of the emails he’s sent me, roughly 95% of them have been official business. Why is it reasonable to assume that a boss emailing a subordinate is \*not \*of official business. My boss has my e-mail address at work and my e-mail address at home. I get several e-mails a week from her that have little or nothing to do with business at my personal address, and requests for my analysis of new business proposals comes to my work address. And now you’re shifting the goalposts. > [@Jack Batty](#): > > Or to quote you: “there [was] no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail.” Now it seems you agree there were other reasonable inferences, but the MOST reasonable one was improper use. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/68 "2008-10-10T17:59:51Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Yeah. 95% of the time it’s going to be illegal — but you don’t get to press charges on the ground that it’s _usally_ illegal. So that 5% mean it should be ignored completely? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/69 "2008-10-10T18:04:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by Jack Batty > > Or to quote you: “there [was] no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail.” > > Now it seems you agree there were other reasonable inferences, but the MOST reasonable one was improper use. Oh for fucks sake. If I concede that there’s the slimmest of possiblities that Palin was emailing her Lt Governor for manicure techniques, will you concede that she probably wasn’t? That on the surface an email to her Lt Governor from a fucking Yahoo account looks pretty stupid on her part? Who am I kiddin? Of course you won’t. Wouldn’t want to leave a nit unpicked. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/70 "2008-10-10T18:19:11Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > But my emails aren’t going to affect the country like the Presidential election will, either. _shrug_ But see, that’s the problem, in my eyes. If the manhunt for the hacker is justified, that implies that the emails were important enough to be official State business- in which case Palin should be in trouble for using a personal email account. Or… The emails were personal, which implies that the manhunt for the hacker was a ridiculous use of official expense and effort which the “normal guy” has no access to. Palin’s trying to get it both ways- she’s saying her email is important enough that the hacker must be found and prosecuted, but not so important that the emails should be part of the public record. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/71 "2008-10-10T18:20:58Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > It’s about the same reasonable inference as “the man has marajuana, therefore it’s illegal” in a state that allows marajuana for medicinal reasons. > > Yeah. 95% of the time it’s going to be illegal — but you don’t get to press charges on the ground that it’s _usally_ illegal. But don’t you get to investigate whether the possession of the marijuana is legal or not? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/72 "2008-10-10T18:22:07Z")
Ahhh… the Lawyer Dance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/73 "2008-10-10T18:24:15Z")
Hey, the original claim was definitive and certain: > [@Lightin'](#): > > And you’ve not even mentioned that Palin shouldn’t have been using that email in the first place. Now suddenly it’s “should be looked into.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/74 "2008-10-10T18:25:17Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > But see, that’s the problem, in my eyes. > > If the manhunt for the hacker is justified, that implies that the emails were important enough to be official State business- in which case Palin should be in trouble for using a personal email account. > > Or… > > The emails were personal, which implies that the manhunt for the hacker was a ridiculous use of official expense and effort which the “normal guy” has no access to. > > Palin’s trying to get it both ways- she’s saying her email is important enough that the hacker must be found and prosecuted, but not so important that the emails should be part of the public record. Not at all. Even her personal e-mails could affect the Presidential race. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/75 "2008-10-10T18:52:46Z")
> [@Tenebras](#): > > I am not a lawyer, and I’m not going to go and peruse the Alaskan Public Records Act, but I did find their definition of “record”. > > … > The upshot is that, because the public is supposed to be able to access the records, all official business has to go through the official accounts. OK, but what is the penalty for failure to do so? For example, it is against the law to : Murder somone and Park in an area with an expired meter There are also laws without any legal penalties at all, or so I have heard. Is this the equivilant of a cop taking bribe money from a drug dealer or taking a free cup of coffee? Does it call from criminal sanctions or is it something that your boss sez “Hey Bob, you may not know this, but you’re not supposed to do that. Don’t do it again, OK?” ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/76 "2008-10-10T19:00:46Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > But don’t you get to investigate whether the possession of the marijuana is legal or not? > [@Jack Batty](#): > > So that 5% mean it should be ignored completely? Where the HELL did I imply that? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/77 "2008-10-10T19:38:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hey, the original claim was definitive and certain: > Now suddenly it’s “should be looked into.” Yeah, 'cause this is the Pit. I would’ve been a lot more careful with my words had this been, say, Great Debates. I would’ve thought you’d know how things work around here, after all these years. So is it your assertion that there’s no call at all to “look into” whether Palin used a personal email address for State business? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/78 "2008-10-10T19:43:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. Even her personal e-mails could affect the Presidential race. _It’s not her decision whether emails should be saved, if there’s a chance those emails need to be saved._ That’s why \*all \*emails on official servers are saved, and why she should have avoided even the appearance of impropriety. If her “personal” emails affect the Presidential race, then those emails are no longer “personal”. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/79 "2008-10-10T19:45:35Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Where the HELL did I imply that? I apologize, **Fish** - I clearly misinterpreted your post. I suspect I wasn’t the only one to do so, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194/80 "2008-10-10T19:58:08Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by Jack Batty > > So that 5% mean it should be ignored completely? > > Where the HELL did I imply that? Calm down. You didn’t. Just making a point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notorious-hacker-caught/467194.md?page=5)