Months ago the AP ran a story on some local news here in Southern California. The article was incredibly biased against a local business and in favor of the community organizers who were tying to hurt the business. I will never read an AP article the same way again.

Hm. That's not going to fly for too long. What they are saying is they are not responsible for their "consumer level" (Consumer protection laws, anyone?) e-mail accounts, and the hacker accessing her personal information and exploiting it did nothing wrong. Good luck with that, AP.

TBridis@ap.org

Mr. Bridis:

The devil is in the details. Palin was using a private email account to prevent accusations that she used state email accounts for personal communications. The hacker has admitted there was nothing there that could be used against her and he was looking for it; as the reason he broke into the account.

I would bet dinner at Ruth Chris Steak House that the hacker is a young person associated with the Obama campaign or somehow associated with an elected Democratic Party officeholder or operative.

Do keep up the good work. Obama needs all the help he can get from the media to get elected.

Larry Summers
Winters, TX

Where does Ted Bridis stand on FISA court findings as opposed to, say, consumer-level Yahoo! account(s) ?

Hmmm...how about Ted's consumer level personal account?

Question for AP reporters...

If you leave your cell phone in the bathroom, does it absolve me of telling the world everything that's on it because you forgot it?

So if a young lady is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets raped, then it must be her fault because she was somewhere that was inherently insecure. That's the logic of the AP reporter.

Bottom line is the left will put up with anything if it hurts a republican, but scream about coded language of racism or the like if there is the slightest hint of a hit against a democrat. They have no standards, no morals and no decency.

Just for yuks, let's suppose that this hacker had broken into Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account and found details of a secret baby-eating program run out of the governor's office, and the AP focused on that. Would this change people's opinions here?

"Just for yuks, let's suppose that this hacker had broken into Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account and found details of a secret baby-eating program run out of the governor's office, and the AP focused on that. Would this change people's opinions here?"

Absolutely not. She's qualified and ready to serve. She's a reformer, a maverick, hates earmarks and bridges, never lies, never even thought about banning books, never attended a secessionist conference, is a wonderful and attentive parent who teaches her children right from wrong and the dangers of unwed and unprotected procreation-related activities. Also, babies provide natural sustenance, are a great source of energy and really don't do much to help the economy or workforce. (whatever the party says)

So if a young lady is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets raped, then it must be her fault because she was somewhere that was inherently insecure. That's the logic of the AP reporter.

I'd say the reporter's logic is more akin to "If she hadn't wanted to be raped, she shouldn't have had a vagina."

Just for yuks, let's suppose that this hacker had broken into Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account and found details of a secret baby-eating program run out of the governor's office, and the AP focused on that. Would this change people's opinions here?

Let's change that a little. Suppose it was Obama's account and that he was planning on seizing all firearms and abolishing the 4th ammendment for anyone found criticing his adminstration. Would this change Democratic views of Palin's account being hacked?

Well, James H?

Larry "I would bet dinner at Ruth Chris Steak House that the hacker is a young person associated with the Obama campaign or somehow associated with an elected Democratic Party officeholder or operative."

Son Of Tennessee Democrat Alleged Palin Hacker
Posted on Thursday, 18 of September , 2008 at 10:23 pm

MEMPHIS, TENN--The son of Democratic state representative Mike Kernell is reportedly a suspect in the hacking of the personal e-mail account of Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate.

According to The Tennessean, Memphis Democrat Kernell has confirmed that his 20-year-old son David is at the center of the investigation of the hacking being conducted by the FBI and Secret Service but said there had not yet been contact of him or his son by law enforcement agencies.

David Kernell attends the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Kernell told the newspaper that he had spoken with his son on Thursday but declined to further comment on the investigation of his son's whereabouts.

GarandFan:

I have no idea if it would change Democratic views. I can only speak to whether it would change my views. But please give me a little more information on your hypothetical. Is this email account being used to discuss campaign business? Is it being used to discuss an initiative by Obama's Senate office? Or are we presupposing that Obama has been elected president, and Obama's aides are using personal emails to discuss a planned government program?

