We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Rumors on the netvine I have been hearing that Sarah Palin was hacked and her private email put up on wikileaks. In addition some folk say they can not reach wikileaks and the FBI had shut it down as part of an investigation. Others say it is temporarily unreachable simply because so many people are trying to download. This has apparently been under discussion on SlashDot.
I am just in the door from lunch and that is the entirety of what I know that is not from the tinhat brigade. I have checked none of it and am unlikely to do so as I am expecting a call from New York any minute about some engineering work.
If the FBI is in the picture, I hope the crackers behind it get sent up river for a long time… and that they enjoy man-love from Islamic extremist prisoners.
I would say the same if they hacked Joe Biden’s mail box: “T’ain’t no diff’r’nce to me.” A crime is still a crime.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Bullshit. Her account was hacked for a purpose: to show that she was using a personal email account for government matters. That’s illegal – it’s a way of getting around requirements that government executives keep records of their correspondence. It was obvious from the name of her email address (gov.palin@yahoo.com) that that was the case, and now the hackers have confirmed it. Good for them. What’s so sacred about these kinds of laws, anyway? Personally, I’d rather live in a world where email providers were forced to compete over security, rather than one where we’re at the mercy of the FBI’s skills to protect ourselves against hacking.
Here’s a little bit of detail that should tell you about the real motives of the hackers.
Rationalitate writes
‘Her account was hacked for a purpose: to show that she was using a personal email account for government matters. . . . . and now the hackers have confirmed it. Good for them.’
Except that they haven’t. Have you actually read the coverage? No, of course you haven’t.
The hacker who claims responsibility for this ruefully admits that Governor Palin’s personal e-mail account contains mostly family-related materials and pictures, and that the extent of ‘government matters’ amounts to material that is ‘clerical’. He also admits that he was specifically looking for wrongdoing such as you describe – and signally failed to find any.
So this vision of fearless hackers exposing wrongdoing rather falls flat – doesn’t it?
Perhaps you can now share with us all how publishing Bristol Palin’s cell-phone number on the Internet somehow exposes corruption by Governor Palin.
llater,
llamas
I might be wrong, but since Mrs Palin is a VP candidate, her security would be handled by the Secret Service, not the FBI, wouldn’t it? The Secret Service are far nastier people than the FBI; those hackers are in for a surprise…
Absolutely.
As someone who actually ran an ISP, I take an exceedingly dim view of crackers. In most circumstances I was only dealing with kids out to show their chops (one of which was doing a ‘security check’ for a college project… and whom was very surprised when I and a friend at another ISP backtraced him and he got a phone call…)
I take the view that going into someone else’s computer is exactly and precisely the same as breaking and entering someone’s home or business and when caught the person who does so should be treated exactly the same. That might mean a slap on the wrist for a kid who walked in an unlocked door and did no harm just to brag about it up to throwing away the key on someone who breaks in with the intent of stealing property.
The fact that this break in was politically motivated does not much change the facts that private property was broken into and personal belongings stolen. The person who did it committed a crime.
I might add that I consider some of the shenanigans that the new police state is allowed to carry out under some of the breaches of privacy and civil liberty passed over the last 8 years with similar disdain. I do not consider those government officials any less a criminal than this ideologically driven hacker.
It is not up to hackers to uncover crime & anyway if the evidence is obtained illegally, it cannot be used in court.
Dale, please do not encourage the mistaken idea that prison rape is part of the punishment and something to snicker at. Otherwise people might get the idea that you endorse all sorts of prisoner torture.
And I’d rather live in a world where banks competed for security rather than relying on the police to pick up the slack all the time everytime someone walked in with a gun.
Actually, no I wouldn’t.
Email providers will only compete over security when that’s what the market wants. If nobody is interested in securing their email, where’s the market pressure to evolve such solutions?
How many people here routinely encrypt their private email? Or the contents of their computers? The tools are available, and many here have stated an interest in their own privacy and a desire to keep the government’s prying nose out, so who here has actually done something about it? I’m curious.
So, who’s it up to, pray tell?
Rumours that Mrs. Palin’s inbox contained everyday boring emails have not been exaggerated.
I mean seriously, what was the world expecting from the governor of Alaska’s yahoo account? The kill Obama contingency plan.
The hacker should have at least waited 3 more weeks.
Then perhaps, something juicy, but probably not.
Dale, why Islamist man love as opposed to everyday man love? Does their man fat explode upon entry or something?
