Palin E-Mail Snoop Gets Year In Prison 417
netbuzz writes "David Kernell, whose prying into Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account caused an uproar two months before the 2008 presidential election, was today sentenced to a year and a day by a judge in Knoxville, Tenn. Kernell was convicted of misdemeanor computer fraud and felony obstruction of justice back in April. His attorney had argued for probation on the grounds that what Kernell did amounted to a prank that spun out of control."
As I recall (Score:2, Insightful)
It was guessing the answer to her Security Question that was publicly available on the internet. If that's "hacking" then I'm fucking Kevin Mitnick.
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg skates (Score:5, Insightful)
Mar. 5, 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 [businessinsider.com]
In this new, fake profile, he listed Cameron's height as 7'4", his hair color as "Ayran Blond," and his eye color as "Sky Blue." He listed Cameron's "language" as "WASP-y."
Next, Mark appears to have logged into the accounts of some ConnectU users and changed their privacy settings to invisible. The idea here was apparently to make it harder for people to find friends on ConnectU, thus reducing its utility. Eventually, Mark appears to have gone a step further, deactivating about 20 ConnectU accounts entirely...
Re:Meanwhile, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg skates (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are rich, you get away with stuff. It is the American way.
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078&ParentProfile=1062 [vaildaily.com]
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
I gotta say, hacking a high-profile politician's email account (ESPECIALLY when they are running for vice president, which means everything of theirs is being watched 24/7) is a really stupid idea. There's pretty much no way you can get away with that nowadays...
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
I gotta say, hacking a high-profile politician's email account (ESPECIALLY when they are running for vice president, which means everything of theirs is being watched 24/7) is a really stupid idea. There's pretty much no way you can get away with that nowadays...
You think that when Sarah Palin became the candidate, that the government started monitoring traffic on her Yahoo account? That's not how this kid was caught, he was caught because he changed the password and posted it online.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think she (or at least people close to her in an official capacity) started paying closer attention.
Besides, my point wasn't even directed at her specifically, just in general.
Re:As I recall (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, nothing ever came of that, did it? Sounds more like "shoot the messenger" to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable police searches. If a citizen committing an illegal act reports on another citizen, that may be sufficient information to start an investigation and perhaps get a search warrant - and the results of that are admissible in court. The Bill of Rights is much more concerned with limiting the power of government than limiting what people can do.
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, using it to get around FOIA requests is a but misleading. It was never proven that was the reason. It could have been the result but the laws on it do not take the result as the reason automagically. It was argued by Palin and staff that it was a messup detailing that the blackberries used had both personal and government emails attached to them and by selecting a contact, it showed the name of the contact not the email address and it was simply a mistake that personal email addresses ended up being used. This was supported by numerous other politicians as well as businesses claiming they have realized the same problems in the past or present.
Stating the idea that the use was in order to to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability is nothing but speculation and inferred opinion. It could be but all official investigations into it determined that it was an accidental oversight caused by the complexity of having both accounts on the same phones. You may want to believe otherwise, but you shouldn't state your opinion as fact when it is little more then your opinion.
Re:As I recall (Score:4, Informative)
http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails [gawker.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903044.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32838 [networkworld.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/sarah-palins-yahoo-e-mail_b_127177.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sarah+palin+emails+government+business&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com]
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? The Gawker article in particular has plenty of screenshots showing government correspondence. Do you think an email from another government official title "veep talking points" is personal? What about a draft of a letter to Schwarzenegger about a tax? Is that also personal business? Why use an email account which is not required to be archived for government business? What about the emails asking how to hide communications between each other?
We both know there's no way of proving intent, but that's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence, youthink?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you know the difference between government business and politics? Do you know that government officials are barred from using government services for political activities? So a republican politician writing to another republican politician about a republican activity, such as "veep talking points" not only isn't government business, but they cannot use their official computers/email/networks/telephones for that kind of email.
And I looked through the screen shots in the gawker link and do not see anything
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, kinda. I mean, it's not "personal" but it's not "government business". That is, the purpose of the official accounts are to conduct state business through. But her running for another office (or maybe even re-running for governor) is actually done as Sarah Palin(R) not Gov. Sarah Palin.
Hell, remember the hell Gore got in for using his office phone to make a call about his campaign?
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
There's pretty much no way you can get away with that nowadays...
Pure unadulterated nonsense. Drive around town and find an open WiFi access point. Use an internet cafe. Use the TOR network. Hack a couple foreign computers (for some reason, Korea is especially easy), and bounce the connection through them. For best results, combine all of the above. There's pretty much no way you could NOT get away with it, unless you're a complete idiot. Which this guy obviously is since not only did he not bother to cover his tracks while breaking into the account, but he also didn't take any precautions when he released the information. He was just begging to be busted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For better or worse, laws against computer hacking are generally phrased in terms of "unauthorized access" to computer resources, "unauthorized" meaning when you know or ought to know you have no right to them. The law isn't cognizant of how involved or intricate the legwork necessary to obtain access is. A similar situation obtains with the DMCA and its poorly worded prohibition of "circumvention" of "effective" anticopying measures. Is ROT-26 "effective" as a matter of law? What about ROT-13?
You might com
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it somehow more illegal to trespass someone's house if they have 5 locks on their door vs only one? Why should it be more or less illegal to do something based on how difficult it is? It is the behavior that the effort allows that is being punished, either trespassing or accessing someone else's email without permission.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might compare someone being charged with breaking and entering into a house, the door to which was secured with a strip of masking tape.
Someone can be charged with breaking and entering. In fact, the door doesn’t need to be locked at all. If they even just open the door, they are breaking and entering. If the door is already open, they are only trespassing unless/until they steal something.
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, someone else who gets it.
Crime is not about how hard it was for the perpetrator to commit it. Crime is about intent, or sometimes criminal negligence. "But the door was unlocked" is not, has never been, and should not be a legal defence.
Now, "intent" itself can sometimes be vague or fuzzy enough to leave room for doubt. You cannot be tried with trespassing on land that a reasonable person would not have known was off limits. And the balance of the law, the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, should favour the accused; if there is reasonable doubt, acquittal should be the outcome.
But that was not the case here. There was no doubt as to the accused's guilt, both in the crime itself and the attempted cover-up. Political angles aside, this would have been criminal no matter who the victim was, or what the perp's motive.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...I'm fucking Kevin Mitnick.
Fag!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If that's "hacking" then I'm fucking Kevin Mitnick.
I think Kevin Mitnick might have something to say about that.
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
It was guessing the answer to her Security Question that was publicly available on the internet. If that's "hacking" then I'm fucking Kevin Mitnick.
Most people's (snail) mail boxes are unlocked, but it's still mail fraud to go picking through them.
- RG>
Re:As I recall (Score:5, Insightful)
might not be hacking, but he still had no business going into her email
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is the answer to the question "Should I destroy evidence". He got away lightly on this one.
Year and a day? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the point of adding a day onto the sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably to make sure it got counted as a felony.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's so to be sure that the guy qualifies for good behavior time. If someone is sentenced to a year and they are a model prisoner they will serve a year. If they are sentenced for a year and a day and are a model prisoner they will serve about ten months. In other words it's about not fucking him.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something with how the crime was classified; the extra day being used to (minimally) meet any "over a year" requirement.
Re:Year and a day? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, as the article says, he was sentenced:
by a judge who recommended that the time be served in a Knoxville, Tenn. halfway house
A little bit different!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Year and a day? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no, it's a more lenient sentence -- a year and a day means you're eligible for sentence reductions based on good behavior and the like; any less and you aren't.
If he gets a year... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sentence (Score:5, Informative)
I am pretty sure the actual sentence was 1 year 1 day in custody; to be served at a halfway house.