Again, I have no idea how Democrats' opinions would change. I can only speak to my own opinion. But I would like more information before I respond.

Absolutely not. She's qualified and ready to serve. She's a reformer, a maverick, hates earmarks and bridges, never lies, never even thought about banning books, never attended a secessionist conference, is a wonderful and attentive parent who teaches her children right from wrong and the dangers of unwed and unprotected procreation-related activities. Also, babies provide natural sustenance, are a great source of energy and really don't do much to help the economy or workforce. (whatever the party says)

My sarcasm sense is tingling.

Interesting how the lefties were so opposed to wiretaps of terrorist phone calls, but it's ok to do this.

Kind of like the opposition to Palin by so-called pro-choice advocates just because she CHOSE to give birth to a child with down syndrome rather than abort it.

Hypocrites.

Sarah Palin did one thing wrong, and one only, in regard to her email account. It has now been proven that she was naive regarding security of the account.

I'm not giving the hacker a pass. What he did is a crime, not to mention stupid.

But Sarah Palin (and everyone else who uses web-based anything should know how to protect their accounts and passwords.

I'm still voting for McCain-Palin, this doesn't change that at all. I'd still rather have and honestly naive person (who can learn from their mistakes) in office rather than an overly sensitive to any criticism guy who would have found somebody beside himself to blame for his lack of foresight.

To repeat, I'm not giving the scumbag hacker a pass - he deserves the misery of whatever scrutiny, charge, jail time (hopefully) he gets.

I'm simply saying that common sense says Sarah Palin should have been more careful.

In case you're curious about my opinion on the whole affair, here's where I stand:

1) Hackers should not break into people's email accounts, personal or official, for whatever reason. Period. End of story. Find the hackers, lock them up, throw away the key. Or, at least, send them to jail for the requisite sentence.

2) Public officials should not use private email services to conduct state business. As this incident demonstrates, they are inherently less secure than government email systems. Additionally, from what I can tell, government officials have taken to using these personal email addresses specifically to dodge potential subpoenas or open-records laws. This is a breach of the public trust.

3) I do not believe AP has the moral duty to turn over copies of emails to federal authorities if the federal authorities already have those emails in their possession.

4) In terms of publishing information, I stand entirely with Bartnicki v. Vopper. That said, news organizations should weigh carefully issues of public interest before publishing this information. Evidence of a bribery scheme would be of the public interest. Palin family photos are not.

5) If the laws do not explicitly state so already, legislatures need to revisit public-records laws and amend them to require that government officials conduct official business only through official communication channels. Using privately owned email addresses for official business is insecure and unacceptable.

Interesting how the lefties were so opposed to wiretaps of terrorist phone calls, but it's ok to do this.

Agreed, but they are pretty easy to ignore in this thread because they have nothing new to add. Especially, comment 8. He only comes by to repeat himself without valid sources and bitch about how lousy the writing here is. They selectively cling to the rule of law as if they have some claim on it, but actually prefer lawlessness so they can be the exception. How's that for a "bridge to nowhere"?

http://carlosechevarria.blogspot.com/2008/09/exposedan-obama-hacker.html

Do not give this Obama thug a pass, he knew full well what he was doing because he even said he was looking for dirt, plus that the FBI would be coming for him.....his daddy is a Democratic hack.

HE NEEDS TO BE ARRESTED, LET HIM USE THE INSANITY PLEA, BUT HE IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY, just like Barry is a cancer....

What if we substitute "house" for "Yahoo! account", and "window" for "forgot my password mechanism"?

I assume most people have consumer-level houses and that most windows are considered insecure (unless you have bulletproof windows at home).

I'd say the reporter's logic is more akin to "If she hadn't wanted to be raped, she shouldn't have had a vagina."

(ap reporter)"Yeah, exactly, just like that. So what's your point?"

You know, it's so crazy, it's almost as if someone had their privacy exposed to the public in an ongoing effort to destroy them, and the press didn't care just because the victim had a different political viewpoint from them.

It's good to know that a democratic would be treated the same way, isn't it?

James H has it right in his Supremes citation, that ruling in this case won't effect the dimbulb that hacked into the site, but unfortunately will save Gawker Media for accepting what was hacked and they published.

That ruling also has saved the NY Time slimes ass on a number of occasions when they disclosed secret information.

Did anyone else notice the way that Newt Gingrich shut down Colmes last night? He laughed at him! And I don't believe I have ever seen Colmes so offended before - his head nearly exploded - like something out of a scene from "Mars Attacks".

THAT is how you deal with the Democrats - YOU LAUGH AT THEM. They'll do anything to get attention, but being laughed at is the one thing they absolutely can't stand! Put out an ad with someone laughing at something dumb they've said and some laughter in it, and it will drive them absolutely INSANE...

Most of us prefer to keep our personal e-mail accounts personal, and the business email accounts business. I will say, however, that unless it was highly sensitive material, I would much prefer for someone to use their personal email account to fire off a quick note from the road, for example, to give someone direction back at the office... rather than the alternative, which is PEOPLE USING THEIR BUSINESS EMAIL ACCOUNTS TO SEND STUPID CHAIN EMAILS TO CO-WORKERS!

Now THAT was a run-on sentence if ever I did see one.

But seriously, unless sensitive material - what would the big deal be? Anyone ever use your personal cell or home phone to conduct business? "I'll be in around 10, Bob - hold down the fort."

"But please give me a little more information on your hypothetical."

I'm inclined to say, "You were the first one to throw out a hypothetical, so you first."

But in reality, the fact that it's such an outrageous hypothetical is reason enough to just reject it out of hand. It doesn't deserve a response.

It almost seems, Oyster, that the folks tossing out hypotheticals see them as more real than what's actually happened.

Of course, comparisons are always good.

James H:

"Using privately owned email addresses for official business is insecure and unacceptable."

Therefore, sending something through snail-mail is insecure and unacceptable. How many government checks are stolen every year? How many pieces of official correspondence are lost? How many jury duty notices go undelivered, how many people are ripped off by scammers and phishers?

Perhaps we need a bureau with the same sort of powers that postal inspectors do. This was, after all, a case of mail theft.

And it could be seen as a case of attempted identity theft.

So - 5 years and $250,000 for the break-in, and an additional 5 years for the identity theft charge.

Looks like that kid's gonna be in deep kim-chee indeed.

This is trivia. No one cares.

As far as AP is concerned, Internet privacy is only for terrorists, not honest American citizens.

Especially Republicans.

You might not care, wbgonne. Wave your hand again, and people might disregard it, right?

But that kid knows he's in deep, way over his head. So does his dad. And the dad's political career is likely toast. ((Oh, wait - he's a Democrat. This will likely boost him.)

Correcting Mark's statement:

As far as AP is concerned, Internet privacy is only for terrorists, not honest American citizens (which, by definition, excludes Republicans).

There we go.

Plenty of people care about this, wbgonne. These names come to mind: Gingrich, Boehner, McDermott, FBI, Secret Service and the millions of Republicans that have seen this happen before.

Plenty of people care about this, wbgonne. These names come to mind: Gingrich, Boehner, McDermott, FBI, Secret Service and the millions of Republicans that have seen this happen before.

When did Republicans become such whiners? Palin was an idiot for using Yahoo to conduct government business. Whoever hacked will get caught and punished. Big deal.

Ummm.. the email she used on Yahoo DOES NOT contained goverment business, but you keep going with that lie, Wbgone.

the email she used on Yahoo DOES NOT contained goverment business

Au contraire. In fact, it seems the point of using the private account was to avoid government channels. Hmmmm. I wonder why Gov. Palin would do that?

But seriously, unless sensitive material - what would the big deal be?

As far as government work goes, there are laws requiring preservation of government records. Using personal email interferes with that purpose.

The attack on Governor Sarah Palin's privacy is inexcusable. Americans have constitutional guarantees, among them the right to be secure in their papers. In a hastily worded statement the Associated Press informed the Secret Service, "No way dude, are we givin' up them emails. Ask anybody; she got hacked fair & square. Like get your own story man, this one's ours." Due to the nature of the electronic medium, the Palin case should be groundbreaking.

