Palin hacker sentenced to one year in prison

Hacking into a vice-presidential candidate's personal e-mail account has landed a 22-year-old man a one-year jail sentence.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/palin-hacker-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[PMD]

Whatever happened to 'boys will be boys'?

 

[oblivion]

I'm always amazed that these people get caught with all the open wifi networks out there. Am I missing something?

Its the ones that do not get caught you dont hear about.

 

[hudson1]

If you break into a bank but don't steal any money you still go to jail. If you break into someone's house to find some "dirt" during an election you go to jail. Now someone please tell me why it should be any different with an e-mail account, especially where the perpetrator destroys evidence?

 

[UltimateLemon]

If you break into a bank but don't steal any money you still go to jail. If you break into someone's house to find some "dirt" during an election you go to jail. Now someone please tell me why it should be any different with an e-mail account, especially where the perpetrator destroys evidence?

Breaking and entering is at least 2 years jail term for first offence so the difference would be 1 year in this case.

 

[WaltC]

Kernell’s attorney, in seeking probation for his client, argued that although Kernell might have deleted evidence, he didn’t destroy the computer entirely or get rid of it.

Why is it that these defendants are forced to incriminate themselves by preserving evidence discoverable only by search and seizure of their own personal property? If the government cannot prove its case other than by forcing a defendant to incriminate himself, why is the 5th Amendment ignored? In keeping with the 5th Amendment, it doesn't strike me that the government prosecuting a man for failing to self-incriminate is Constitutional.

Quoting from the 5th: "nor shall [the defendant] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Is there any doubt whatever that preserving evidence found only within a defendant's personal property so that the government may prosecute him, and prosecute him expressly because of that evidence,-- is that government mandate anything less than being forced into self-incrimination? Clearly, the intent of the 5th amendment is that the government *may not* compel *the defendant* to self-incriminate just to prove its case, and the government may not compel a defendant to testify against himself by preserving self-incriminatory evidence. What is unclear about that?

 

[Maestro4k]

I'm kinda surprised there wasn't a charge for attempting to interfere in the political process by illegal means (and no, I have no idea what the charge would actually be). He admits to be trying to influence the election though, which would seem to me to be on the same level as tampering with ballots or some form of bribery. Certainly reprehensible at the very least, regardless of political affiliation. I'm not sure if the limited amount he did actually did have any effect, but the very fact that he appeared to think it was a fine thing to do makes me question how well his parents raised him.

There's nothing illegal about "interfering" in someone getting elected by finding and outing dirt on them. It happens all the time (as someone else noted, all the nasty mud-slinging in political ads is a less extreme version of this). What _can_ be illegal is how the information is obtained, but it's still not a crime in itself to release info that causes a candidate to lose their election.

If he hacked into your joe blow account, who cares. But if he hacked into your CEO's account, you and I know full well that there's going to be hell to pay.

Think about it. This is Sarah Palin. Someone who has more connections to people in power than you and I will ever have in our pathetic lifetimes. Fair or unfair, if you cross her, there's going to be an according price to pay.

I find it disturbing that anyone feels this way -- if the victim is an ordinary person, no one cares, but if the victim is famous or powerful, there will be hell to pay.

How can anyone support such a notion? Are the powerful not already powerful enough? Now we need the courts on their side too, making sure to prosecute those who victimize powerful people more fully and sentence them more harshly?

Most of us don't support it, but it's the reality of the situation. Those in power by and large ignore anything that doesn't impact others in positions of power (or their family). And, sadly, for the most part this will never change because those that think this kind of behavior is reprehensible _aren't the ones in power_. And oddly enough, poor people who work their ways up to positions of power and money nearly always seem to change their viewpoint on this once they're rich and powerful. Shakespeare was quite right with that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" bit.

You have low expectations of woman, she is a pig, and a bat-shit-insane pig at that. If americans put her in the white house then your country is doomed.

If Palin gets to the point where she can realistically _win_ election, the country's doomed already. Her taking control will just hasten the final demise (think nuclear war). And sadly, I'm afraid we're heading there quickly. Don't blame me though, I sure as hell didn't vote for her or any of the other insane politicians (hi there tea party!). But apparently enough people don't agree with me that we're heading for doom. I'd say we should move to Canada, but if Palin gets control.... nuclear winter won't make Canada any more habitable than the US.

That's right, but yet there are still those here who argue that what the kid did, was NOT A CRIME. And Palin committed the greater crime by using an external mail account.

That's what the problem is.

Some may be arguing that, but I think the majority are taking a more nuanced viewpoint. Named that what the kid did _was a crime_, but it wasn't _that serious of a crime_. I have trouble finding what he did to get access to her E-mail account a felony. I also have trouble finding deleting files on a hard drive to being a felony level "destruction of evidence" (especially since he apparently didn't succeed). What he did was wrong, illegal even, but not 1 year in jail level wrong. Basically, the punishment here is out of line with the severity of what he actually _did_. And I would go so far as to say we need to be adjusting out laws on destruction of evidence when it comes to computers. If you just delete files and they're recovered, it shouldn't be a felony. That's not up there with burning stuff and what-not. Especially not when you're a scared 20-something who's just realized you did something _really_ stupid and are deleting files mostly in a panic. (Does anyone doubt he was panicked at that point? I sure don't.)

Behold the power of the internet...

Her parents will be responsible, and then her school, and then the entire society. The girl's education was not a good one.

That's right, punish the society!

It's too bad they caused a lot of trouble for another, innocent person. But the end justifies the means, right?

/ damn teens with lots of free time and no understanding of the consequences of their actions

You fail at reading comprehension, Anonymous didn't say that, the local animal protection group did. The full quote from the article says:

"Local animal protection group SOS president Velimir Ivanisevic said: "This girl needs help.

"Her parents will be responsible, and then her school, and then the entire society. The girl's education was not a good one.""

Not that vigilante justice is a good thing, but do put the proper blame in the proper place. I'd go so far as to say that Anonymous' reaction shows that society's just fine and dandy (in this one regard), people were outraged at such callous disregard for the life of those puppies.

Were there any repercussions for Palin for using an external mail account for government business? Or could she not be punished because the evidence was obtained illegally?

She quit before most of the investigations against her could be concluded. So we'll never know for sure. I guess you could call that a repercussion, but it's not really. She'd gained enough national attention to make quitting a good career move in some ways. (Really freaking hard to campaign for a national election when you're in Alaska. Kinda hard to travel like you need to, and getting to the east coast to campaign is pretty much impossible.) Word is that she hated the governor's job anyway, it was too boring for her. I'm hoping that means she won't actually run for president (if she does and wins I bet she doesn't last a year before resigning).

 

[cmacd]

Kernell’s attorney, in seeking probation for his client, argued that although Kernell might have deleted evidence, he didn’t destroy the computer entirely or get rid of it.

Why is it that these defendants are forced to incriminate themselves by preserving evidence discoverable only by search and seizure of their own personal property? If the government cannot prove its case other than by forcing a defendant to incriminate himself, why is the 5th Amendment ignored? In keeping with the 5th Amendment, it doesn't strike me that the government prosecuting a man for failing to self-incriminate is Constitutional.

Quoting from the 5th: "nor shall [the defendant] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Is there any doubt whatever that preserving evidence found only within a defendant's personal property so that the government may prosecute him, and prosecute him expressly because of that evidence,-- is that government mandate anything less than being forced into self-incrimination? Clearly, the intent of the 5th amendment is that the government *may not* compel *the defendant* to self-incriminate just to prove its case, and the government may not compel a defendant to testify against himself by preserving self-incriminatory evidence. What is unclear about that?

The original point of the fifth amendment (at least that portion of it) is to avoid false or forced confessions. No more.

The evidence being destroyed is not the testimony of the defendant; it speaks for itself. It is a factual thing entirely separate from the testimony of the defendant. Thus it's entirely reasonable to expect the defendant to preserve it, or rather to punish the deliberate destruction of it.

There is a subtle but very real difference between forcing one to admit wrongdoing, and barring one from destroying the evidence thereof.

 

[wanorris]

He is lucky he did it as a kid. I imagine if he was a little older he would have got three years. Stupid people I guess.

3 years? For figuring out the security question on someone's email?

I guess if you are faced with the choice between reading someone's email and assaulting them with a deadly weapon, you should choose the latter.

 

[cmacd]

He is lucky he did it as a kid. I imagine if he was a little older he would have got three years. Stupid people I guess.

3 years? For figuring out the security question on someone's email?

I guess if you are faced with the choice between reading someone's email and assaulting them with a deadly weapon, you should choose the latter.

Yeah, because that's a choice I totally expect myself to be forced to make.

Really, I might suggest that it's best to avoid committing felonies in general.

 

[smale]

Really, I might suggest that it's best to avoid committing felonies in general.

Unless you're James O'Keefe, in which case, bugging a Senators office is just a harmless adolescent prank.

So to sum up:

A 25-year-old Republican and several accomplices disguise themselves as maintainance staff and infiltrate a Democratic Senator's office: harmless adolescent prank, it would be silly to press charges.

An 18-year-old Democrat guesses the password question on a Republican candidate's Yahoo! account (that wasn't supposed to be used for official business in the first place): felony hacking, one year in jail.

Sure, nothing untoward going on here.

 

[FoolzGold]

Sweet Lincoln's Mullet

 

[towermac]

It kills me the way the party of the common man hates hates hates Palin, for basically, being an ignorant hick. Their leadership is tight; when they see a threat, and they focus on it, they can turn the rank and file into these frothing, well, haters. It keeps on happening.

The last Republican favorite of Democrats, McCain; also chewed up and spit out by their organization. Never mind the 20 years he spent straddling the center, sponsoring and voting with the Dems, all the while Limbaugh running him down mercilessly. Heh, they ran his best friend out of the party, pretty much for being his friend. Well, that, and Lieberman did have the nerve to be a centrist on the national stage.

The Dem fave before that? Oh yeah, Bush. The second one. (They liked his dad too: he didn't push them around like Reagan did.) Didn't Ann Richards endorse him at one point? The Texas Dems loved him; he was governor for life if he wanted it. Not near as much as Alaska Dems loved Palin; at least they were able to pretend to field a viable candidate against him. But when it was time to turn the machine on him... First for being a hick, then after the war, (which at one point they were all in on), liar, murder, ... wow. Their spokesman, Dan Rather, actually gets caught red-handed just making shit up on him. Dang. But I don't think anyone really noticed that. Cronkite; you ain't, Dan.

Heh, ironic that Palin made herself noticed by taking down exactly the blue-blood big business Republicans that are actually oppressing the common man. You, know, Bush and his cronies. With the help of the Democrats, she busted that shit up up there and got the people a big increase in their oil revenue checks, at the expense of entrenched big oil. That, along with her beautiful, yet not immune to today's problems, family, makes her incorruptible. Is that not the most valuable trait one can find in a politician? From either party? One that goes into that backroom to make that deal; whatever their stances on controversial issues of the day are; whether it's in Seoul or some shack on the tundra; that they represent the people; and not the rich and powerful, whatever their party affiliations are. Here's one that actually walked out with big fat checks for the common man. And yet McCain had to be desperate as shit to pick her. Because, oh yeah, she's a hick.

I mean, you want your president to be immune to bullying, represent the people, yada yada. When they find crony-ism and back scratching and conflicting interests and the rich and powerful abusing their existence, they are supposed to put a stop to it and do the people's will. I'll give her that, but the president also needs to speak occasionally, publicly, sometimes importantly; and it certainly doesn't hurt to be well traveled, well read, well educated. So presidential material, no not really. I mean with the moose and the twang and seein' Russia from her porch and a basketball player in college and all that; she's just a bit too rough and too common isn't she?. Yeah I know Alaska loved her, but they would.

But the way the left feels the need to attack her, and how effective they are at instilling what appears to be genuine hatred, universal among Democrats here and Socialists abroad; it's no wonder this poor dumb kid gets caught up in it. As all the rest of the Dems seem to be. They really got it in for her. As the little guy with thick glasses, I know all about being bullied. You got her Katie; you're very smart; she's an ignorant hick who heard of Roe v. Wade on a TV show once. That's the extent of her knowledge of the history of law in this country. How superior we are. Look at her squirm and try to talk her way out of her ignorance, appearing even stupider by the minute. That's what we're all about as democrats? That's what we have? Well, I would be a Democrat if it were allowed. I'd still be a bit right of the democratic center, pretty close to Kennedy, being somewhat fiscally conservative and all. Who I assume would be run out of the party today to go hang with Lieberman.

But I'm not immune to it either. That's probably the only thing that could motivate me after all these years of politics; this relentless bullying. I find myself defending her on internet forums of all things. I'm becoming a real fan - I haven't been a fan of anybody since Spock. Oh God I can't believe I went on so long. Enough. Until her show comes out.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

On the scale of thigns he is doing the time for the "damage" done.

Also Palin(Like Obama like Miss's Cliton) is a painted up snake oil salesmen...we need less of those a shame the public is too sheeple to revolt.... oh well that will come after the government implosion I guess...

 

[Abresh]

The original point of the fifth amendment (at least that portion of it) is to avoid false or forced confessions. No more.

The evidence being destroyed is not the testimony of the defendant; it speaks for itself. It is a factual thing entirely separate from the testimony of the defendant. Thus it's entirely reasonable to expect the defendant to preserve it, or rather to punish the deliberate destruction of it.

There is a subtle but very real difference between forcing one to admit wrongdoing, and barring one from destroying the evidence thereof.

Ah,but there is a question as to whether the evidence was even in existence in the first place. This man has an argument that someone could have used his network to hack Palin's account, but it wasn't him.
Frankly, when I was accused of trading child porn (in error, in fact) I used that argument and the police never came back to my door because it would be my word against theirs, and seeing as how I have a history of being VERY honest about various things? The jury would be most likely to believe me, if the case ever got that far.

The only thing that using a disc-erasing or encryption software shows is that you are paranoid about people getting your information or the police finding something that you downloaded not knowing it was illegal before you downloaded it on your computer.

 

[WaltC]

The original point of the fifth amendment (at least that portion of it) is to avoid false or forced confessions. No more.

I understand that this is the way that the 5th is sometimes construed, but really, when someone pleads "the fifth" and refuses to testify, it rarely has anything at all to do with "false or coerced" confessions. Rather, it has to do with the very fundamental, and the very real, Constitutional premise that a citizen of the United States may not be compelled by any legal authority in the US to incriminate himself in any fashion. When pleading the fifth, a defendant is simply saying, "Whether I am guilty is irrelevant. The point is that the state must prove my guilt independently of any cooperation from me." That is the Fifth amendment--there is no other. I understand that I am a voice crying in the wilderness on this--but that is the way I see it.

The evidence being destroyed is not the testimony of the defendant; it speaks for itself. It is a factual thing entirely separate from the testimony of the defendant. Thus it's entirely reasonable to expect the defendant to preserve it, or rather to punish the deliberate destruction of it.

But you have very narrowly construed the fifth to only include verbal testimony. It's utterly obvious to me, given the context of the fifth amendment, that never was the concept of "verbal incrimination" considered alone. Rather, the fifth amendment places the burden of proof squarely on the state and proclaims loudly that defendants are under no obligation whatever to assist the state in any fashion in their own convictions. That seems abundantly clear to me.

There is a subtle but very real difference between forcing one to admit wrongdoing, and barring one from destroying the evidence thereof.

If that evidence is held separately from the private property of the accused, I would agree with you. But to me it seems clear that the intent of the framers was that, by God, if someone was to be incarcerated in the US, it would be up to the government to prove his guilt to a jury of his peers and the accused could *never* be compelled to cooperate in any way, shape, or form in his own incrimination.

 

[hitman726]

Since all he needed was publicly available information to gain access then by definition anything that was in her email account was also publicly available information. That is not hacking and I disagree with the fact that you can be convicted for viewing publicly available information.

 

[Sergiu-Daniel]

Didn't she have like 2 security questions??? How did the hacker get past those???????????

 

[impeachbarry1]

bad hacker , very bad hacker.

 

[towermac]

After my rant I should keep quiet, but I have to agree with WaltC. Once the crime has been committed, the "right" thing for the boy to do is to erase all of Palin's info from his machine. Sooner is better, whether inspired by conscience or the sudden realization of the gravity of what you've done based on other's reactions.

Especially after a defendant has plead guilty, tacking on a "and he tried to get away with it, too" charge
is entirely too much power to give the state. The point of arresting a citizen is that they were resisting the law in the first place.

Considering that was the most serious charge against him, the 10.5 months he is going to serve may be a bit stiff. One month would have been too light; 6 months is a decent span for a person his age. I'd have given him 3 to 6 months.

This was kinda serious and a precedent needs to be set. It would have been better to set it for stealing an email account, rather than erasing your drive before the cops can show up.

 

[Alfa_Spider]

The original point of the fifth amendment (at least that portion of it) is to avoid false or forced confessions. No more.

I understand that this is the way that the 5th is sometimes construed, but really, when someone pleads "the fifth" and refuses to testify, it rarely has anything at all to do with "false or coerced" confessions. Rather, it has to do with the very fundamental, and the very real, Constitutional premise that a citizen of the United States may not be compelled by any legal authority in the US to incriminate himself in any fashion. When pleading the fifth, a defendant is simply saying, "Whether I am guilty is irrelevant. The point is that the state must prove my guilt independently of any cooperation from me." That is the Fifth amendment--there is no other. I understand that I am a voice crying in the wilderness on this--but that is the way I see it.

The evidence being destroyed is not the testimony of the defendant; it speaks for itself. It is a factual thing entirely separate from the testimony of the defendant. Thus it's entirely reasonable to expect the defendant to preserve it, or rather to punish the deliberate destruction of it.

But you have very narrowly construed the fifth to only include verbal testimony. It's utterly obvious to me, given the context of the fifth amendment, that never was the concept of "verbal incrimination" considered alone. Rather, the fifth amendment places the burden of proof squarely on the state and proclaims loudly that defendants are under no obligation whatever to assist the state in any fashion in their own convictions. That seems abundantly clear to me.

There is a subtle but very real difference between forcing one to admit wrongdoing, and barring one from destroying the evidence thereof.

If that evidence is held separately from the private property of the accused, I would agree with you. But to me it seems clear that the intent of the framers was that, by God, if someone was to be incarcerated in the US, it would be up to the government to prove his guilt to a jury of his peers and the accused could *never* be compelled to cooperate in any way, shape, or form in his own incrimination.

Ten years ago I may have agreed with you. Not because of what I knew, as much as what I thought I knew about the fifth amendment. My intuitive understanding of what it meant matched your understanding because of the narrative that I had constructed around it during my early adolescence. It was a figment of my liberal imagination at the time.

Since then I have read about the history of the fifth amendment and the nature of the amendments with regard to them being in many cases formed in the negative ('The state shall not..'). The history of the amendment and the discussion around it by the founders and the authors of the time did not match the overambitious narrative that I had constructed for myself. Most recently, if I recall correctly, my interest was piqued by a news item of an individual being required to type in their password to a computer (was that within the past 2 years). As it happens, the state's case was that requiring the password was not unconstitutional -- and the court agreed. At that point the discussion turned to describe the fifth amendment in much the way the person you are quoting just did.

I'd love to say I remember the references to the history I gleaned, but I don't. I'll have to see if I can locate any of my sources. I don't think the earlier impression I had created for myself of the fifth amendment is either true or, in the abstract, desirable. It would require too much to be able police our laws, it would not allow reasonable punishment of anti-social acts and the wide berth it would provide seems unnecessary in dealing with the ill that the fifth amendment protects against.

My original interest in the topic arose around the science-faction topic of reading minds. We are now seeing technology come to light which permits, at least in some limited situations, the ability to discern what a person is thinking about by interpreting brain activity and without the active cooperation of the subject. What happens to the fifth amendment if brain activity, passively recorded and interpreted, is used to incriminate someone? Does that stand? Is there any case law which comes close to speaking to this issue? Makes me nervous even as an upstanding citizen.

 

[coreycubed]

Didn't she have like 2 security questions??? How did the hacker get past those???????????

IIRC, it was her birth date, ZIP code, and the security question "Where did you meet your spouse?" which is also public info (Wasilla High).

I was on 4chan the night this happened, honestly for every David Kernell who doesn't know how to hide behind seven proxies and crop their screenshots and strip metadata, there are just as many who know what they're doing. Hell, a true anon wouldn't have posted a username to begin with.

 

[Uncouth Youth]

Would using a browser with a Private Mode have counted as destroying evidence?

 

[VideoGameTech]

Kernell was sentenced to one year and one day in prison

(My emphasis added). What's with the extra "one day"? Is that somehow to classify his punishment as greater than one year, to put it in the 2-year category?

Also, he didn't tamper with the election, in the same category as altering ballots. He was looking for actual, true dirt - same as most politicians do. When he didn't find any, he didn't falsify.

Of course, he used illegal means to do it, so he should be punished. The severity is up for debate, but his breaking the law isn't.

 

[kevjohn]

Here are actual comments from Palin said after finding out about the sentence.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... ahoo_feeds

From the article: "As Watergate taught us, we rightfully reject illegally breaking into candidates' private communications for political intrigue in an attempt to derail an election," the statement said.
End Article:

Wow, is that what she thinks? I doubt there are very many people who get that message from Watergate. Mention Watergate to most people and I'd imagine "abuse of power by elected officials" comes to mind first and foremost.