At least Biden keeps the Channers out.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:21 am

News of the hour:

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/822

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ivate.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10044919-38.html

And lest anyone think this is just more trivia distracting from the real issues
it really does show that she is not prepared to confront the Russians

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:59 am

Lol, an activist group named "Anonymous".

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:01 am

Surgo wrote:Lol, an activist group named "Anonymous".

This actually diminished my opinion of them.

I mean, I'm normally in favor of anyone who gives Scientology a hard time, but this was just too far.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:03 am

Err, I'm pretty sure that's just securityfocus being retarded more than anything else. "Activist group"? More like "a group of a zillion people, some of whom may dislike scientology and others who may dislike Sarah Palin".

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:07 am

Surgo wrote:Err, I'm pretty sure that's just securityfocus being retarded more than anything else. "Activist group"? More like "a group of a zillion people, some of whom may dislike scientology and others who may dislike Sarah Palin".

True.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:13 am

/b/tards folks, get up to speed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:11 am

Maxus wrote:
Surgo wrote:Lol, an activist group named "Anonymous".
This actually diminished my opinion of them.

I mean, I'm normally in favor of anyone who gives Scientology a hard time, but this was just too far.

No it didn't. There was prior evidence suggesting she was illegally using her private account for state business. Whoever did this deserves a medal. Its a shame that wikileaks and all the mirrors I tried are down so I can't see the actual leak.

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:37 am

This is the digital age. Nothing you do is private. Nothing you create stays confined. Nothing you say ever completely disappears.

Think of the internet like a small city/town of old. Everyone knows our name, your business, your relationships, and how you don't like the new dog Ms. McGuire down the street got.

Now, no one cares, until you reach a position where such information/reputation can affect you (positively or negatively).

If you do not wish to participate in this, you may move to a country that has not yet entered the Information Age, but do so quickly, they are dying out.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:26 pm

Update: Freelance writer ahead of actual law enforcement in locating the individual(s) responsible

Security credentials, my ass.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:06 pm

Note: I don't have a problem with people conducting official governor's business with their private e-mails. When you're the governor, everything you say in any context is going to have repercussions, and it's unreasonable to expect that you'll be able to fully segregate things you say in private from impinging on policy decisions.

But conducting gubernatorial business in private and then using the privacy as an excuse to openly flaunt public information requests about those policy decisions is simply criminal. Breaking into someone's e-mail account is a crime, but when the e-mail account in question is already being used by the owner to commit crime I'm finding it difficult to care.

It's like people complaining about breaking in entering when you have reason to believe that someone is being raped on the inside. Only in this case what is being raped is the Freedom of Information Act.

-Username17

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:55 pm

Wow. Thanks Josh, that's quite a bucket of chuckles.

Strangely, one can't speak for all "anons"; she's actually quite popular in the /S/exy Beautiful Women subforum, although not quite 'my type'.

Turns my stomach to look at her, after knowing what she's said....

Also, the anti-scientology anons are in no way representative of anon attitude at large. If anything they are a minority and even the owner of the site disapproves of their methods.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:32 am

Fox News to the Rescue {Propaganda}

SphereOfFeetMan · Post by **SphereOfFeetMan** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:01 am

That was fantastic. My favorite parts:

-An anonymous source says "I believe they're domestic terrorists." Then it immediately switches to a clip of a bomb going off in a bus.

-Lulz is a "corruption" of Lol.

-scary red text, voice-masking, dramatic music.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:09 am

Josh: that's very old. That was from way back, when someone tried to get Anon to raid/stalk some girl who, like all sensible people, wanted nothing to do with him, so he tried to call hellfire and brimstone upon them. They countered, made him miserable for a while and everyone had a good time except him. But yeah, he cried to Fox news and they tried to make it into a national threat. Two things came of this:

1. Lulz - "getting curtains and a dog" became the new frontline defence against them, and the "Hackers on steroids" label was worn proudly.

2. The Fox website message boards went down due to an attack by the Internet Hate Machine itself.

Sigma: I have the feeling that they don't like Palin, they just think she has nice breasts, and seeing as she's famous at the moment, it's brought their attention to her. I doubt they're stupid enough to vote for McCain based on Palin being the textbook definition of MILF just remembered who it is we're talking about here. They are that stupid, never mind.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:37 am

http://news.spreadit.org/sarah-palin-bi ... ini-photo/

True or not, don't tell me you can't believe it could true

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:19 am

Unfortunately I'm sure its a fake.

She isn't holding a bible.

Also I may have known it was fake in advance.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:45 am

It's a shop, I can tell from some of the pixels (and having seen a lot of photoshops in my time).

However, aside from not holding a Bible, it's pretty well done.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:13 am

It's a shop, but why would anyone care?