Again, Mr. cell phone is not your friend: whenever one's cell phone is switched on, just turned on, even if it's not a GPS enabled device, it emits a signal that anyone who obtains your SIM card number may track with an array of inexpensive software. GOOGLE GPS tracking devices. The phone's speaker can also be remotely activated for use as a listening device. Perhaps you're wondering, as did I, how certain individuals seem to know your whereabouts, or manage to show up when and where they do. High tech lends the good, the bad & the ugly a level of sophistication hitherto unimagined. Suggest: remove the battery when not in use:

This is trivia. No one cares.

Yes, we get this part about your comment, wbgonne, but what does it have to do with the post? Unless, you've decided to be different and post your own titles as comments.

I have a better solution for #36:
Wrap cell phone in tin foil hat when not in use (the cell phone, that is).

Seems like that would be good advice for wbg too.

"No, Mrs. Palin, you cannot use your sons' birthdate for the nuclear football code.."

Au contraire. In fact, it seems the point of using the private account was to avoid government channels. Hmmmm. I wonder why Gov. Palin would do that?

You are flat wrong. The hacker *assumed* she was using her private email for government communications, but after reading all her email, he saw that she hadn't.

"Au contraire. In fact, it seems the point of using the private account was to avoid government channels. Hmmmm. I wonder why Gov. Palin would do that?"

Ah. . . because it deals with personal stuff and most businesses and government organizations discourage -- and in many cases strongly discourage the use of business/government e-mail for personal reasons.

I am aware that you don't have a real life, but most healthy, functioning adults do have a real life, especially a life outside of work. (Of course, a job may be as alien a concept to you as a real life.) When I am at work, I use a Yahoo e-mail account for personal communications. Most adults do. You should, too.

You peopel are stupid. He did not say "She had it coming." He basically said that she was not keeping her emails safe enough. Do you want a vice president who puts vital information in places where it can be hacked into. That is the issue here. She was acting irresponsibly.

The idea that the hacking is wrong AND that she was irresponsible can BOTH be right.

"Do you want a vice president who puts vital information in places where it can be hacked into."

You know that's, remarkably for you, a good question. Now, allow me to ask you something: Did she put vital or sensitive information in her yahoo emails?

By all indications, no.

I think we're done here.

I have a security clearance. I also have a yahoo mail account. I don't put security-sensitive stuff on my Yahoo mail account. I put mainly family stuff on it, pretty innocuous, mostly.

I also have an expectation of privacy for that material. It is a felony for someone to hack into that account.

It is not "irresponsible" to have a Yahoo account for personal material. It is not an indication that I do not understand computer security. It is an indication of how pathetic and banal those that would attack Sarah Palin as irresponsible for having a Yahoo account for personal, innocuous e-mail are. They would scream like little girls if their privacy were violated in such a manner, yet refuse to extend the same courtesy to others based only on political affiliation. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Sccbr g w hnstl f nd wbgn wnn blm pln fr whtvr hppns t hr d t n sm thr wbst
spammer

You are flat wrong. The hacker *assumed* she was using her private email for government communications, but after reading all her email, he saw that she hadn't.

The good news for you is that there are a lot of new medications that might help you. I'll pray for you.

wbgonne says on Talking Points Memo~

"To Schmedley: I see your concern, but I don't think its warranted. Palin should be demolished. Doing so will undercut McCain. Not the job for Obama himself, perhaps, but success in establishing Palin as radical right, unqualified, and utterly undistinguished will help the overall effort. It: 1) demonstrates McCain's poor judgment (one of Obama's key themes); 2) shows that McCain is just a craven politician, out to win any any cost (which directly undercuts McCain's only real chance for victory, namely, persuading enough voters that he is a "reformer" and will "clean house" after Bush); 3) drives a deeper and deeper wedge between McCain and the swing voters, who may be appalled at the pick once they see just how awful Palin is.

And the fact is that the prospect of Palin as president of the United States is indeed frightening. I approve of that ad."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/wbgonne

Dude, you need to lower the dose. What a politically driven psycho you are.