Is The Indictment Of The Palin Email Hacker Legally Correct?
from the truthiness dept
Stephen Colbert famously coined the term "truthiness" on the very first episode of The Colbert Report. The word is used to explain a person who knows something is true in his or her "gut" rather than via any facts (and, of course, continues to believe that it's true even if the facts contradict the claim). I'm beginning to wonder if there needs to be a similar world for the legal world, where you believe something must be illegal, in your gut, even if the law itself doesn't appear to cover it. That's what we see with folks who want to string up Lori Drew, the woman whose online conversations with a former friend of her daughter may have resulted in that girl's suicide, despite little evidence that Drew's actions broke any actual law. Yet, because of the quasi-lynch mob mentality of folks who felt in their gut that it must be illegal, prosecutors eventually twisted a law to charge her.Now it's looking like the recent indictment of a teenager for breaking into Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's email may be facing a similar situation. We had already noted that Justice Department's own definition of the law might make it difficult to prosecute the hacker. However, now a friend sent over an interesting analysis of the indictment itself, by Orrin Kerr, which suggests the entire indictment is legally flawed. Specifically, the statute used, claims that the intrusion is only a felony if used to further a criminal activity.
As Kerr notes, it's not clear what criminal activity was "furthered" by hacking into the email -- unless you read the whole thing recursively, such that the act itself is illegal, and thus doing it is furthering that illegal act. But, obviously, that's legally problematic. So once again, it looks like a situation where plenty of people believe that the act was illegal (very reasonably so, I might argue), but the feds are having trouble finding a law that actually makes it illegal. So, do we have any Colbertian suggestions for what this should be called? Illegalism? Illeginess? Illegfulness?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: email, hacking, legality, sarah palin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegalness?
Also, that whole situation is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
Conspiracy to intercept and the interception of electronic communication(s) that did not belong to him or his conspirators. Conspiracy to disclose and the disclosure of aforementioned electronic communication(s). Conspiracy to conceal and attempt to conceal his actions. Conspiracy to obstruct and attempting to obstruct an investigation.
Hell, seems like this would be a pleasure to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
You actually have to conspire with someone else in order for a conspiracy charge to apply. The actual legal definition of conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
This kid did this all on his own, so all those conspiracy charges you listed don't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh?!? This has nothing to do with partisanship at all. I'm only interested in the specific legal question, and that would apply to any candidate this happened to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would it make you happy if Mike XXX'd out the candidate's name? Would that allow you to focus on the actual issue being discussed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My source was Volokh, which is a site that discusses economics. I never thought of it as a "partisan" site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would you honestly care if this was not Sarah Palin's email account?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:(would anyone care if it wasnt palin's email)
This is a bald-faced showing of law being used Only to protect important people, even to the point that officials are willing to bend and stretch the laws until they feel satisfied.
"Well, technically he was just walking past the governor's palace, but we figure we can charge him for conspiracy to break and enter because he glanced over"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yup. A case about whether or not it's illegal to hack into email, is quite interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't he have just been indicted on the grounds...
Kid is a chode. That should be indictable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colbertian Suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if the glove doesn't fit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh!
Of course, I am confused. Had it been a Republican hacking a Democrat, this "story" wouldn't be a story, instead the story would be about how evil all Republicans are.
Seems like there is little "open-mindedness" in our society today, at least when it comes to being open minded to people with conservative beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
Back on track, one would think there would be a law to cover this. Invasion of privacy? Unauthorized access? /something/! Then again, the legal community still hasn't caught up, and likely will still be playing catch-up five years from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duh!
This guy actually lives a few blocks from me, and from the talk around campus and in the campus paper, he really doesn't deserver this. I'd say that even if I didn't have the gossip mill to fall back on. While a monumentally stupid thing to do, considering the politics involved, it was essentially harmless. I would be hard-pressed to find good reason to have him charged with a /felony/ for it. That kind of thing sticks with you for life.
And seriously, who uses Yahoo for anything they want secure? Their accounts have been notoriously insecure for as long as I can remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent?
Does that matter? Like attempted murder is a crime, is attempted defamation a crime? I guess not.
Its a bit disturbing if it turns out that breaking into someone's email account turns out not to be illegal. Isn't reading someones physical mail a crime in the US, and why shouldn't the same rule apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the UK that word is "asbo".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna Bet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get serious.
She's just another of the same - like McCain, Biden, Obama - *ALL* a bunch of silver spoon, privileged rich jerks who think their crap don't stink. We need *real* people running the country, not this snotty bunch of spoiled, elite brats.
OMGZ!!! MY Yahoo Mail was hacx0red!! Someone needs to PAY!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go hack Biden's Yahoo email - you'll go down too.
Hack mine and nothing will happen. Of course, well - nor would I actually care, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is someone really fit to run a country that's spending time - I mean wasting time worrying about a Moth#$ $%cking Yahoo account getting hacked?
WTF?
Seriously.
Ok... umm, go get a new one.
And lastly, if you have sensitive data in a Yahoo email account, you are an idiot indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm.... Crimeiness
"A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality."
Note the absence of "violation of law".
Sample usage:
"The District Attorney bent laws left and right seeking justice for Lori Drew's crimeiness."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'd like to know is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discretionary Enforcement
I don't see a FBI task force being created to handle all the hacked WoW accounts. Perhaps if a corrupt politician had their WoW account hacked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a chess game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]