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:25 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Note: I don't have a problem with people conducting official governor's business with their private e-mails.

Since theres a law against it I rather expect her to comply with it. Even if its not 100% real world practical she is at least obliged to fend off official business coming to her yahoo account. FOI laws are crucial to maintaining public confidence in the government. Everyone in the government needs to make the effort to keep things transparent and accountable.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:07 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Note: I don't have a problem with people conducting official governor's business with their private e-mails.
Since theres a law against it I rather expect her to comply with it. Even if its not 100% real world practical she is at least obliged to fend off official business coming to her yahoo account. FOI laws are crucial to maintaining public confidence in the government. Everyone in the government needs to make the effort to keep things transparent and accountable.

Sort of. There are laws about having all the e-mails available for inspection by the public. They can be originally from whatever e-mail account. It's just that in this case she created additional "private" e-mail accounts that were explicitly and exclusively for official business and then used the fact that they were on Yahoo servers as an excuse to not turn them over for freedom of information act requests.

When you already have a Palin@alaska.gov account to use for official business, making a gov.Palin@yahoo.com account is really sketchy. So sketchy in fact that it's obviously an attempt to commit crime. And unsurprisingly, when a group of 4channers used wikipedia to answer her personal biographical questions in order to get new passwords sent: they found iron-clad evidence of criminal corruption.

It's not something as simple as talking about State issues while logged into a pre-existing personal account. It's way sleazier and lamer than that. The first could be an honest mistake or something, this is demonstrably premeditated and deliberately fraudulent.

-Username17

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:03 pm

Koumei wrote: Sigma: I have the feeling that they don't like Palin, they just think she has nice breasts, and seeing as she's famous at the moment, it's brought their attention to her. I doubt they're stupid enough to vote for McCain based on Palin being the textbook definition of MILF just remembered who it is we're talking about here. They are that stupid, never mind.

Natch. Personally I just can't get past her mind to appreciate her body.
As a young male, something might be wrong with me.. can't properly appreciate a hot dumb neo-con MILF when needed.

OK, well, her stare is creepy too, but that bit about agreeing we might have to fight Russia over Georgia made me cringe at the prospect of McCain & Company actually winning.
It's as if McCain not only tapped her as some kind of mascot for filling that demographic Clinton left behind when she dropped out, but that McCain KNOWS he's going to die during his term and Palin will become Queen Fucktard by default.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:34 pm

sigma999 wrote:It's as if McCain not only tapped her as some kind of mascot for filling that demographic Clinton left behind when she dropped out, but that McCain KNOWS he's going to die during his term and Palin will become Queen Fucktard by default.

I believe you have seen through their current plan, yet not grasped the import of it. The core of it seems rather Nietzchian to me. They're doing it for the eventual betterment of everyone really, and I think they're secretly amused that we haven't actually moved past them yet. So now they're digging out worse and worse shit to heap on us every day. By providing the absolute worst that they can, they force us rise to greater heights to overcome them. I for one respect and thank them for continuing to screw us, that we might eventually grow past it into the supermen that Nietzche knew we could be.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:21 pm

The photos is a real photo, but it isn't her. It's a parody from Sadly, No.

-Crissa

PS: Draco, the law merely says the emails need to be archived. That's pretty easily done, even with yahoo. She did not comply with that.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:56 pm

TarkisFlux wrote:I believe you have seen through their current plan, yet not grasped the import of it. The core of it seems rather Nietzchian to me. They're doing it for the eventual betterment of everyone really, and I think they're secretly amused that we haven't actually moved past them yet. So now they're digging out worse and worse shit to heap on us every day. By providing the absolute worst that they can, they force us rise to greater heights to overcome them. I for one respect and thank them for continuing to screw us, that we might eventually grow past it into the supermen that Nietzche knew we could be.

Yeah, a goal of making übermensch out of humanity is fine and all as long as no one dies or gets sterilized (and there's the rub) but I'd rather that lesser humans like these just.. go away.. and not make a bid for presidency of the same country I live in.
This is the information age. We can't afford to have idiots like this run entire nations any more since it's the entire world that suffers now.
Play time's over.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:33 am

Crissa wrote:PS: Draco, the law merely says the emails need to be archived. That's pretty easily done, even with yahoo. She did not comply with that.

I've worked with FOI requests retrieving the data. The yahoo account would be missed as an honest mistake by the IT staff who are responsible for getting her emails. They won't know of it and neither will anyone else (at least they wouldn't if this hadn't gone public). Worse when legal talks to IT it'll look like regulatory compliance was achieved by IT. Even an audit team would not find a problem.

The issue is that noone is tracking a yahoo account except for the owner. So when you ask for all the emails relating to a subject the owner can easily not mention the yahoo ones and get away with it.