Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michelle Malkin: Sarah Palin’s private e-mail hacked, family photos raided
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/sarah-palins-private-e-mail-hacked-family-photos-raided/

Posted on 09/17/2008 1:47:32 PM PDT by AUJenn

Sometime early this morning, between approximately 3:00am - 4:00am, members of an infamous group of hackers broke into Gov. Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo e-mail account. The incriminating discussion threads included screenshots of Palin’s e-mail and private e-mail addresses of her contacts. The threads have since been deleted.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine — see here for all the background you need — has posted private family photos of Palin’s children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.

They have reprinted her husband Todd’s private e-mail address and son Track’s private e-mail address.

You think this is just a harmless prank? Those of you who have had to deal with break-ins and identity theft know exactly what a burdensome process it is to recover from crimes like this.

Gawker knowingly and deliberately published illegally obtained photos of the Palin children.

Where are the privacy absolutists now?

You think Palin Derangement Syndrome is bad now? These by-any-means-necessary lunatics are just warming up.

Let me repeat what I said about Nick Denton and his slime businesses in 2006. It’s every bit as relevant now. And I expect the same cowards who said nothing then to remain silent about the violations of the Palin family’s privacy now:


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Computers/Internet; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: breakin; corruptdems; cultureofcorruption; democratscandals; dncbrownshirts; doj; fbi; hackers; howtostealanelection; identitytheft; malkin; mccainpalin; palin; sarahpalin; stalinisttactics; ussa; watergate2; yahoo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: savedbygrace
The "Right to Privacy" gave us the abomination of Roe v. Wade and later Lawrence.

Are you familiar with the 5th Amendment which protects us and our homes, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure?

Moreover, the 5th Amendment, which you brought up, has nothing at all to do with this case or the Right to Privacy or Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

61 posted on 09/17/2008 9:55:55 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

So her families private information is now a business transaction?!

Get a clue.


62 posted on 09/17/2008 10:59:27 PM PDT by Tempest (The devil and the media have sided with Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tempest

Of course not. However, most companies would frown upon an employee sending work emails on a Yahoo account.


63 posted on 09/17/2008 11:09:36 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
They probably just went after the password in an automated attack. Often these things use dictionaries, algorithms or worst case a brute force attack.

That wouldn't have worked, unless her password was really weak, like SP or something. Yahoo's server would simply lock the account after a few failed tries.

What the hacker did in this case was use Yahoo's password recovery page, which asks for the answers to a few questions about the user's bio. Gov. Palin's error was to supply truthful answers to these questions when she set up the account — answers easily googled, now that her life story is all over the internet.

64 posted on 09/17/2008 11:21:56 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
That wouldn't have worked, unless her password was really weak, like SP or something. Yahoo's server would simply lock the account after a few failed tries.

On the local Los Angeles MSM TV news tonight, they not only showed images of Palin's email from the online websites, but they also gave out her email password. If accurate, it was a word that can be found in the dictionary. Don't know how they hacked her account, but that password is very weak.

I think in the end however, we should be proud of the fact that she apparently has nothing to hide. She is what she appears to be. The real deal.

65 posted on 09/18/2008 12:23:34 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

The password was changed to “popcorn” by the perp. No one knows her original password. When you request a new password from Yahoo, they probably send you either a temp password or a link to immediately reset it. I doubt they send you a plain text copy of the actual password.


66 posted on 09/18/2008 12:32:17 AM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Privacy for me, but not for thee...
67 posted on 09/18/2008 12:43:22 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Obama / Biden, the new Ebony and Ivory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff

Thanks for the clarification.


68 posted on 09/18/2008 12:51:00 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Stupid typo that once I did it, I never noticed it. Of course it’s the 4th, not the 5th.

It’s not rational for you to be arguing this. It’s well established what the law is in this matter.

BTW, it wasn’t the Right to Privacy that gave us Roe. It was power mad men perverting the Constitution to create a right to abortion.

Hamilton was right in Federalist #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.


69 posted on 09/18/2008 4:13:22 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

“come january, they just might be honored guests at the white house...”

how ironic; and they might even make little bombers in the lincoln bedroom.

IMHO


70 posted on 09/18/2008 4:22:56 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Could you please specify where I said that a crime was not committed by hacking into Sarah’s Yahoo account?

Nice strawman, n00b.

Your whole tone has been 'I'm not sure what kind of crime has been committed against Governor Palin' and 'She shouldn't have been using Yahoo! for business email'.

Alaska ain't Hoboken, and just because the big-city pols and people like you want the same rules to apply doesn't mean they do.

An example of this is the hit squads the Obama machine sent up to Alaska to dig up dirt on Governor Palin. In Houston, no one would notice them. In Alaska, they stick out like a sore thumb.

I would expect a state government in a place like Alaska to be a shade more informally run - probably the reason corruption was so endemic before the advent of Governor Palin. And sending a couple of emails peripherally involved with state business from a Yahoo! account isn't like the crap they pull in Jersey.

However, I digress.

You obviously don't understand where the legal system in our country is at.

The Feds are gonna fall on the specific perp and many of the collateral perps like a dump truck load of bricks.

They've got many, many tools to do that, and they have to make some examples.

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch.

71 posted on 09/18/2008 5:12:42 AM PDT by an amused spectator (That would be... harsher punishment for parole violators, Stan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AUJenn

I heard on Slashdot that Anonymous was responsible for the hacking, and giving out the material to the blog sites that published it. I have mixed feelings on them. On one hand, I’m loving their whole anti-Scientology crusade. On the other hand, when they get off that track, their other stunts tend to be immature at best, and downright illegal at worst. This is actually kind of surprising, considering that overall, they tend to be extremely pro-privacy, but then again in a group as large as they are you’re going to find conflicting moral and political views, so I’m wondering if they’ve officially sanctioned this, or there are just people doing it and using the group’s name to deflect attention from themselves.


72 posted on 09/18/2008 7:22:39 AM PDT by Hyzenthlay (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson