6 ms·

Sarah Palin’s email hacker is imprisoned, against judge’s recommendation

33 points by thedoctor 16y ago

ajays 16y ago
Instead of the blather at this blog, read the original news report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463 The judge didn't "recommend" that he serve it in a half-way house; he just said that 'even a half-way house would be sufficient punishment' . That doesn't mean he said "it must be in a half-way house". Also: he's been sent to a low-security prison, and not a Super-Max.
- xbryanx 16y ago
  The burden of being sentenced to a prison significantly far away from your current home and family is a terrible burden, regardless of security level. The justice system understands the punitive damage of this sort of measure, and surely took this into account in sentencing.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The facts of the case are (almost) undisputed. What the guy did implicated him for several felonies. He had exceedingly good legal representation --- just read any of the court record to see that. His team managed to deadlock the jury on the most serious charge he faced. The one felony he got dinged with resulted from his destruction of evidence. And all this after (quick reminder) the guy broke into the still-active email account of John McCain's running mate during the 2008 election. It is very, very hard for me to imagine mustering much sympathy for him. People are routinely imprisoned for computer-related crimes less blatant than this one. More importantly, people are routinely imprisoned for truly victimless crimes like "intent-to-distribute" escalations of simple drug possession. None of them have the resources this guy seems to have had. I'm not sure the "burden" of a low-security prison far from his home is an injustice of a cosmic scale.
    - marcusbooster 16y ago
      There's so such thing as being "dinged" with a felony. He will wear that albatross around his neck for the rest of his life. It's not an "injustice of a cosmic scale" so it may not rise to your threshold of caring, but he's still a young man going to prison for what is essentially a prank. Have a little compassion.
      - jerf 16y ago
        This isn't a prank. This is an attempt to influence the election of the most important position in the land using felonious means. He's lucky he's only getting what he's getting, what he did is far more serious. It is blindingly obvious that most expressions of sympathy here are because people approve of the target of the felonious actions. Had he hacked Biden's email the press would have called for his head and wrung their hands so hard about the evils of people who oppose Obama/Biden that they might have fallen off due to lack of blood flow. But creating an environment where it's OK or acceptable to do this sort of this thing to "acceptable targets" is creating an environment where one day, you'll be an "acceptable target". Take a stand. Attempting to influence elections like this is wrong and can't be tolerated, in addition to the fact that hacking emails is wrong and can't be tolerated. Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law.
        marcusbooster 16y ago
        I have no idea where you're inferring my support of the kids actions based on his target, but please don't that get in the way of your political tangent.
        moopark 16y ago
        Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law. No. I'm sympathetic because it was a very stupid prank, not because of the target. What was the actual damage caused? It certainly didn't "paralyze" Palin's campaign.
        jbooth 16y ago
  - gyardley 16y ago
    Ashland is about a four-hour drive from Knoxville, and federal prisons don't exactly dot the landscape like mushrooms. Feel free to look it up, but I suspect it's the closest appropriate facility to his home.
- scapula 16y ago
  The BBC certainly know how to choose their pictures.
- onteria 16y ago
  Another story on the matter: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/13/convicted-palin-hacker-david-kernell-prison-camp-k/ http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/13/convicted-p... If he shows good conduct, they might release him as soon as November 23rd as confirmed by his entry in the The Federal Bureau of Prisons website: (It was a very long search URL so I shortened it) Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present http://tinyurl.com/6cv8r93 http://tinyurl.com/6cv8r93 For those interested, here is the location he will be serving time at: http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ash/index.jsp http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ash/index.jsp
bugsy 16y ago
Just be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's yahoo mail security question "Where did you meet your spouse?" to which the answer was "Wasilla High". source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/ He didn't even have to guess or crack a password. This is really a major security flaw on yahoo's part, which still exists. The fix in the meantime is to avoid accounts with such questions, or to answer them with random strings of characters. Should this even be a crime? I propose that to keep something secret you should have reasonable security measures. Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock.
- earnubs 16y ago
  How many guesses am I allowed before it's a crime?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    ZERO. The world is not a video game. The difficulty required to break into someone's email account has absolutely nothing to do with the legal implications of doing so. It is very possible that you could be convicted of a felony for reading mails on a passwordless email account. Stay the hell out of other people's email accounts. Jiminy.
    - earnubs 16y ago
      Exactly. (I hope you understood I was using irony.)
- duskwuff 16y ago
  > Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock. Related: http://i.imgur.com/rGtgr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rGtgr.jpg
maeon3 16y ago
"Palin went on to claim to the court that the email hack paralysed her campaign to become the USA's first female vice president." Palin has done 100x worse than this kid, but she doesn't get caught because she paralyzes other candidates campaigns the legal way. By not getting caught when dredging dirt on other people's campaign. However Palin was still unsuccessful because now we have a muslim Kenyan extremist turban-wearing islamic terrorist fist-bumper as president.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Yes. That is how it works. When you do things the legal way, even if they are evil things, you tend not to end up in prison. On the other hand...
protomyth 16y ago
from the other thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2099885 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2099885 The flip side to "I want my e-mail treated like normal mail" is that the same penalties will need to be levied. Private citizens can get in a lot of trouble for tampering with regular mail.
postfuturist 16y ago
If this was really the tipping point for keeping that lunatic out of public office I would have done it myself.
pothibo 16y ago
That's ridiculous. That means that EVERYONE who has used http://codebutler.com/firesheep http://codebutler.com/firesheep can go to prison.
- m0nastic 16y ago
  I don't see how that's ridiculous. Firesheep is a tool whose sole purpose is to facilitate hijacking a user's session. If you use Firesheep to gain access to a user account which you don't own, you're guilty of breaking the law. The fact that the tool makes this easy has no bearing on its legality. So yes, everyone who has used Firesheep to gain access to another user's account without their permission is guilty of breaking the law.
  - pothibo 16y ago
    I'm well aware of that. But I think that's ridiculous, it's Internet, not your house. Even though people nowadays seem to think that you have privacy on the Internet, you don't. Do you go to jail if you open another phone in your house while your sister is talking to someone on the phone? You don't. Yes I think he did put some effort in guessing the question and took control of her account, and yes he should be punished. But jail? That's ridiculous. He didn't deform anything, he just presented the information he had. You also break the law when you go too fast on the highway and you don't go to jail.
    - m0nastic 16y ago
      This isn't listening in on the phone to your sister's phone call. This is closer to listening to someone else's voicemail by guessing what their PIN number is (also not legal). There are things which are yours, and there are things which are not yours. In many instances, accessing things which are not yours without the express permission of the actual owner is a crime. And I'm not going to argue with you if you're saying that the sentencing for computer-related crimes is ridiculous. I agree, I think it's totally out of whack (like a lot of sentencing in this country). And depending on how fast you are going on the highway you do indeed go to jail (most jurisdictions will charge you with reckless driving).