Curious minds wonder 😉
Pa Annoyed writes:
I have some sympathy with this argument: one should take appropriate measures to protect one’s privacy, as well as one’s property.
However, is it reasonable to view me solely responsible in many normal circumstances that have nothing to do with computers of digitised information.
(i) Am I dilatory in not encrypting letters I send by post?
(ii) Am I dilatory in not encrypting my telephone calls?
(iii) Am I dilatory in not encrypting all the personal correspondence (on paper) that I keep in my house?
If not, why is it any different to invade my private space on a communications channel or on a computer, where one might reasonably expect an adequate equivalence of a locked door or normal contractual terms?
Best regards
1) It seems like the perp is of the leftish anti-american type and thus such would an occurence would be a sort of divine harmony, a yin-yang rebalancing of the universe.
2) I have just been reading Michael Yon’s adventure’s in the outback of Afghanistan and his discussion of their quaint customs. Not to say the Dane’s customs are rather quaint as well…
3) It was more inflammatory and likely to cause a debate.
Wired.com has the latest on the Palin scandal:
” …The story was briefly posted Wednesday to the 4chan forum where the hack first surfaced. Bloggers have connected the handle of the poster, “Rubico,” to an e-mail address, and tentatively identified the owner as a college student in Tennessee.
Threat Level was unable to reach the student by phone because his number is unlisted. His father, when reached at home, said he could not talk about the matter and would have no comment. The father is a Democratic state representative in Tennessee.”
Defending the act of breaking and entering a political opponent’s property and searching for information that could be used against them in the campaign?
Rationalitate must think Nixon got a raw deal…
“a college student in Tennessee.”
Seems he may have “Volunteered” a bit too enthusiastically- (Tennessee specific reference; in case anyone wonders.)
Just bought a Tosh Tecra and it#s got a finger print scanner. Apparently even if you yank the HD out of it it#s encrypted (I’m not sure I entirely believe that and I know encryption can be broken but) if the Home Office/HMRC/MOD etc had bought such machines then…
Someone leaves a lappy in a taxi it’s not likely the potential disaster that numerous UK Gov IT cock-ups have been. Just a thought. Another one is that seeing as I bought this out of my own money means that I’m vastly less likely to forget about it in the back of a cab.
I have another revelation. Vista isn’t as bad as I used to think. I think I’m going to have a lie down. It’s still going dual-boot XP/Ubuntu though.
Allo John!
Got a new Toshiba!
You utter swine!
But have a good holiday. 😉
Nick M wrote:
Apparently it’s also got a keyboard that switched the ‘ and # keys. :-p
And as for using the wrong account for government work, it’s easy enough for this to happen. My father was responsible for enforcing the building code for a small town with an incompetent administration, and a lot of the out-of-state places he had to deal with sent stuff to his home postal address. It’s been a good two years since he had the job, and he still gets about one piece a month that’s for the Building Inspector. Needless to say, the town didn’t have a dedicated e-mail address for him; he had to get one through one of the free providers. I can see Palin getting an account at Yahoo and people inadvertently sending government stuff there.
I forgot to add that even if somebody is stupid enough to forget to lock their front door, that doesn’t make it any less illegal for a burglar to walk in through the unlocked door and steal stuff.
Evidence obtained illegally is not necessarily inadmissible. A private person can get the evidence, notify the police, and the evidence can be used.
The private person has broken the law. The police have done nothing wrong. This happens occasionally when a burglar or thief realizes he has stumbled into evidence of another crime, such as noticing a few dead bodies in a basement.
But “found” evidence is always a tricky area of law.
As for the FBI. Don’t misunderestimate them. They have labs devoted to to catching cybercrooks whether they be hackers or those exchanging music files. And they can get help from the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and probably a dozen other sources.
If you want to do this stuff don’t locate in the US. Figure out how to use a URL from Lagos while actually living in Uruguay.
Nigel,
I could easily say “yes” to those. But what I was asking wasn’t whether people should have to, but whether, given that there are hackers and snoops who can and do peek, people care enough to buy locks.
Do you conduct all your mail on postcards?
Do you keep your paper correspondence in an unlocked shed in your garden?
The ISPs are not going to compete to provide security unless there are customers who seriously want it.
Her physical security is the responsibility of the USSS temporarily, and the Alaska DPS up until she resigns that office or her term as governor ends. However…better pour yourself a drink and get comfortable, because here beginneth the lecture:
The Federal government doesn’t have any officials with general police responsibilities[1]. Different agencies are assigned to enforce different laws. For instance, the USSS has a traditional role in protecting the President and certain other Executive Branch officials, but their real role is to investigate crimes against US currency, meaning counterfeiting. They’ve gotten a little into other sorts of economic crimes (wire fraud, under limited circumstances) and are part of an interagency pissing contest over who’s responsible for investigating identity theft, but in general they have no role in investigating computer crime where counterfeiting (or an electronic analog) isn’t a factor.
