Hacking Hypocrisy

To use the current buzzword from Fox"News", isn't it "interesting" that no conservatives are talking about this.

Nine people were indicted Wednesday on federal charges of accessing President Barack Obama's student loan records while they were employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.

The U.S. attorney's office said a grand jury returned the indictments in U.S. District Court in Davenport.

All nine are charged with exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama's student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president.

U.S. attorney spokesman Mike Bladel referred questions to online copies of the indictments.

Each of eight indictments posted by Wednesday night were brief, saying the charged individual "intentionally exceeded authorized access to a computer and thereby obtained information from a department and agency of the United States" and "intentionally accessed student loan records" of Obama without authorization.

Those charged are Andrew J. Lage, 54, Patrick E. Roan, 51, Sandra Teague, 54 and Mercedes Costoyas, 53, all of Iowa City; Gary N. Grenell, 58, and Lisa Torney, 49, of Coralville; Anna C. Rhodes, 32, of Ainsworth; Julie L. Kline, 38, of West Branch; and John P. Phommivong, 29, for whom no hometown was listed.

Lage told The Associated Press on Wednesday evening he did not know about the indictment and declined comment.

( h/t: Laffy over at Political Carnival )

Here's what gets me:

Arraignments are scheduled for May 24. The charge is punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

The kid who "hacked" Palin's email account potentially get 20yrs for his offense. Does this not sound wrong to anyone but me?

Take a look at how conservatives and Fox"News" approached the Palin incident.





Sean Hannity was even against hacking private information before he was for it.



Of course, conservatives will say that the case involving Obama's student loan records is different due to the fact that no information was shared online. And while that is true, these incidents occurred multiple times up to when Obama had already become President-Elect. Not only that, but these men worked for the Department Of Education and were blatantly misusing government property. One would think the penalty would be pretty stiff for them. Apparently not.

Not to be overtly conspiratorial about this, but one has to question whether this was intended to go beyond just Obama's student loan records. Having a group of nine guys attempting to just find out how much Obama spent on college doesn't seem to make a lot of sense considering all the other aspects of Obama's life that conservatives are going after. I'm sure that this isn't the last we will hear of this story - just don't expect Fox"News" to report on it.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- With the ever growing anger fueled by ignorance and fear of being proven wrong, the alleged "Climategate" non-story has taken on a more interesting tone as another break-in at the Canadian Centre For Climate Modeling. But an even more darker turn, as no reported by anyone in the mainstream American press - that's including you Fox"News' - is that the Russian Secret Service may be behind the initial hack/theft from England.

- In another example of how Senate Republicans are not taking the healthcare debate seriously at all, they have now introduced an amendment that would require the President, his staff, and all members of Congress to be part of the Public Option should it pass. Obviously stemming from the debunked theory that language in the initial legislation would not require any member of Congress or the President and his staff, Republicans thought they had won a small victory until they were called out on their trickery by Al Franken.

- Even after some of her most specious claims have been proven to be either false of severely misleading, I'm still aghast at the fact that so many conservatives are willing to follow this Sarah Palin. Her "book tour", nothing more than a chance for her to rebuff some of her critics in the media and those within the McCain campaign who are finally able to let the world know what it was like to work with her. Not once have we heard any sort of substantive policy argument from her, as she is literally nothing more than a talking-point vomiting puppet. Should she excel to the level of Presidential candidate, we are going to see such a divide within the GOP like we have never seen before, and it's already getting worse as the months go by.

The Climate Of Conservative Thought

Ever since the alleged "bombshell" dropped recently where emails allegedly showed that global warming was a "hoax", conservatives haven't been able to wipe clean all the drool that is literally pouring from their ever gaping maws. The only problem is that the emails that these same conservatives are having such fun referencing lack context. And as we all should know by now, conservatives context context.

Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.

It's people like Laura Ingraham who think that they can speak from a scientific perspective. And as glaringly obvious as her ignorance is, the fringe conservatives that have placed all their bets against the reality of global warming/climate change are willing to have their information spoon-fed to them by the likes of Ingraham

And this abject ignorance is seen readily through my attempts to converse with some of the more reactionary lot on Twitter.



The site reference by @FightTheSmears ( a rabidly twitchy Palin fanatic ) is so poorly put together that all chronology within the hacked/stolen emails is lost.

Rather than showing the true timeline of the stolen/hacked emails, one can search by keyword ( though doing that often relies on the opinions of the creators of the website ) where you are literally dropped into a sea of sentences that lack any sort of relevance without the data/information that is often referenced within.

Here's a good example:

If I click on the lying tag, there are 118 individual emails that are referenced from 1996 until 2009, often with lengthy spans of time between each email. Here's where the context part comes in.

This email is contained within the "lying" section:

From: Mike Hulme
To: "Iain Brown (UKCIP)"
Subject: Re: temporal interpolation for UKCIP scenarios
Date: Wed Sep 11 12:39:26 2002
Cc: geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,x.lu,j.turnpenny

Iain (and Geoff),
Definitive explanations are always dangerous! The reasoning behind this is as follows:
- the report only analysed and pictured seasonal and annual data (DJF,MAM, etc.) [in fact,
nearly all published maps of climate model outputs show changes in seasonal - 3-month -
averages]. This applying a uniform filter over 90 or 360 days.
- the requested datasets are at monthly time-steps. The default option for this is in
effect applying a uniform 30-day filter. [one might also conceive of weekly or daily
time-step files - e.g. changes in Week 13 for the 2050s for precip. for Medium-High or
changes for Julian day number 256 for the 2080s for Tmin for Low].
- these are all arbitrary choices of course, dictated by convention. But the important
point it seems to me is again a signal to noise issue - the shorter the time-averaging
period, the weaker the S/N ratio [i.e., we have more confidence that averaged over a year,
Tmin in the UK will increase by, say, 2.7degC for certain scenario, than that for the same
scenarios Tmin on 13 June will increase - on average - by 2.6degC and on 14 June only by
2.3degC - is this difference between 2.6 on 13 June and 2.3 on 14 June really meaningful?
No - it is most likely due to noise - natural variability].
- this reasoning suggests that as the time-averaging period decreases, one should pay less
attention to small differences between adjacent time-averaged periods, e.g. if June precip.
goes down by 10%, is the fact that July precip. goes down by 20% and August by 5% really
meaningful?
-
At 10:13 11/09/02 +0100, Iain Brown (UKCIP) wrote:

Mike,
For the UKCIP Scenarios datasets - both 98 and 02 - temporal interpolation
was applied to the raw model data in the form of a 1-2-1 filter. This had
the effect of smoothing out monthly values so that there are not as abrupt
transitions between adjacent months.
Can you provide us with the definitive explanation for the interpolation?
Some users (eg. in the recent London study) have noted that there are
differences between the maps they have derived from the data and the maps in
the UKCIP02 report.
best wishes,
Iain
-----------------------------------
Dr. Iain Brown
UK Climate Impacts Programme
12 St. Michael's St.
Oxford
OX1 2DU

From a rational perspective, it's easy to see that this discussion is dealing with complex data/maps ( neither of which are shown in the email ) that is being used as part of the study. So, I wondering exactly how many conservatives that are using these emails feel so confident that email exchanges such as this one are conclusive proof that this is all an elaborate hoax that has been perpetrated upon the entire world.

For starters, it's likely the selective nature in which conservatives are viewing the hacked/stolen email. Whereas most people will read the entire email exchange and attempt to get the facts, a conservative is likely to only read the first sentence - "Definitive explanations are always dangerous". It's an involuntary editing process within the brain of the reactionary fringe that creates the illusion that what is there isn't and what isn't there is.

And why is it that no conservatives are troubled by the very real fact that these emails were hacked/stolen? One of the loudest voices of the modern conservative movement once had a serious problem with this.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

Oh, that's right. Back then it was bad because it was Palin's account that was hacked. It's alright now because it's NOT Palin.

By and large, this faux controversy is a non-starter for anyone with even a marginally functioning frontal lobe. However, the very real fact that the bulk of news networks aren't covering this story is allowing people like Fox"News" to claim that they have uncovered this grand plot and that everyone else is asleep at the switch or is somehow in on the scheme.

The conspiratorial nature of the modern conservative is truly something to marvel at.

Hacking Accountability

For those that even bother to read or listen to Michelle Malkin - I must admit that she is one of my guilty pleasures. There's something bizarrely fascinating about watching and reading a woman who seems on the verge of spontaneous combustion on a daily basis - you might remember her purse-lipped outrage at Sarah Palin's personal email account being "hacked".

But now there's news that soon to be former Governor Mark Sanford ( no, he's not a Democrat, no matter what the Fox"News" chyron might tell you ) had his emails to and from his Argentine love-toy intercepted. Copies of those emails were given to South Carolina's State paper and subsequently published.

This portion of the story gets a tad more interesting from here.

The State didn't just happen upon these emails over the last week or even month. They've had them since December. In fact, several reporters were sent copies of the emails.

I'm inclined to agree with Anonymous Liberal - why aren't people asking questions about how the emails got to where they are?

But how would someone have obtained these emails? These were highly personal emails between Sanford and his Argentine mistress, neither of whom is likely to have wanted them published. And if it wasn't one of them, that really only leaves two possibilities: unauthorized access or official interception. The latter is obviously the most troubling possibility, and I hope that someone looks in to this further, if for no other reason than to rule that out.

It's not clear from the story whether Sanford was using a personal web-based email account (like gmail or yahoo) or his official state account. If the former, then I suppose just about anyone determined enough could have hacked into his account by guessing his password, the same way someone broke into Sarah Palin's personal email account during last Fall's presidential campaign. If it was a state account, then there probably needs to be an official investigation.

If Sanford had used his government email account, wouldn't there have been record of every correspondance? If so, sending dirty notes to your mistress in South America probably wouldn't be the best thing to do. Of course, we are talking about the man that skipped out on his kids on Father's Day, didn't tell anyone where he was going, had his staff lie to everyone about it, and then - upon getting caught - essentially asked the media to leave him alone. Not the brightest crayon in the box, so there's not telling what he used his government account for.

However, if these emails were generated using a personal account, then someone must have been looking for something to pin on the Governor. His wife, perhaps? She did know of the affair prior to Sanford's return. Maybe she was trying to figure out who it was. The likelihood that it was a political opponent is valid. Too many speculations really.

Back to Michelle Malkin.

She railed continuously against Gawker and the alleged "hacker" until the issue was beyond dead.

Whereas Palin's account was "hacked" and it was discovered that she was using a personal account to conduct "business" - which is a big no-no - Sanford's emailing was used in a shody attempt to conceal his extra-marital activities. The one unifying factor is that in both cases, someone "hacked" the account and distributed information that the owner probably didn't want coming out in the first place.

Where is Malkin's fist-clinching outrage now? Sanford was part of her crowd: Conservative, Anti-Stimulus, Family Values, pretty much anti-Obama on everything.

She sings a new tune now:

It’s the only fitting word for a man who abandons his wife and four sons on Father’s Day weekend to indulge his “overdrive” on an Argentinian fling.

Mark Sanford: Bastard.

I'll give her the "bastard" point, but that's just the easy route to take. Be as loud as you can in order to remove all trace of your support of a man that got caught. I believe the phrase she uses in "under the bus".

I'm sure that Malkin has her own particular point of view on what her marriage means, what her relationship with her husband and children are as it relates to her career. But if she is going to lambast someone for "hacking" Palin's account, shouldn't she express that same concern over the "hacking" of Sanford's account?

It's a rather interesting think to consider, but perhaps only to me. Who knows.

The only other thing that comes to mind in relation to this is why sit on the emails for so long? Sanford's behavior of late, and his turn in the political spotlight, suggest that he wasn't concerned about being caught. His trip to Argentina was a very bold move, but perhaps that wasn't anything more than desperation.

I'm sure there will be more to this story.

Palin's Office Did Not Return A Call Seeking Comment

Remember the news of the Tennessee college student that allegedly "hacked" Sarah Palin's email account and posted a non-personal email and some photos on 4chan.org?

Seems that his lawyers are going to not only fight to remove the felony charge, but have some of the charges dropped. Their defense is rather compelling.

Wade Davies, David Kernell defense lawyer, is approaching this from the angle that the email that was lifted and posted online was a matter of "public record" and should have been made a part of the open record. He's siting a suit filed in an Alaskan court where a judge ultimated ruled that Palin's "on-the-job" correspondance using her personal email had to be preserved.

Tennessee, he says, only recognizes an invasion of privacy when the invasion exposes something that is inherently private, and the victim was placed in a false light by the invasion. But Palin wasn’t placed in a false light by the alleged hack, and her privacy wasn’t invaded since “an Alaska court has issued an order requiring Ms. Palin to preserve the correspondence in her private e-mail accounts on the grounds that the e-mails are public records.”