33 points by thedoctor 16y ago

ajays 16y ago

Instead of the blather at this blog, read the original news report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463 The judge didn't "recommend" that he serve it in a half-way house; he just said that 'even a half-way house would be sufficient punishment' . That doesn't mean he said "it must be in a half-way house". Also: he's been sent to a low-security prison, and not a Super-Max.

xbryanx 16y ago
The burden of being sentenced to a prison significantly far away from your current home and family is a terrible burden, regardless of security level. The justice system understands the punitive damage of this sort of measure, and surely took this into account in sentencing.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The facts of the case are (almost) undisputed. What the guy did implicated him for several felonies. He had exceedingly good legal representation --- just read any of the court record to see that. His team managed to deadlock the jury on the most serious charge he faced. The one felony he got dinged with resulted from his destruction of evidence. And all this after (quick reminder) the guy broke into the still-active email account of John McCain's running mate during the 2008 election. It is very, very hard for me to imagine mustering much sympathy for him. People are routinely imprisoned for computer-related crimes less blatant than this one. More importantly, people are routinely imprisoned for truly victimless crimes like "intent-to-distribute" escalations of simple drug possession. None of them have the resources this guy seems to have had. I'm not sure the "burden" of a low-security prison far from his home is an injustice of a cosmic scale.
  - marcusbooster 16y ago
    There's so such thing as being "dinged" with a felony. He will wear that albatross around his neck for the rest of his life. It's not an "injustice of a cosmic scale" so it may not rise to your threshold of caring, but he's still a young man going to prison for what is essentially a prank. Have a little compassion.
    - jerf 16y ago
      This isn't a prank. This is an attempt to influence the election of the most important position in the land using felonious means. He's lucky he's only getting what he's getting, what he did is far more serious. It is blindingly obvious that most expressions of sympathy here are because people approve of the target of the felonious actions. Had he hacked Biden's email the press would have called for his head and wrung their hands so hard about the evils of people who oppose Obama/Biden that they might have fallen off due to lack of blood flow. But creating an environment where it's OK or acceptable to do this sort of this thing to "acceptable targets" is creating an environment where one day, you'll be an "acceptable target". Take a stand. Attempting to influence elections like this is wrong and can't be tolerated, in addition to the fact that hacking emails is wrong and can't be tolerated. Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law.
      - marcusbooster 16y ago
        I have no idea where you're inferring my support of the kids actions based on his target, but please don't that get in the way of your political tangent.
      - moopark 16y ago
        Being sympathetic because you like the target is embracing the rule of men, not the rule of law. No. I'm sympathetic because it was a very stupid prank, not because of the target. What was the actual damage caused? It certainly didn't "paralyze" Palin's campaign.
      - jbooth 16y ago
- gyardley 16y ago
  Ashland is about a four-hour drive from Knoxville, and federal prisons don't exactly dot the landscape like mushrooms. Feel free to look it up, but I suspect it's the closest appropriate facility to his home.
scapula 16y ago
The BBC certainly know how to choose their pictures.
onteria 16y ago
Another story on the matter: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/13/convicted-palin-hacker-david-kernell-prison-camp-k/ http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/jan/13/convicted-p... If he shows good conduct, they might release him as soon as November 23rd as confirmed by his entry in the The Federal Bureau of Prisons website: (It was a very long search URL so I shortened it) Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present http://tinyurl.com/6cv8r93 http://tinyurl.com/6cv8r93 For those interested, here is the location he will be serving time at: http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ash/index.jsp http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ash/index.jsp