The local source - http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=13490313&Call=Email&Format=HTML [newschannel5.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The title is indeed misleading. Where he spends his time is yet to be decided.
Could have been worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it; he hacked the email account of a Vice Presidential candidate. Regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin (I can't stand her myself...the things she says makes me want to slam my head in a file cabinet drawer) it's not rocket science to recognize that what he did is a bit more severe (and consequence-prone) than going after your typical person. He should consider himself lucky that he only got a year, really...I figured they'd do much worse.
Re:Could have been worse (Score:4, Insightful)
After all a candidate is only a candidate and anyone whose email is hacked can have their reputation ruined for the next job interview or anything else.
If she was an actual vice president you could possibly attach some national security element to this but even that's a stretch, and giving these people extra protection will just promote the idea of government secrecy, big brother "we need to see your communication but you can't see ours" kind of thing. and there is no doubt in my mind she wouldn't fully back any kind of new mass surveillance initiative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if she were an actual vice president, there's no national security element unless she was breaking the law in precisely the manner she was as governor, using a private email account to prevent things from being on the record and potentially accessible to FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I'd say he did pretty well, it could have been much worse consequences - I hold his dad partially responsible for not teaching him any tolerance for the opposing views. My own 17 year old daughter is on the complete opposite side of the political fence from myself and we have healthy debates about conservatism vs liberalism, the democrats and republicans etc. She respects my views and I respect hers - This kid was so brainwashed by his father that he felt it was OK to break into another persons e
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal law shouldn't make such a differentiation. The penalty should only be greater if the information released is specifically protected by law. e.g. corporate espionage or disclosure of state secrets. Allowing a difference here would be like saying that murderer of hoboes should receive a lighter sentence than someone who kills the same number of rich guys. In reality crimes involving powerful people are probably more likely to attract greater attention (and maybe more aggressive sentencing) but in pri
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening to commit bodily harm to your neighbor will definately get the local law enforcement spotlight shone on your for a while, and maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could have been worse (Score:4, Funny)
I can't stand her myself...the things she says makes me want to slam my head in a file cabinet drawer
See, this is what makes me different from you. The things she says makes me want to slame her head in a file cabinet drawer.
Re:Then make O'Keefe a felon as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? His "only crime was his political alignment?" Do you actually believe that? I'm personally glad we have laws that make it punishable to access other peoples accounts and spread their private information without permission. Right to privacy and all that.
Incidentally I'm not sure if you're missing the details or not, but the felony was obstruction of justice -- attempting to hide and destroy evidence (and so on). Had he not done that, he would have been fine (well not fine, he was still hit with a misdemeanor, but less of a big deal than a felony!)
I haven't followed O'Keefe closely at all -- what did he do that warrants a felony?
The mistake this guy made... (Score:5, Insightful)
... was not being in the Federal government. If he had been, his actions would've been deemed legal.
Re:The mistake this guy made... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is all in who the victim is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect someone who shot a random 5 year old to get a worse sentence than someone who shot a random 30 year old because the former crime is far worse, despite the only difference being the victim.
If a random person's emails were hacked and posted online, they get what... 5 people reading them? No one cares about a stranger's email (especially if no CC info was in them) . Palin's a public figure, 10,0
Depends on whether the offender obstructs justice (Score:5, Informative)
Note he only got a misdemeanor, a slap on the wrist, for the actual computer fraud.
The government does not take obstruction of justice lightly and tends to give stiff sentences for it.
Aside from that, yes, an attack on an account for political gain to influence an election would reasonably bring a more severe punishment than simply doing it to see if you can. This wasn't just some kid. His dad is a powerful Democratic state legislator and was then a member of Obama's Tennessee campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't doing dad's bidding, and is taking the fall to avoid ruining dad's career. Expect to see the payoff after this clears up, likely a well-paid position in a Democratic campaign in 2012.
Personally, I think he deserves extra time just for being stupid by using a single proxy that had a policy of turning over evidence of any illegal activity to the police. :)
Re:It is all in who the victim is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely don't understand your viewpoint.