Davies is referring to litigation that was filed by an Alaskan activist before the alleged hack occurred. That lawsuit sought Palin’s private e-mail. The activist charged that Palin used her Yahoo accounts to conduct official government business and therefore e-mail in the accounts was part of the public record and should be disclosed under Alaska’s public records statute. A judge ruled, after news of the hack broke, that Palin was required to preserve the correspondence in her private accounts until the lawsuit was resolved.

Davies implies in his motion to dismiss that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Palin’s Yahoo correspondence was a public record, and cites case law showing that information that already appears on the public record can’t be considered private.

Once the "privacy" issue is taken off the table, the government has no felony case at all.

But what of the photos?

As for photos of Palin and family members that Kernell allegedly obtained from the account, Davies says there’s no expectation of privacy for the images, because the people depicted in the photos “continue to regularly and voluntarily appear in the national media.”

Sarah and Todd are more than willing to shove the family in front of the cameras at any given moment. They are hardly a "private' bunch of folks. Sarah even convinced her daughter to openly advocate for abstinence in the face of her own "out of wedlock" pregnancy.

Then there's the obviously trumped-up charges of "wire-fraud".

Aside from the computer fraud and privacy charge, Davies also took issue with a wire fraud charge alleging that his client deprived Palin of property by accessing her e-mail. Davies argues that the charge isn’t valid because e-mails constitute “ethereal” property, not “traditional property” as defined by the law. Kernell, he wrote, “was not trying to steal from Sarah Palin.

More from Wired

Conservative bloggers had a field day with this story, as they do with any and all stories that revolve around Sarah Palin.

Michelle Malkin led the charge right out of the gate.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine — see here for all the background you need — has posted private family photos of Palin’s children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.

Malkin is apparently referencing this recording of Bristol's "outgoing" VM message. There is even the contact list from Palin's email account published on Gawker. From my perspective, I find it less-than upsetting that a person's private email account was published, reguardless of who that might be. There are thousands of websites that require you to list you email account when signing up to comment on various topics.

That being said, hacking is still a crime. But, the fact that Sarah Palin's email account is technically nothing more than "ethereal" property and not "traditional" property, the likelihood that a jury will allow the wire-fraud charges to stand is kind of up in the air right now.

Was Palin in any danger of having money/property stolen or extorted from her? Likely not. But that is ultimately up to the courts to decide.

Malkin's aligations that this was a group of "infamous hackers" was thoroughly debunked by a person that monitors the site where originally published - /b/ - who apparently sent an email to Malkin to clear the air on a few points.

There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.

Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.

None of this will absolve the very real fact that David Kernell is accused of hacking into Sarah Palin's email and posting screen-caps of a message a several photos. What this case will ultimately show is that the charges leveled against Kernell were severely inflated and the resulting conservative reaction increase exponentially simply due to the fact that it was Sarah Palin's email.

A Pinch Of Hackers - A Dash Of Campaign Fever - And A Cup Of Limbaugh = Republican Red Meat Stew

First of, Palin is not a unique example of someone having their personal - and possibly private - information appropriated.

If you'll recall, Clinton, Obama, and McCain had their passport information leaked.

By it's very nature - and keep in mind this is just an opinion from someone who is not necessarily as tech-savvy as they should be - hacking is something that can either be a harmless prank or a life-destroying act of maliciousness.

I haven't seen the alleged Palin emails ( yet ) but I have read more than a few conservative blogs that are treating this like it's something that has never happened before.

Enter Rush Limbaugh.

He takes it in the direction that only a man like him could take it.



That's right, it was the Obama campaign that did this

*cue dramatic music*

Here's something interesting to chew on this morning.

Why was Governor Palin using a public email account to conduct government business?

Why was she, much like the Bush administration, unwilling to cooperate and release emails in relation to the "Troopergate" investigation?

Could there be a connection there? Possibly.

Regardless of who did it or why it was done, it is something that should not be "snorted at" in the least.

Even though some are saying that it is Sarah Palin's fault that her emails were compromised, this isn't so. It isn't so much fault as it was poor judgement on her part to not use a secure, government, email system.

While I am not agreeing with what the hacker(s) have allegedly done, I am not about to accuse the McCain campaign of this. That's more the Republican's style of doing things.