Just be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's yahoo mail security question "Where did you meet your spouse?" to which the answer was "Wasilla High".
He didn't even have to guess or crack a password. This is really a major security flaw on yahoo's part, which still exists. The fix in the meantime is to avoid accounts with such questions, or to answer them with random strings of characters.
Should this even be a crime? I propose that to keep something secret you should have reasonable security measures. Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock.
Using a bag twisty to hold a gate is considered _exactly_ the same as a chain and a padlock for the purposes of trespassing.
If it's clear to you that you aren't to enter my property, you don't enter my property and it doesn't matter how difficult I make it for you to do what you already know is wrong.
The issue here is the severity of the sentence, not his guilt, and especially not blaming the victim.
Just be be sure we're clear on the "crime", it was that he guessed Palin's yahoo mail security question
No actually the "crime" was "anticipatory obstruction of justice" for destroying evidence in a federal investigation. Actually accessing the account was a misdemeanor.
Look I think this is a stupid kid who doesn't deserve a year a in jail. But you don't get to trivialize a crime because it was "easy". Just because my neighbors door was unlocked and I "just walked in" doesn't give me the right to do so.
Inaccurate. The crimes charged were identity theft, wire fraud, and obstruction. The prosecution has broad discretion to choose what to charge. They chose poorly here. There are US felony statutes that pertain to unauthorized statutes; they require a (low) threshold of quantified damages and have a lower penalty attached to them compared to identity theft, but had he been charged with them, he'd be doing significantly more than a year in prison.
I'm just making it clear that they didn't take him to court for clearing his browser cache; they went after him for breaking into the email account, but did so hamhandedly.
Nope, picking a lock and entering a house and entering a house with an unlocked door is the same crime the only differences between trespass and burglary are based on the intent with which you enter and what you do once you get there. Its also a lot easier to prove intent if you break a window or pick a lock.
Do you really think a criminal who walks up to a house with a lock pick in hand and then finds the door unlocked gets charged with a lesser crime?
From Legal Dictionary's entry on "Breaking and Entering"
"The criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above."
The difficulty required to break into someone's email account has absolutely nothing to do with the legal implications of doing so. It is very possible that you could be convicted of a felony for reading mails on a passwordless email account.
Stay the hell out of other people's email accounts. Jiminy.
> Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock.
source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha/
He didn't even have to guess or crack a password. This is really a major security flaw on yahoo's part, which still exists. The fix in the meantime is to avoid accounts with such questions, or to answer them with random strings of characters.
Should this even be a crime? I propose that to keep something secret you should have reasonable security measures. Easily guessable security questions like mother's maiden name as used by banks should not be considered legitimate protection any more than using a bag twisty to hold a gate closed should be considered the same as a chain and padlock.