Kernell increased the notoriety of the crime himself by trying to interrupt a very public political campaign. Contrary to your assertion, it isn't like Sarah Palin singled him out and sent her hounds after him. I'd be surprised if she was involved at all in the event beyond turning over evidence and cooperating with law enforcement.
Kernell cranked the system up to 11 trying to take down a vice presidential candidate of the US... and got burned. You break the law trying to subvert a presidential election and you should get your ass handed to you.
You might have a point if some criminal stole Sarah Palin's car without knowing who it belonged to then SHE turned the spotlight on him... but that wasn't the case at all. Kernell broke the law in such a way that brought national media attention to it. He has no one to blame but himself for the falling dominoes that he set into motion.
Re:It is all in who the victim is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand from the left side of American politics is how they pick these targets for political "assassination." Obama had substantial lead over McCain in polls and such from the beginning. I could see him winning with little effort, as long as he didn't screw things up himself.
So then McCain goes for a long shot VP choice, a woman, etc. Sarah wasn't much of a politician herself, some nobody from Alaska honestly. She came out saying your average Republican catch phrases, smaller governement, less taxes, etc. I still didn't see her as helping McCain all that much. Yet, from that moment, the left came out viciously against her, more so than they were against McCain. Who is she? She isn't anybody. Mayor/Governor in Alaska? That's not even a real state. That doesn't count. She doesn't know anything about the "real" America. McCain's old and going to die and she'll be King of the Land. Oh my, we're done fer now if they win. She's stupid too, look, she messed up two words in onne sentence! She's got too many kids. Look at that last one, she can't even breed right. Her daughter's pregnant and unwed, how's that for Republican "values" for ya.
This cycle, it was just like that with Christine O'Donnell. Again, she had little chance from the beginning. The other guy was ahead by ten or more points much of the time. Yet, the left came right out every day with the same visceral hate. A witch! A witch I tell ya! She's stupid. A duck is stupid. Therefore she's a witch! Then the week before election, they dig up a guy who "slept" with her after one night out at bars one Halloween some years ago. See, she's a slut. She'll sleep with anybody. Republicans and their stupid values. Oh, she only slept at the guy's apartment, no sex? Oh well, she's still a slut!
Meg Whitman. Well, that one was a little close, within five points at times. Then it's fine if Jerry's wife calls her a whore. She was one after all.
I think this kid got wound up in this extreme ferver to demonize their opponent to the point that he thinks he'll become a hero finding out Sarah's massive number of secrets that she's discussing with people in her emails. Honestly, what are you going to find? Photos from a family reunion? The secret plans of the Bildeburgers, Illuminati, etc? Still, why not target the actual political enemies for this sort of stuff? McCain, people in much closer elections your side might lose, etc?
He should have been a rich banker (Score:5, Informative)
Rich banker gets to escape felony hit and run charges, because the judge felt "a felony charge would hurt his ability to make shit tons of money"
http://dailybail.com/home/outrage-morgan-stanley-banker-escapes-felony-charges-for-hit.html
Holy shit a year? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Breaking into someone's private email and then distributing what they found -- with clearly malicious intent -- is "such a small mistake" ?
Furthermore, when you say "He should have sent all the data he found to wiki leaks then burned his computer," that's exactly wrong! Had he not wiped his disk and tried (ineffectively!) to hide the evidence, he probably would have gotten substantially less punishment. In fact HIDING the evidence (obstruction of justice) is what got him the felony. The actual act w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Breaking into someone's private email and then distributing what they found -- with clearly malicious intent -- is "such a small mistake" ?
Compared to the crimes committed by the Bush administration, it's a very small mistake. Compared to the crimes committed by investment bankers, it's a very small mistake. Compared to the crimes committed by BP/Transocean/Halliburton/the MMS, it's a very small mistake.