bugsy 16y ago

Just be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's yahoo mail security question "Where did you meet your spouse?" to which the answer was "Wasilla High". source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/ He didn't even have to guess or crack a password. This is really a major security flaw on yahoo's part, which still exists. The fix in the meantime is to avoid accounts with such questions, or to answer them with random strings of characters. Should this even be a crime? I propose that to keep something secret you should have reasonable security measures. Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock.

earnubs 16y ago
How many guesses am I allowed before it's a crime?
- tptacek 16y ago
  ZERO. The world is not a video game. The difficulty required to break into someone's email account has absolutely nothing to do with the legal implications of doing so. It is very possible that you could be convicted of a felony for reading mails on a passwordless email account. Stay the hell out of other people's email accounts. Jiminy.
  - earnubs 16y ago
    Exactly. (I hope you understood I was using irony.)
duskwuff 16y ago
> Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock. Related: http://i.imgur.com/rGtgr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rGtgr.jpg

maeon3 16y ago

"Palin went on to claim to the court that the email hack paralysed her campaign to become the USA's first female vice president." Palin has done 100x worse than this kid, but she doesn't get caught because she paralyzes other candidates campaigns the legal way. By not getting caught when dredging dirt on other people's campaign. However Palin was still unsuccessful because now we have a muslim Kenyan extremist turban-wearing islamic terrorist fist-bumper as president.

tptacek 16y ago
Yes. That is how it works. When you do things the legal way, even if they are evil things, you tend not to end up in prison. On the other hand...

protomyth 16y ago

from the other thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2099885 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2099885 The flip side to "I want my e-mail treated like normal mail" is that the same penalties will need to be levied. Private citizens can get in a lot of trouble for tampering with regular mail.

postfuturist 16y ago

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

pothibo 16y ago

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

m0nastic 16y ago
I don't see how that's ridiculous. Firesheep is a tool whose sole purpose is to facilitate hijacking a user's session. If you use Firesheep to gain access to a user account which you don't own, you're guilty of breaking the law. The fact that the tool makes this easy has no bearing on its legality. So yes, everyone who has used Firesheep to gain access to another user's account without their permission is guilty of breaking the law.
- pothibo 16y ago
  I'm well aware of that. But I think that's ridiculous, it's Internet, not your house. Even though people nowadays seem to think that you have privacy on the Internet, you don't. Do you go to jail if you open another phone in your house while your sister is talking to someone on the phone? You don't. Yes I think he did put some effort in guessing the question and took control of her account, and yes he should be punished. But jail? That's ridiculous. He didn't deform anything, he just presented the information he had. You also break the law when you go too fast on the highway and you don't go to jail.
  - m0nastic 16y ago
    This isn't listening in on the phone to your sister's phone call. This is closer to listening to someone else's voicemail by guessing what their PIN number is (also not legal). There are things which are yours, and there are things which are not yours. In many instances, accessing things which are not yours without the express permission of the actual owner is a crime. And I'm not going to argue with you if you're saying that the sentencing for computer-related crimes is ridiculous. I agree, I think it's totally out of whack (like a lot of sentencing in this country). And depending on how fast you are going on the highway you do indeed go to jail (most jurisdictions will charge you with reckless driving).