If you leave your front door wide open, it is still illegal for someone to walk in and take your stuff.

And I don't see how the information can legally be used in a court of law now since it was obtained illegally. So basically, I don't think anything will happen to her even though what she did was illegal.

Hackers suck mostly. They potentially ruined what could have been a good case.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by badmedia]

While I agree that getting into her account was by less than legal means, I applaud the principal of the matter (if that principal was to expose a flaw that could effect the individuals ability to run a country). Legally, both should be punished. Its no different than the thieves who rob drug dealers thinking the police won't care. Come to find out both parties get busted if the cops become involved.

And to the person who says Palin doesn't deserv to be a criminal because she's the victim. Newsflash...if you break the law, you are a criminal, regardless of if you are the victim of a crime yourself. That's like saying the drug dealer in above scenario should be defended because someone robbed him.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ninthaxis]

Originally posted by badmedia
If you leave your front door wide open, it is still illegal for someone to walk in and take your stuff.

And I don't see how the information can legally be used in a court of law now since it was obtained illegally. So basically, I don't think anything will happen to her even though what she did was illegal.

Hackers suck mostly. They potentially ruined what could have been a good case.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by badmedia]

Actually, what the hacker did can be used to get a warrant to request or take legal access to the mail accounts in question and, since most of them are deleted by now, request the backups to be made available for analysis.

And again, dude didn't hack #, he guessed a question.

And theres all kinds of hackers, don't generalize them. Every decent sysadmin is a hacker, there is a much higher ratio of legal whitehat hackers then there are blackhats, its just the guys that hack with bad intentions that get caught and give everyone a bad name.

Originally posted by ninthaxis
While I agree that getting into her account was by less than legal means, I applaud the principal of the matter (if that principal was to expose a flaw that could effect the individuals ability to run a country). Legally, both should be punished. Its no different than the thieves who rob drug dealers thinking the police won't care. Come to find out both parties get busted if the cops become involved.

And to the person who says Palin doesn't deserv to be a criminal because she's the victim. Newsflash...if you break the law, you are a criminal, regardless of if you are the victim of a crime yourself. That's like saying the drug dealer in above scenario should be defended because someone robbed him.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ninthaxis]

Very good example, it makes me think of Omar if you watch The Wire you will know what I'm talking about. If you havent seen The Wire, you should definitely watch it.

I hope he doesn't get in any trouble. If it had happened to anyone that isn't famous, then no one would care. If he gets in legal trouble, then it better be as some sort of precedent.

Tinkerbell Kudos to Sarah Pallin for the weak password choice. People who choose weak passwords are subjecting themselves to smart kids with a curiosity. This kid is just a by-product of the digital age and perhaps a martyr for identification security. I really don't see too much damage here, other than identifying a vulnerability of social design. Makes ya think twice about security and authentication of ID. One day technology will catch up.

The kid isn't a Tennessee redneck.. and what about those ties to the Subgenius? People get owned all the time with far less consequence. How much damage did this really create for Pallin?? I think the more important lesson to learn from this is... The weakness of Yahoo. No harm, no foul. Slap the kid on the wrist, and move on.

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
People who are experiencing OBS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) really believe that blaming the victim is appropriate. Isn't that a bit scary?

Her account is hacked and yet she is the criminal? Insanity.

She is the criminal because using that account for government business was illegal. They are both criminals. They both broke the law.

Tell me, who are you really more concerned about following the law?

some punk kid or our elected officials? I did not elect that kid, I do not pay him with my taxes, he does not represent me. He is a criminal, send him to jail. She is a criminal, boot her out of office and send her to jail.

What this kid has done is NOT the same as "entering into a locked house and stealing stuff". It is more correct to say that he "Looked into a house, and used a device to recreate everything he saw in the house."

How in God's name can it be "theft" if the original person still has everything they had before?

Put another way.... Let's say some aliens gave me a device. This device can scan something (like a car), and totally recreate it without disturbing the original. I walk over to my neighbor's house. He has his car out front. I walk over, scan his car, and this device recreates one just like it. Have I stolen anything from my neighbor? (BTW, this example is the REAL reason companies want to call music/movie/software copying "theft", instead of what it REALLY is, which is just an intellectual property right violation, aka copyright violation. Why do they do that? Because "copyright violation" doesn't evoke the same visceral response as "theft"! People don't really care above the former, but you can absolutely bet they care about the latter.)

The ONLY thing she lost was her right of privacy. But then again, if she was using a private e-mail account, for PUBLIC BUSINESS, did she have any expectation of privacy on that account to begin with?

Did the hacker copy personal e-mails (e.g. "OMG! She is SUCH a witch! I hope I don't see her at that party again!"), or were they actually governmental related e-mails to which he may or may not have had a legal right to view?

[edit on 22-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]

I killed another thread!