'Anonymous' Hacker Group Gets Palin's Emails

[StrangeSox]

Anonymous, the same group that went after Scientology recently, hacked into Sarah Palin's yahoo! email account. This account may have been used to conduct official government business without having to keep the appropriate records.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26761804/

Edited September 17, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

This is pretty horrible stuff to see happen to any public figure, IMO. They deserve a private life. However, if the evidence from the hack also produces that the now deleted account was used to conduct state business, then we've got two more illegal acts perpetuated on top of the hack.

[bmags]

these emails obtained illegally would undoubtedly not be allowed against her. If they reach the media, though, it will be up to them to decide to take the risk. Because they would be publishing info they know was obtained illegally. If the hacker anonymous puts up the info on his own site, then the paper can report that, however.

[Texsox]

I'm not so certain of your assertion that if someone else is committing a crime, and your crime is discovered that you can't be charged. Let's say for example you are trespassing down a country road and see a crime, certainly you can, and should, report it. Another example that comes to mind, an underage person in a bar. The minor gets busted, and in a separate crime, the bartender gets arrested. Or perhaps a peeping Tom who sees a crime. Of course it is different if it is the police who are breaking the law, but private individuals, I don't think so.

[Rex Kickass]

these emails obtained illegally would undoubtedly not be allowed against her. If they reach the media, though, it will be up to them to decide to take the risk. Because they would be publishing info they know was obtained illegally. If the hacker anonymous puts up the info on his own site, then the paper can report that, however.

 

Those emails obtained illegally would be inadmissible, but they could take that information to obtain the emails of the other users legally, no?

[Texsox]

Those emails obtained illegally would be inadmissible, but they could take that information to obtain the emails of the other users legally, no?

 

Rex, I'm not so certain. If you are trespassing in an abandoned building and find a murder victim, are you telling me it would be inadmissible? What if you are here illegally, can you not be a witness? I think we are confusing police from citizens.

 

Why would we write a law that protects criminals from other criminals?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think it would be up to a judge to make a determination, but i don't believe hacked email of the type noted here is categorically inadmissible. If it was collected illegally by the police, yes, but if it was obtained by a private citizen off of the personal computer of another private citizen then I'm not sure.

 

If I as a private citizen looked on a friend's laptop and realized the were trafficking child pornography, if I quietly took the entire laptop to the police, is anybody suggesting that the contents of the hard drive would be inadmissible in court because I swiped the laptop. Again, if the police did the same thing in the absence of a warrant, then the evidence would not be admitted. If it's a private citizen I don't know. One of you lawyer types around here, help me out.

 

In the current case, if the suspect illegal emails were sent from a private account on a private computer, then I don't think a privileges/private information claim would hold up.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Rex, I'm not so certain. If you are trespassing in an abandoned building and find a murder victim, are you telling me it would be inadmissible? What if you are here illegally, can you not be a witness? I think we are confusing police from citizens.

 

Why would we write a law that protects criminals from other criminals?

 

Yeah, I'm interpreting things the same way as you. If the emails in question were official government business sent via official government accounts, then I think a privileged information claim could legally keep the emails from being used as evidence without a subpoena. Otherwise, I don't think so.

 

I don't condone the actions of Anonymous here, btw. Not a big fan of self-appointed vigilantes.

[bmags]

damn that's a good point Flasoxx

[Texsox]

I do not know if this was a Law and Order, ripped from the headlines or not, but they did have a plot where the police knew evidence existed but could not get a warrant. The wealthy family of the victim hired a private investigator who broke in and brought the evidence to the police. The show wasn't about if they could, but if they should use it and the ramifications of cops letting someone else do their dirty work.

 

Again, I am only mentioning this in case it was ripped from the headlines and someone remembers the original case.

[Texsox]

I don't condone the actions of Anonymous here, btw. Not a big fan of self-appointed vigilantes.

 

I should add, I agree 100% with this statement. I would also like to add, not everyone is email and internet savvy. I know a lot of people that use private and personal emails at work. Unless this truly was to circumvent some law, and I doubt it, I think this is much to do about nothing.

[mr_genius]

I don't condone the actions of Anonymous here, btw. Not a big fan of self-appointed vigilantes.

 

why not FlaSoxx?

 

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/a...mous-hacke.html

 

Anonymous Hackers Shoot For Scientologists, Hit Dutch School Kids

 

 

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/a...mous-hac-1.html

 

Anonymous Hackers Track Saboteur, Find and Punish the Wrong Guy

 

oh my, look at this one.

 

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy

 

Hackers Assault Epilepsy Patients via Computer

[DukeNukeEm]

Thats 4chan for you.

[southsideirish71]

Thats 4chan for you.

 

DDoS is the equivalent of monkeys throwing feces at the zoo. Script kiddies hanging around an IRC forum blindly attacking addresses without having a clue what part of the earth the addresses come from is what "hacking" has become, at least the public face. They make a lot of noise, the news gets a hold of it, and then poof they are famous. I fear the creative insider, or the chinese polymorphic vm rootkit over children launching a point and click ddos. Most likely her account was circumvented by a phishing attack. Which puts her at fault as well.

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

Anon did nothing against Scientology. That is a huge misconception, even among the anon.

 

 

This right here is more their style, but I always like the media's take on what anon really is, as if it is some actual, organized group.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Buehrle>Wood

[southsideirish71]

Anon did nothing against Scientology. That is a huge misconception, even among the anon.

 

 

This right here is more their style, but I always like the media's take on what anon really is, as if it is some actual, organized group.

 

This is the jist of your average large scale DDoS attack. If its professional, the code is distributed via a botnet. Currently most botnets make lots of money for their owners by sending out all of your spam. All the crap that is in your inbox that sells rolex's, viagra, penny stocks. You can thank Joe and Martha nobody and their open comcast high speed link. Yes Joe and Martha clicked on this cool email, and oddly their machine is running a tad slower. Think of this example as the finger of god. Storm would be an example. If you say, scanned a storm reinforcement area. You were given a slight taste of a couple hundred thousand members of the botnet hitting you at once. As I was pulling the code apart for a storm bot, I made the mistake of scanning the reinforcment server. Yeah, then it got angry and decided to hurt my comcast circuit for about 4 hours. That is the professional method of a DDoS today.

 

The amateur method, is some dufus in an IRC network with the handle of some gothic dark angel posting some crappy code based off of mstream or some other flood software. They place the IP, if they have looked it up correctly of a target and say get em. Then wantabee hackers download said software and launch blindly. These while annoying are pretty easy to pick off. Sometimes an angry mean security person will enforce the strike back methodology and take out the offending machine running this crappy code. You see the above botnets, use IRC for command and control of their botnet, as well as to DCC reinforcement tools. They are now moving on to compromised servers as http and https is most likely open no matter where they are. So as D@rK_@nG3l or L0nL3Y0n3 might get the press, they worry me a lot less than the above well funded, well financed by organized crime said botnet.

 

 

[clyons]

I'm not so certain of your assertion that if someone else is committing a crime, and your crime is discovered that you can't be charged. Let's say for example you are trespassing down a country road and see a crime, certainly you can, and should, report it. Another example that comes to mind, an underage person in a bar. The minor gets busted, and in a separate crime, the bartender gets arrested. Or perhaps a peeping Tom who sees a crime. Of course it is different if it is the police who are breaking the law, but private individuals, I don't think so.

 

This is correct. The constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure etc. apply to governmental actors (police, etc.) only, not to private entities or individual citizens (unless, of course, such parties are encouraged or enlisted by the police to indirectly do what the police could not properly do themselves).

 

In a criminal prosecution, the government is not compelled to ignore otherwise valid evidence just because a neutral, private party obtained it "illegally." "Unlawful" doesn't necessarrily mean "unconstitutional," which is the key matter here.

 

The rules are different in civil cases, however. I can't bug your house and use the illegally recorded conversations against you in court. If I hear you planning terrorism, however, that information can be used to send you to jail.

Edited September 18, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[CanOfCorn]

If the government can "spy" on the private citizen to gather information about possible terrorist attacks on the nation...isn't it right to assume the opposite? Not about terrorism, but about a politician's, or in this case, potential Vice President, about their governing? Now, I don't condone either, but if the government has the right to check me out, then I have the right to check them. Just sayin'.

[Texsox]

If the government can "spy" on the private citizen to gather information about possible terrorist attacks on the nation...isn't it right to assume the opposite? Not about terrorism, but about a politician's, or in this case, potential Vice President, about their governing? Now, I don't condone either, but if the government has the right to check me out, then I have the right to check them. Just sayin'.

 

I like it. The flaw is you would have to follow the same procedure as the government. You would need a court order. But that would be so damn cool.

[StrangeSox]

I like it. The flaw is you would have to follow the same procedure as the government. You would need a court order. But that would be so damn cool.

 

You don't need a court order these days...

[Texsox]

I forgot, we have to fight terrorists who are trying to take away our freedoms.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Those emails obtained illegally would be inadmissible, but they could take that information to obtain the emails of the other users legally, no?

From my amateur viewing of Law and Order, I think you are correct They'd have to be VERY VERY careful how they go about it. But those "hacked" e-mails would indeed be inadmissible i believe.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think it would be up to a judge to make a determination, but i don't believe hacked email of the type noted here is categorically inadmissible. If it was collected illegally by the police, yes, but if it was obtained by a private citizen off of the personal computer of another private citizen then I'm not sure.

 

If I as a private citizen looked on a friend's laptop and realized the were trafficking child pornography, if I quietly took the entire laptop to the police, is anybody suggesting that the contents of the hard drive would be inadmissible in court because I swiped the laptop. Again, if the police did the same thing in the absence of a warrant, then the evidence would not be admitted. If it's a private citizen I don't know. One of you lawyer types around here, help me out.

 

In the current case, if the suspect illegal emails were sent from a private account on a private computer, then I don't think a privileges/private information claim would hold up.

I think you have a few good points there. This could be interesting to see how it plays out. If there i "dirt", it'll be in the press even if it cant be used in court.

[NorthSideSox72]

My admitedly limited knowledge of the laws of evidence is that information obtained by an illegal act is only inadmissable if the perpetrator was acting as an agent of the government (law enforcement). If they were not, I think, the evidence COULD be admissable.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I know a lot of people that use private and personal emails at work. Unless this truly was to circumvent some law, and I doubt it, I think this is much to do about nothing.

Actually, by law she is required to save and record every e-mail that is for government purposes. And based on what I have read, many of these were. The problem is that if he were to delete her yahoo account, those e-mails would be gone and likely not to be seen again. She could keep "dirty" politics on her yahoo account and we the public would be none the wiser since her "official" Gov account didnt have the juicy stuff.