RSS
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?
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?
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Illegalness?
Also, that whole situation is bullshit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Couldn't he have just been indicted on the grounds...
Kid is a chode. That should be indictable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Colbertian Suggestion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
if the glove doesn't fit....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Illegal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
In the UK that word is "asbo".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wanna Bet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Would you honestly care if this was not Sarah Palin's email account?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duh!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What I'd like to know is
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
My source was Volokh, which is a site that discusses economics. I never thought of it as a "partisan" site.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yup. A case about whether or not it's illegal to hack into email, is quite interesting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
a chess game
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment