6 ms·

why isn't this bigger news?

by kul 18y ago

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Goronmon 18y ago
I'm curious...why should it be bigger news?
- tptacek 18y ago
  Because it's alleged that she funneled government email through private email accounts deliberately to avoid transparency laws --- in other words, to prevent citizens from learning about her on-the-job correspondance --- only to have the raw contents of those mail spools dumped to the entire Internet. It touches on a political controversy (running the State of Alaska through Yahoo may be illegal) and involves a seperate crime commited for publicity and political purposes. It implicates the security of hosted email providers in general, and begs the question of how confidential government emails could have been so insecure in the first place. I'm betraying opinions that I'd like to keep close, because this hasn't been authenticated. If it is, I'd say it's huge news. What a fuckup.
  - webwright 18y ago
    Looking at the screenshots, there is no evidence of government business there. She's bitching a bit about Dan Fagan (a repub. commentator in AK) in the one email, but everything looks pretty personal. I have a work and personal account... 99% of the time I manage to keep my personal account personal-- occasionally I don't. I'd be stunned if there weren't occasional transgressions on this front in any governor's office. I'd expect that security tightens up a bit in the Executive branch. (disclaimers: I lived in Alaska until 2 years ago and know how utterly wrong the national media is about what goes on up there. I am not a republican, but don't really consider myself a democrat, either.)
    - tptacek 18y ago
      I'm not going to repost stuff from Wikilinks here, but it looks like you're not correct: there's a transcript of the screenshots that includes things like, "CONFIDENTIAL ETHICS INVESTIGATION" and "REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS". In addition to being a fuckup of spectacular proportions, it also corroborates an earlier news report of leaked emails that included specific instructions not to send sensitive government mails to Palin's work account. Of course, none of this has been authenticated. It looks credible, but there's plenty of incentive to make something look credible in this political and news climate. The interesting story here is the trend story. It applies to companies as well as government officials. People will attempt to use personal email accounts to avoid subpoenas. But nobody knows enough to keep those accounts secure, and the growing insecurity of the web guarantees most hosted mail accounts will eventually get popped. Meanwhile, it's hard for executives and officials to find "secure" mail providers without tacitly confirming that they're conducting business in secret. It's an interesting problem. [Late edit: Time: it's probably real.]
      - webwright 18y ago
        Ah, I'd just looked at the screenshots, not the text "log". Interesting that they'd screenshot all of the subjects that are totally personal/innocuous but the text log has all of the potentially damning subjects... Hrm. Why wouldn't you just scroll down and take a few screenies to prove the evil? I've worked on the technology side of a few candidates and politicians-- they are almost without fail moronic about technology. I can imagine accidental sends to Palin's personal account. For all we know, the content of those emails are "You dumbass. How many times do I have to tell you that stuff like this should go to my work account?!", right? I agree that the trend is interesting, tho.
        tptacek 18y ago
        (a) Because the people who pulled off the attack are stupid. (b) Because the people who pulled off the attack somehow lost access after getting the account but before archiving all the mail, and so made up the good stuff. (c) Because the people who pulled off the attack are very smart, and are going to slow-drip this out to the media over the next month. I know where my bet's at now.
vaksel 18y ago
from what I understand this is her private email account, not the un-"official" yahoo account

why isn't this bigger news?

by kul 18y ago

why isn't this bigger news?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

Goronmon 18y ago

I'm curious...why should it be bigger news?

tptacek 18y ago
Because it's alleged that she funneled government email through private email accounts deliberately to avoid transparency laws --- in other words, to prevent citizens from learning about her on-the-job correspondance --- only to have the raw contents of those mail spools dumped to the entire Internet. It touches on a political controversy (running the State of Alaska through Yahoo may be illegal) and involves a seperate crime commited for publicity and political purposes. It implicates the security of hosted email providers in general, and begs the question of how confidential government emails could have been so insecure in the first place. I'm betraying opinions that I'd like to keep close, because this hasn't been authenticated. If it is, I'd say it's huge news. What a fuckup.
- webwright 18y ago
  Looking at the screenshots, there is no evidence of government business there. She's bitching a bit about Dan Fagan (a repub. commentator in AK) in the one email, but everything looks pretty personal. I have a work and personal account... 99% of the time I manage to keep my personal account personal-- occasionally I don't. I'd be stunned if there weren't occasional transgressions on this front in any governor's office. I'd expect that security tightens up a bit in the Executive branch. (disclaimers: I lived in Alaska until 2 years ago and know how utterly wrong the national media is about what goes on up there. I am not a republican, but don't really consider myself a democrat, either.)
  - tptacek 18y ago
    I'm not going to repost stuff from Wikilinks here, but it looks like you're not correct: there's a transcript of the screenshots that includes things like, "CONFIDENTIAL ETHICS INVESTIGATION" and "REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS". In addition to being a fuckup of spectacular proportions, it also corroborates an earlier news report of leaked emails that included specific instructions not to send sensitive government mails to Palin's work account. Of course, none of this has been authenticated. It looks credible, but there's plenty of incentive to make something look credible in this political and news climate. The interesting story here is the trend story. It applies to companies as well as government officials. People will attempt to use personal email accounts to avoid subpoenas. But nobody knows enough to keep those accounts secure, and the growing insecurity of the web guarantees most hosted mail accounts will eventually get popped. Meanwhile, it's hard for executives and officials to find "secure" mail providers without tacitly confirming that they're conducting business in secret. It's an interesting problem. [Late edit: Time: it's probably real.]
    - webwright 18y ago
      Ah, I'd just looked at the screenshots, not the text "log". Interesting that they'd screenshot all of the subjects that are totally personal/innocuous but the text log has all of the potentially damning subjects... Hrm. Why wouldn't you just scroll down and take a few screenies to prove the evil? I've worked on the technology side of a few candidates and politicians-- they are almost without fail moronic about technology. I can imagine accidental sends to Palin's personal account. For all we know, the content of those emails are "You dumbass. How many times do I have to tell you that stuff like this should go to my work account?!", right? I agree that the trend is interesting, tho.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        (a) Because the people who pulled off the attack are stupid. (b) Because the people who pulled off the attack somehow lost access after getting the account but before archiving all the mail, and so made up the good stuff. (c) Because the people who pulled off the attack are very smart, and are going to slow-drip this out to the media over the next month. I know where my bet's at now.

vaksel 18y ago

from what I understand this is her private email account, not the un-"official" yahoo account