That (meaning unauthorized access to someone else’s computer) is the FBI’s turf, sort of. That is, it’s the FBI’s turf if there’s a Federal aspect to the case at hand. Until it becomes a Federal matter, it’s a problem for state/local police. Whether a dumbass in Tennessee accessing a computer in wherever Yahoo parks its servers counts as Federal, I couldn’t tell you. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that it became Federal when the FBI realized that they could grab headlines and issue press releases, but that they wouldn’t be interested otherwise.[2]
[1] One exception: policing is an Executive function. There is one person who’s essentially responsible for everything that the Executive Branch does.
[2] Not to single them out: most Federal law enforcement seems to be conducted by press release.
I suppose that you’d like to pull a citation of statute out of your ass for this one? I’m not in AK, but none of us have an ‘official’ address here.
Max:
Legally, reporting a crime is everybody’s business (in most states) even though only a few select categories can face negative legal consequences for failure to do so.[1]
In principle, Peel already addressed this two centuries ago: “The police are the public and the public are the police, with the police only being those people paid to give full-time attention to matters that historically were everybody’s business.” Or words to that effect: I butchered the quote itself but the meaning remains clear.
As for illegally-seized evidence: yes and no. If the evidence was seized illegally by a state actor, then it’s inadmissible. If it was seized illegally by a private person being directed by a state actor, then it’s inadmissible. If it was seized by a private person who is NOT a state actor, then it’s usually admissible.
The classic example: I befriend the management of a motel. There’s good reason for this: most motels in my area will be used to cook methamphetamine at least every once in a while.[2] Manufacturing meth is illegal, unless it’s done by a facility licensed by the DEA to make Sch. II controlled substances and done according to FDA standards.[3] So, being the Dudley Yeah-Right that I am, I try to find arrest people who make meth in other people’s hotel rooms.
If I interact with the staff, give them my contact information, and tell them to “look in room 607,” it’s inadmissible. The maid was acting under direction. If I tell her to “call me if you ever see drugs,” that’s also generally inadmissible. The direction is a lot more vague, but most courts would still consider her to be acting under direction of a state actor.
Now, let’s say that I didn’t tell her any of that crap. I just gave her a business card one night[4], and possibly told her to call me if she ever needs to talk to a cop about something, but I didn’t give her any directions more pertinent or specific than that.
Now, it’s (usually, depends on state) admissible.
Meaning that if this numbnuts from TN had actually found evidence of a crime, it would probably be admissible in criminal proceedings.
Note: none of this applies to civil suits. In the civil realm, admissibility rules are a little different and I frankly don’t know them all that well.
[1]In CO, it’s one of the two toothless statutes in Title 18, which sets out a duty but does not show a penalty for failure to comply. The other is adultery. Certain crimes do have mandatory reporting requirements for people in certain professions: medical professionals and child abuse, for instance.
[2] Go with me for the example. I’m not interested in arguing legalization tonight.
[3] Yes, Sch. II. The stuff is one hell of a drug of abuse but does have recognized medical uses. I think it’s sold under the brand name Restoril but I could be wrong.
[4] SOP for traffic stops where I don’t cite the driver. Was required here but for agencies outside of Denver I think that law sunsetted a year or so ago. Anyway, despite the horror stories from that lying sack of shit from Cato whose name escapes me, most (successful) informant-recruitment consists of giving out business cards and not being a dick to people.
Just because a person is in public office, does not mean they cannot have a private email address, private mail address, or whatever. The person who wrote the comment at the top of the page helps to explain why so few normal people bother to enter public life.
At the heart of the left’s hatred of Palin is her normality. Mind you, in this day and age, a pretty brunette who can shoot is like a creature from outer space to your average Brit.
Sunfish wrote:
‘Anyway, despite the horror stories from that lying sack of shit from Cato whose name escapes me, most (successful) informant-recruitment consists of giving out business cards and not being a dick to people.’
You mean Radley Balko?
Can’t quite agree with your characterization there. For example, right now, Balko is all over the Ryan Frederick case in Maryland, where it would now appear that police instigated an informant to burgle Frederick’s house to obtain (non-existent) proof of drug activity in order to obtain a warrant, during the service of which a police officer was shot and killed by Frederick. And it now appears that just-about every officer with any connection to the case has been lying about it, before, during and after.
Hyperbole? Quite possibly, although I’m not sure that it rises quite to the ‘lying sack of sh*t’ level. And, to be sure, Balko has his own pet issues.
Horror stories – no question. But – just because they’re horror stories, doesn’t mean they aren’t true. Me, I want cases like that cried from the rooftops.
As you say. most successful recruiting of CIs is a) lawful and b) on the down-low. But you know, and I know, that there’s some very shady dealings done in this area, and nowhere more shady than in matters having to do with what used to be quaintly known as ‘vice’. I’m from Detroit, so I know what I’m talking about . . . .
Cordially yours,
llamas
Thanks to Dale for using the correct term CRACKERS. Hacker should not be used as a pejorative but it is because the press refuses to change its terminology when reporting on software crimes.
I routinely encrypt my email unless someone can’t get it that way, which happens at times.
Who did it
There was only one “hacker”, and the “hack” itself was childishly simple – finding the answers to Palin’s password recovery questions on wikipedia and google, and then having the yahoo site reset the password for him.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/the-story-behind-the-palin-e-mail-hacking/
An accurate description of what happened in the link above.
http://skirtsnotpantsuits.blogspot.com/2008/09/and-hacker-is.html
And it seems the chap wasn’t too bright – and probably was politically motivated, if this is to be believed. If the FBI arrests this chap I would have thought it will harm the Dems, not Palin.
Llamas,
I actually wasn’t thinking of Balko. Balko seems to me to be about 80% looking at something and not knowing what he saw but he certainly has an opinion, and 20% a stopped clock being right twice a day. But dang it I can’t remember who the guy was that I was thinking of! (It’s terrible to get old, even if I’m probably the youngest member of the commentariat!)
As for recruiting informants: may I respectfully submit that Detroit is a case unlike most others?
As for abuse of CI’s, I blame judges more than anyone.
Let me explain[1]: an anonymous informant is an informant whose true identity is unknown to police. They are generally not considered credible. If an AI were to tell me something, I might try to follow up a little. However, I’d be limited to information available to the general public, at least until I developed further information of my own.
A confidential informant is an informant whose identity is known to police and who therefore may be credible. This depends on a number of factors: so-called ‘citizen-informants,’ members of the general public with no personal involvement, are presumed credible unless the officer has some reason to believe otherwise. An involved person who makes statements against his own penal interest[2] is also typically credible, etc. However, information from a CI may or may not be enough to issue warrants or otherwise justify intrusions.
What happens is, a case officer will write in the affidavit in support of the warrant that the informant has supplied him with information in X number of previous cases, which resulted in Y number of instances of evidence seized, and that the CI has personal knowledge in the case at hand because of A, B, and C. (This last point is particularly important: personal knowledge is at the heart of probable cause. It’s not PC unless someone can be produced who actually knows from his own direct personal knowledge.)
Where the judge comes in is here: he can either say that the CI’s reliability has not been established enough to be considered credible as a CI, and must therefore be named in the affidavit or the warrant will not be issued; or he can have the CI brought in to his chambers. The judge can then question the CI himself to identify him and assess his credibility.
If a judge is signing warrants without ensuring that there’s actually a basis for issuing the warrant, then he’s IMHO a failure as a judge and defeating the entire point of the exercise.
[1] I know you know this, but on the off chance that someone else is even interested, this hypothetical 3rd party reader may not.
[2] Meaning, someone who provides information that will get him in trouble himself, in order to give up someone else. Example: Person A claims to know that B is a drug dealer, because A bought drugs from B, laundered money for B, etc.
No problem. Do this sort of thing any time you want as I am sure it is a real eye opener for some.
And may I say again if I have not said so recently that is really good to know there are cops around who actually *believe* in liberty and a civil society where most people are are pretty decent and even the few who aren’t are protected equally under the law?
That was what I learned growing up in a small town; I learned much counter to it as an adult in a city but never had the idea quite knocked out of me. 🙂
Wikileaks is still there:
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Sarah_Palin%27s_E-mail_Hacked
Whether a dumbass in Tennessee accessing a computer in wherever Yahoo parks its servers counts as Federal, I couldn’t tell you.
It does if they want it to.
Yahoo’s servers are (mostly) located in California, therefore someone in tennessee accessing a yahoo mailbox is an activity that crosses state lines, which gives the feds as much justification to stick their noses into the matter as they like.