5 ms·
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 wa
by 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 agoHow many guesses am I allowed before it's a crime?
- tptacek 16y agoZERO. 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 agoExactly. (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
- bugsy 16y agoYes, well that's an edge condition. Hard cases make bad law.
- raganwald 16y agoUsing a bag twisty to hold a gate is considered _exactly_ the same as a chain and a padlock for the purposes of trespassing. If it's clear to you that you aren't to enter my property, you don't enter my property and it doesn't matter how difficult I make it for you to do what you already know is wrong. The issue here is the severity of the sentence, not his guilt, and especially not blaming the victim.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- bugsy 16y agoNo. A padlock is clearly to say this area is forbidden, do not enter. A twisty can mean the latch is broken and the twisty is stopping the gate from blowing open in the wind, but not intended to stop anyone from entering. No reasonable person would look at a gate with a twisty and conclude that was intended to stop people from entering. It is obviously a stopgap measure to keep the gate from blowing open, not to stop people from using the gate. Let's say kids on the street are playing and their frisbee goes into your yard. They come to the gate and there is a chain and padlock. They find some bolt cutters, cut the chain and retrieve the frisbee - that's breaking, entering and vandalism! OK, stop, rewind. Instead of a chain and padlock the gate is held closed with a twisty. They untwist the twisty, retrieve the frisbee and leave. So the police will arrest and the jury will convict them of the same crime - breaking, entering and vandalism, right? Wrong! Nothing will happen because no crime was committed by opening the twisty gate.
- mikeryan 16y agoJust be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's yahoo mail security question No actually the "crime" was "anticipatory obstruction of justice" for destroying evidence in a federal investigation. Actually accessing the account was a misdemeanor. Look I think this is a stupid kid who doesn't deserve a year a in jail. But you don't get to trivialize a crime because it was "easy". Just because my neighbors door was unlocked and I "just walked in" doesn't give me the right to do so.
- tptacek 16y agoInaccurate. The crimes charged were identity theft, wire fraud, and obstruction. The prosecution has broad discretion to choose what to charge. They chose poorly here. There are US felony statutes that pertain to unauthorized statutes; they require a (low) threshold of quantified damages and have a lower penalty attached to them compared to identity theft, but had he been charged with them, he'd be doing significantly more than a year in prison.
- mikeryan 16y agoI'm actually just speaking to the charges for which he was convicted, not what he was charged with (based off the wikipedia article).
- tptacek 16y agoI'm just making it clear that they didn't take him to court for clearing his browser cache; they went after him for breaking into the email account, but did so hamhandedly.
- bugsy 16y agoIt does affect the crime though and is a big difference. If the door is closed and locked it is breaking and entering which is a felony that brings prison time. If the door is open and unlocked it's trespassing which is a misdemeanor and will seldom get jail time.