Gawker Should See Consequences For The Palin Email Post
Just a short opinion on the Sarah Palin email leak.
The people who hacked into her email account broke the law. Period. Gawker is knowingly publishing images from this hack job - images which they know full well were illegally obtained. In my opinion, it should not go without consequence. They said on their post:
Here are the screenshots of the emails saved before the account went dark, along with the contact list. It’s newsworthy and we will not be taking it down!
Well, shame on them. I don’t care what your political persuasion is, there are laws about privacy for a reason. Just because a person is a political figure doesn’t mean they are exempt from privacy protections. And if the authorities don’t pursue this because of the political backlash, where does that leave us? Does privacy not matter anymore? Does the law mean nothing now?
I guarantee you the asshole who hacked this account would be up in arms if it was their account that got hacked. If it were anybody but a polarizing political figure, this story would be treated differently.
Rock on, freedom of speech. But that freedom comes with responsibilities. And Gawker has dropped the ball on that one all so they can whore themselves out for more traffic.
If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...
- Iran Bans Google
- RSS to Email Services - Followup
- Search For Email Mailing List Solution
- Another Good PHP Email Application
- Google Announces Interest Based Advertising
Comments
I first learned about the complications of this sort of thing in my college Media Law class in 1998. The clerk at a courthouse forgot to whiteout the address of a rape victim for a story a reporter was requesting. The paper published her name. The supreme court ruled that the clerk was responsible and the paper was not responsible. Thanks, Supreme Court. This established the law that today protects the media in this situation.
I can’t stand Sarah Palin, but I do think that the media, as the long standing unofficial 4th check and balance of our government should have higher standards. There should be repercussions for knowingly using data from illegal actions, like email hacking or lack of whiteout on court documents, the same as there is repercussions for aiding and abetting, or accessory to crime.
If you trespass on someone's yard, it doesn't matter if they have an 80-acre yard, or a postage stamp, it's illegal.
Online, though, there are “protected” computers and there is the vast majority. Access of a “protected” computer that exceeds your authority is a violation of federal law. If you trespass most computers, though, it's not.
What makes one computer “protected” and another not? It's the amount of interstate commerce that occurs on that computer. That's not exactly how it's defined, but that's the gist of it.
Email is incredibly insecure. If you do a traceroute to a server, it probably passes through 10-12 routers, and between two servers, mail typically passes through 6-8 routers. Routers are simply computers running a special program. Every router can grab the contents of email that it handles; every router can grab email passwords, too, because they are normally passed in plaintext. That's why people are constantly advised NOT to send ecommerce information such as credit card numbers, etc., in email.
And that's why email servers are going to fall in the category of “unprotected” computers, under federal law. Now, if this had been her gubernatorial email account on state computers, rather than the personal accounts she uses to mail pics to Mama Heath, it might well be a “protected” computer, because it'd probably be used for other purposes than just mail.
Should it be that way? No. I think every computer online should be “protected”.
And although federal law only protects privacy if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which doesn't exist with email, I think the person who did this is incredibly rude. I wouldn't want anyone rummaging through my email any more than I'd want someone rummaging through my underwear drawer. Nothing to be ashamed of in either place, but it's still personal.
I don't think anyone used a password-snatcher, though. I'll bet that it was an easily-guessed password, sometime like Heath61 or trigmama or moosehunter or prolife. It's time that the GOP leadership take Governor Palin aside and give them a kindergarten-level computer-education class, so that they know how to keep themselves safe. And it wouldn't hurt to do the same with Senator McCain, either; he may have invented the Blackberry, but that doesn't mean he practices safe computing. After all, these people need to be able to safeguard state secrets!