I don't see anyone responsible for any of the above crimes facing any criminal punishment at al
Re:Holy shit a year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Breaking into someone's private email and then distributing what they found -- with clearly malicious intent -- is "such a small mistake" ?
I gotta disagree there. I don't think his intent was malicious at all - his goal was to expose corruption. He was clearly partisan in his motives, but if that's all it takes to legally qualify for "malicious intent" then all of congress should be in jail too.
My understanding is that Palin only got away with it because the alaskan court ruled that the state law forbidding what she had done was too ambiguous. But the intent - keeping official government business communications on the record for accountability purposes - was clearly violated, even if the letter may not have been.
In Related News (Score:5, Insightful)
In related news, Sarah Palin is still on the loose, endangering all sanity as we know it.
Punishment based on victim, not crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Would he have received the same sentence if he had hacked the email of a random neighbour?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably not, but he should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea because people need to go to jail for crimes that hurt nobody? He "hacked" a single email account a handful of hours of community service and nothing on his record. There is nothing to show a pattern or even any real malice intent he guessed a trivial password for haha's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're being every bit as disengenuous as he was. He was hacking into her account to look for dirt in an attempt to manipulate the outcome of a national election. Still, just a misdemeanor. But then he went on to deliberately obstruct the investigation, lying to investigators, attempting to hide evid
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the American Judiciary system.
Re: (Score:2)
Is random neighbour protected by the secret service? if yes then YES, if no the NO.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"real-life" equivalent (snail-mail forwarding):
http://answers.uslegal.com/civil-rights/privacy/14722/ [uslegal.com]
A person submitting a false change of address form may be imprisoned for up to five years, or more in certain instances, plus subjected to a fine up to $250,000. The charges may be obstruction or mail, theft or mail, and/or making a false statement.
Re:Punishment based on victim, not crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not.
1. When you commit a crime in an attempt to make a presidential election go your way, you bring a lot of media attention to your doorstep. The justice system will usually make sure to prosecute you fully when everyone is watching.
2. Hacking your neighbor's email affects your neighbor and a few other people. Impacting a presidential election with your unlawful actions affects a nation. Shouldn't the impact of your crime play a role in punishment?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was an interesting slashdot post I saw a while ago which is relevant here, and which I'll attempt to paraphrase.
Basically, there are three classes of people in America - the ruling class (politicians, CEOs, and the filthy rich), those who directly protect the interests of the ruling class (the police and military) and everyone else. Call these first, second, and third class respectively. To come to the right sentence, you take a reasonable punishment, and multiply it by 10^([class of victim]-[class of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course that's the opposite of what the Rethuglicans want, they prefer to applaud Palin's illegal usage of the account and complain about its exposure. Since it's their guy that makes everything A-OK, the only REAL crime is exposing th
Would he be in jail if (Score:2)
I refuse to take sides on a political debate, but just because someone is a big figure in politics doesn't mean they should get special treatment. I guess that's why they have their lobbyist groups though.
Re: (Score:2)
just because someone is a big figure in politics doesn't mean they should get special treatment.
I guess the Secret Service should stick to chasing counterfeiters?
Re: (Score:2)
Only liberals serve time down here, boy (Score:4, Interesting)
This guy just got lucky and guessed a password. But he acted against a conservative in Tennessee, so he got a year in prison. James O'Keefe [wikipedia.org] actually tried to physically bug the telephone of a sitting U.S. Senator. But O'Keefe acted against a liberal in Louisiana, so he walked with probation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't have minded seeing O'Keefe do some prison time. He's a tool, but I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. There were differences:
O'Keefe didn't actually bug the telephone. All they could actually pin on him was entering a federal building under false pretenses with the INTENT of doing more. It's pretty well established legally that intent is not punished the same as committing the crime. Admitting to the intention to tamper with the phones was probably a part of his plea deal.
And if it was my email hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
What punishment would the guilty person get? I'll bet you London to brick it wouldn't even get to court.
One law for the power elite, and the rest of us can bugger off.
continued (curse the lack of editing) (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich HP Pretexter vs. Poor Student Pretexter (Score:5, Informative)
HP Pretexting Charges Dismissed [informationweek.com]: "Charges against defendants in the Hewlett-Packard pretexting case have been dismissed."
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayer money spent upkeeping the institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He committed a crime, so he goes to jail.
With logic like that, I can see why your imprisonment rate is about ten times the world average.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>What damage is it you want to mitigate here?
He's taking space and other resources that are not available to a violent criminal. At best, he is raising the cost of incarcerating violent criminals. That's harm to society, to the economy, and weakens the value of a criminal justice system.
Re:Politically raised charges by Palin's folk. (Score:4, Insightful)
So are you claiming he didn't illegally access her account? This isn't a political thing, he clearly broke the law.
If he accessed your account, my account or Barack Obama's account, it'd still be a crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is also in favor of increased wiretapping and specifically Internet wiretaps. Would it then be okay to break into Obama's accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than regular fraud, because I don't understand computers.
Computer fraud isn't some special set-aside in addition to "normal" fraud. It's just a subset of fraud, akin to mail fraud, identity fraud, tax fraud... the list goes on and on.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. And I bet you'll think it's a partisan conspiracy when that comment gets modded down.
It's possible to make even a fairly partisan point without it being flamebait. Your comment doesn't achieve that possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. And I bet you'll think it's a partisan conspiracy when that comment gets modded down.
No, he'd think it was Slashdot, which has steadily slid away from libertarian roots that would have applauded someone revealing personal emails from ANYONE being charged with an offense.
Though I'll bet you think it was a conservative conspiracy that has modded his statement up...
When conspiracies come up it's pretty much always liberals claiming there's a conspiracy at hand. As an example, Birthers (wrongly) think Oba
Re: (Score:2)
Though I'll bet you think it was a conservative conspiracy that has modded his statement up...
It's sitting at 2: Flamebait right now, so... no.
As an example, Birthers (wrongly) think Obama doesn't have a valid certificate, but do not think there's a massive cover-up.
Really? Where are you finding your Birthers, and how can I get the ones I know to be that sane?
Re: (Score:2)
It's sitting at 2: Flamebait right now, so... no.
Well, as I said, this is Slashdot. It was at +4 at the time I posted. I don't think of the rapid decline as conspiracy, as much as a much of people who like to censor what conservatives have to say. Not that they are organized in any way, just as I said that there are a large number on Slashdot.
Really? Where are you finding your Birthers, and how can I get the ones I know to be that sane?
Go read what they have to say. They pretty much are all arguing what
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible on Slashdot, but less likely.
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Well, my point is, if you make that post and it's not a stupidass post, i.e. you're backing up your position with facts and you're not just regurgitating talking points, it probably won't end up mod-bombed no matter what position it takes. It might get slapped with a negative mod or three, but in the long run it will end up at least where it started and probably higher.
Re: (Score:2)
while every commentator on this site would howl for the death penalty if the son of a Republican congressman had done the same to Dear Leader?
You don't know that for sure.
And I guess we won't know until they try it and get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, and so is the paranoid delusion that the community is biased against you.
You're just wrong, is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Given that this is Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think you know Slashdot very well at all. It is primarily a Libertarian site. I don't think they would react any different if someone hacked in to some Democrat governor's site.
Yeah, violating someone's privacy is wrong. But does it deserve a year in prison? That is what people are objecting to...the overly harsh penalties assigned to crimes regarding computers. The less famous/rich you are the higher the chance you will serve a more severe sentence.
And seriously, try not to be such a partisan douche in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
So I ask again, why do conservatives insist on using his middle name when neither he, nor most others refer to him in that manner?
Because it makes him sound scarier and less "mainstream America."
Er, I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"She didn't decide what security questions Yahoo is going to use."
No, but she didn't have to use such an obvious answer. She could have made it simply impossible to answer by using unintelligible garbage. At least that way no random person could answer it.