![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"David Kernell" appears in 156 000 hits on google and appears in 2000 reliable sources only counting those tracked by Google News. Hobartimus ( talk) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Good move, Scott. Retitling to the name of the event is the appropriate course of action. the skomorokh 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"Results 1 - 10 of about 756,000 for hillary clinton campaign hostage", Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis redirects to Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#New_Hampshire_campaign_office_hostage-taking, and that section isn't even in the article anymore. Hostages? Don't mention it. Reset someone's password and it's off with your head.. Switzpaw ( talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The info belonging in this article is scattered across the histories of Mike Kernell, Sarah Palin and Anonymous_(group)#Illegal_access_of_Sarah_Palin.27s_Yahoo.21_Mail_account. If at some point someone wants to develop this comprehensively, they should start there. the skomorokh 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Michelle Malkin's blog is used repeatedly as a source for this article. Blogs are usually considered unreliable sources, especially for topics related to living persons. Unless we're just using it as a source for Malkin's views, we should find a better source. Does anyone argue that she is an expert on email hacking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Will, if I'm not mistaken this was discussed at length elsewhere and there was consensus for inclusion. Try the talkpages of the contributory articles listed above. There may have been something at User talk:Giggy also. Regards, the skomorokh 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the previous discussion, however I'm not persuaded. This is an anonymous email posted in a partisan blog. I think it's a dubious source for a contentious topic concerning living people engaged in a political campaign. There's no indication that the blogger did any fact checking, and even if she did she still a blogger writing outside of her expertise. I don't think this is an adequate source for items that don't have other confirmation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Was there a deletion review on the recreation of the article, which was deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack? That version was deleted but userified at User:Hobartimus/sandbox2. seicer | talk | contribs 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As it was formed from the David Kernell article, this article focuses very much on the hacker side of the controversy. It is my understanding that there was quite a lot of attention on Palin's side of things - criticism of the inadequate security measures on the account and the allegation that she used the account for government business. Is this the case? If so, can someone add a section on it to the article? the skomorokh 15:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This has been moved without discussion to Sarah Palin email hack from Sarah Palin email controversy, Why? And why no prior discussion?-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
When indicating the categories assigned to this page, we should use the pipe to place this article in its appropriate alphabetic position in each category. For Category:Sarah Palin, it should be under E for "email hack", because every article in that category is related to Sarah Palin. But for non-Sarah Palin-specific categories, it should be under P for "Palin" (as opposed to S for "Sarah"). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
From http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40206/118/:
Davies filed a separate motion that asked the court to prohibit the prosecution, and witnesses from referring to Kernell as a hacker, or referring to his crime as “hacking”. Kernell’s attorney believes that those terms do not accurately describe the actions that Kernell performed. Davies stated that "hacking" is generally referred to the use of "specialized computer skills to break codes and often to do damage to remote computers" and does not refer to an individual who merely guessed the answers to security questions to gain access to someone’s account.
Given this, is it fair to call this incident a "hack"? Doesn't that show POV? I move that we rename this article to something like "Sarah Palin email incident". -- beefyt ( talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not a hack. To quote the wiktionary:
The kid simply guessed the answer to a security question. The use of the word "hack" in news stories and by the prosecution is quite simply sensationalism, and frankly I believe wikipedia should live to a higher standard. At the very least it should try and maintain some semblance of consistency, so unless someone wants to add "guessing birthdays" to the list of definitions for "hack" in the wiktionary, I strongly suggest the word "hack" be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitpicker07 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits represented in this version of this article were made to enhance the quality of this article by removing redundancies, organizing information, and removing irrelevant material. Specifically, the details of how the hacker was traced are already detailed in the "investigation" section. The details about exactly what happened on the 4chan message boards are not especially notable, so I edited this section specifically:
On September 17, 2008, the private Yahoo! Mail account of Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election, was hacked by a 4chan user. [1] The hacker known as "Rubico" at the time targeted Palin because he wanted to "derail her campaign." [2]After reading through all of Palin's email the Rubico wrote "There was nothing there, nothing incriminating — all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor," [2] Rubico wrote that he used the Sarah Palin Wikipedia article to find out Palin's exact birthday in "15 seconds", one of the standard security questions used by Yahoo. [3] The hacker posted the account's password on /b/ a channel of 4chan, and screenshots from within the account to Wikileaks. [4] A /b/ user then logged in and changed the password, posting a screenshot of his sending an email to a friend of Palin's informing her of the new password on the /b/ thread. However, he forgot to blank out the password in the screenshot. [5] A multitude of /b/ users attempted to log in with the new password, the account was automatically locked out by Yahoo!. The incident was criticized by some /b/ users, one of which complained that "seriously, /b/. We could have changed history and failed, epically." [6] The hacker admitted he was worried about being caught, writing "Yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, I still wanted the stuff out there . . . so I posted the [information] . . . and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state." [3] The hacker left behind traces of his activity, his IP address was logged at CTunnel, the single proxy he used, he also left his email address rubico10@yahoo.com when he posted at 4chan. Further the attacker revealed the original web address used by the proxy [7] by leaving this information in the screenshot which according to experts can also help the investigation [7]. 4chan is not archived, posts are only retained for a short time but with the great interest surrounding the posts of Rubico, many, including wired.com and others archived the original posts. The email address left behind was then connected to David Kernell through various social networking profiles where it was used [8], though no official investigation took place at this early time. John McCain's campaign condemned the incident saying it was a "shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law". [7] Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the hacking "outrageous." [3]
The revised version below preserves the relevant details and references of the incident itself:
On September 17, 2008, Palin's private email account was breached by hacker seeking to "derail her campaign". [1] [2] He posted the account's password and several screenshots on public websites. [9]
The hacker wrote that he defeated Yahoo!'s security system by searching for Palin's personal information on Wikipedia and other Internet sources. [3]
Other details, such as the campaign response, have been moved to other sections. I could not locate any reference which says that Yahoo! locked the account, so I removed this detail. If anything is wrong with these edits, please let me know and I will make necessary changes. In general, I don't think reverting non-vandalism is very productive. -- beefyt ( talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Should we include the screenshots of Palin's inbox in the article? Is that legal? Certainly seems relevant. -- beefyt ( talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for details. Thanks - Kelly hi! 17:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I am semi new here, so I am not 100% on the reliable source issue...but... The breach took place on the 16th, not 17th. http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/30029/breaking_sarah_palin_yahoo_email_account_hacked Ukvilly ( talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What's that? Can we find term, the average reader might understand. Splette :) How's my driving? 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And so on. The article should be updated with this info. Will Beback talk 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The article cites several sources stating that the max sentence for the crime is 5 years, but a Huffington Post news article says "Convictions on all four felony charges – identity theft, wire fraud, intentionally accessing Palin's e-mail account without authorization and obstructing an FBI investigation – could send Kernell to prison for up to 50 years.". I didn't see anywere in the article saying 50 years, can anyone confirm if this article is true or a typo or something? If the HuffPost's news articles are considered reliable sources, it's probably notable if true. CIGraphix ( talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article cites several sources stating that "FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville Tennessee residence of David Kernell. Kernell, according to witnesses, fled the scene when the FBI agents arrived.[22]" An article By Bill Poovey | The Associated Press posted http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/042110/sta_612877241.shtml, quotes Kernell's former college roommate, Omiecinski, the first government witness, under oath saying that "he and others were having a party in Kernell's absence at their apartment days later when FBI agents seized Kernell's laptop. He said Kernell afterward always told him to tell the truth about what happened." The statement that Kernell fled the scene is not supported and in fact contradicted and should be removed from the article. Constitutionguard ( talk) 09:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The existing statement in the second paragraph is unsupported and incorrectly lists the charges filed against Kernell. Specifically, it omits the word "anticipatory" in the obstruction of justice change. This will prove to be important as one of Kernell's appeal deals with the legality of this charge. The following was taken from an article by Susan Brenner, Professor of Law and Technology, dated May 19, 2010, from a featured blog of CircleId, entitled Malware and Search Warrants - http://www.circleid.com/posts/malware_and_search_warrant/ The article discusses various issues of the case, and highlights a few points of the upcoming appeals. " October 7, 2008, [Kernell] was charged by indictment with a single count of felony unauthorized access of a computer. On February 3, 2009, [he] was charged in a four-count Superseding Indictment with identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice." The entry should be corrected to reflect accurately the charges and dates involved Constitutionguard ( talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, " The four separate felony counts were: intentionally accessing an account without authorization, identity theft, wire fraud, and obstruction of an FBI investigation. is not the same as "identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice." Anticipatory obstruction of justice, is a legal defination that usually applies to corporations, specifically, the law was written because of the Enron Corportation's immediate distruction of documents that it was required to keep. Individiduals are not required to keep documents, and one of the the appeals of this conviction centers on this prong. Kernell deleted 5 screen captures of her inbox from his computer, and ran a defrag program all before there was any type of FBI investigation. Indeed, when he was contacted by the FBI, he put the computer on his desk for them to pick up according to court testimony. It is important the wikipedia article at least get the charges correct. Please correct this misrepresentation. Constitutionguard ( talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(Help cancelled; question already answered on user talk page, User_talk:Constitutionguard Chzz ► 15:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC))
The following message was sent me because I added content to an article called david kernell, which had no content save a redirect to the sarah palin email hack article. The content I added was deleted. I add it here as requested, although I feel the proper place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article I changed, so I have added it there also.-
My reply: I had sought community consensus before making the changes to David Kernell article, I placed these comments on that article's discussion page. see Talk: David kernell" Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of Wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed." I added this comment over a month ago. I added content to the article yesterday because it is indeed an article, not a redirect page, and thus should have content. As stated, I feel that its existance violates the the policy of Wikipedia, and is a politically motivated attack upon an individual. The fact is that Mr. Kernell is not the only one that obtained unauthorized access to Sarah Palin's account, rather at least five people did, according to trial testimony. I see no mention of them in the article, nor any redirects using variations of their name as is the case with Mr. Kernell Constitutionguard ( talk)
On the page it says that Kernell "guessed" Palin's password, when it seems that he guessed the answers to the Yahoo! security questions, thereby enabling him to change her password. But her original password he never found out, so to say "guessed" seems wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthmuses ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:David Kernell here for further discussion)
Not sure if this is already stated, but I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to get the Sara Palin campaign banner deleted from the bottom of this article. Is Wikipedia being paid for this advertisement ? Constitutionguard ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that wording of the charges against David Kernell be changed to: On April 30, 2010, David Kernell was found guilty of the charges of Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer, but was acquitted on a charge of wire fraud.
This change more accurate describes the actual charges.
The fourth count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 159 (Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations), not anticipatory obstruction of justice. The third count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 1030 (unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer), not unauthorized access to a computer. ( source: http://www.box.net/shared/2s35qxtn40#/shared/2s35qxtn40/2/41710410/426284466/1 ) The wording should probably be changed in the 3rd paragraph of the article as well.
Also, the sentence about Palin issuing a press release... I'd like to see a source on that. I know that Sarah Palin issued a statement on her facebook account, but that did not directly compare Watergate to this issue. I refer you to the 3rd paragraph of the article.
I'm a new user on Wikipedia and am a bit gunshy about pulling the trigger on an article edit. 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaubrey ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"David Kernell" appears in 156 000 hits on google and appears in 2000 reliable sources only counting those tracked by Google News. Hobartimus ( talk) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Good move, Scott. Retitling to the name of the event is the appropriate course of action. the skomorokh 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"Results 1 - 10 of about 756,000 for hillary clinton campaign hostage", Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis redirects to Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#New_Hampshire_campaign_office_hostage-taking, and that section isn't even in the article anymore. Hostages? Don't mention it. Reset someone's password and it's off with your head.. Switzpaw ( talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The info belonging in this article is scattered across the histories of Mike Kernell, Sarah Palin and Anonymous_(group)#Illegal_access_of_Sarah_Palin.27s_Yahoo.21_Mail_account. If at some point someone wants to develop this comprehensively, they should start there. the skomorokh 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Michelle Malkin's blog is used repeatedly as a source for this article. Blogs are usually considered unreliable sources, especially for topics related to living persons. Unless we're just using it as a source for Malkin's views, we should find a better source. Does anyone argue that she is an expert on email hacking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Will, if I'm not mistaken this was discussed at length elsewhere and there was consensus for inclusion. Try the talkpages of the contributory articles listed above. There may have been something at User talk:Giggy also. Regards, the skomorokh 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the previous discussion, however I'm not persuaded. This is an anonymous email posted in a partisan blog. I think it's a dubious source for a contentious topic concerning living people engaged in a political campaign. There's no indication that the blogger did any fact checking, and even if she did she still a blogger writing outside of her expertise. I don't think this is an adequate source for items that don't have other confirmation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Was there a deletion review on the recreation of the article, which was deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack? That version was deleted but userified at User:Hobartimus/sandbox2. seicer | talk | contribs 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As it was formed from the David Kernell article, this article focuses very much on the hacker side of the controversy. It is my understanding that there was quite a lot of attention on Palin's side of things - criticism of the inadequate security measures on the account and the allegation that she used the account for government business. Is this the case? If so, can someone add a section on it to the article? the skomorokh 15:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This has been moved without discussion to Sarah Palin email hack from Sarah Palin email controversy, Why? And why no prior discussion?-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
When indicating the categories assigned to this page, we should use the pipe to place this article in its appropriate alphabetic position in each category. For Category:Sarah Palin, it should be under E for "email hack", because every article in that category is related to Sarah Palin. But for non-Sarah Palin-specific categories, it should be under P for "Palin" (as opposed to S for "Sarah"). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
From http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40206/118/:
Davies filed a separate motion that asked the court to prohibit the prosecution, and witnesses from referring to Kernell as a hacker, or referring to his crime as “hacking”. Kernell’s attorney believes that those terms do not accurately describe the actions that Kernell performed. Davies stated that "hacking" is generally referred to the use of "specialized computer skills to break codes and often to do damage to remote computers" and does not refer to an individual who merely guessed the answers to security questions to gain access to someone’s account.
Given this, is it fair to call this incident a "hack"? Doesn't that show POV? I move that we rename this article to something like "Sarah Palin email incident". -- beefyt ( talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not a hack. To quote the wiktionary:
The kid simply guessed the answer to a security question. The use of the word "hack" in news stories and by the prosecution is quite simply sensationalism, and frankly I believe wikipedia should live to a higher standard. At the very least it should try and maintain some semblance of consistency, so unless someone wants to add "guessing birthdays" to the list of definitions for "hack" in the wiktionary, I strongly suggest the word "hack" be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitpicker07 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The edits represented in this version of this article were made to enhance the quality of this article by removing redundancies, organizing information, and removing irrelevant material. Specifically, the details of how the hacker was traced are already detailed in the "investigation" section. The details about exactly what happened on the 4chan message boards are not especially notable, so I edited this section specifically:
On September 17, 2008, the private Yahoo! Mail account of Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election, was hacked by a 4chan user. [1] The hacker known as "Rubico" at the time targeted Palin because he wanted to "derail her campaign." [2]After reading through all of Palin's email the Rubico wrote "There was nothing there, nothing incriminating — all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor," [2] Rubico wrote that he used the Sarah Palin Wikipedia article to find out Palin's exact birthday in "15 seconds", one of the standard security questions used by Yahoo. [3] The hacker posted the account's password on /b/ a channel of 4chan, and screenshots from within the account to Wikileaks. [4] A /b/ user then logged in and changed the password, posting a screenshot of his sending an email to a friend of Palin's informing her of the new password on the /b/ thread. However, he forgot to blank out the password in the screenshot. [5] A multitude of /b/ users attempted to log in with the new password, the account was automatically locked out by Yahoo!. The incident was criticized by some /b/ users, one of which complained that "seriously, /b/. We could have changed history and failed, epically." [6] The hacker admitted he was worried about being caught, writing "Yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, I still wanted the stuff out there . . . so I posted the [information] . . . and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state." [3] The hacker left behind traces of his activity, his IP address was logged at CTunnel, the single proxy he used, he also left his email address rubico10@yahoo.com when he posted at 4chan. Further the attacker revealed the original web address used by the proxy [7] by leaving this information in the screenshot which according to experts can also help the investigation [7]. 4chan is not archived, posts are only retained for a short time but with the great interest surrounding the posts of Rubico, many, including wired.com and others archived the original posts. The email address left behind was then connected to David Kernell through various social networking profiles where it was used [8], though no official investigation took place at this early time. John McCain's campaign condemned the incident saying it was a "shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law". [7] Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the hacking "outrageous." [3]
The revised version below preserves the relevant details and references of the incident itself:
On September 17, 2008, Palin's private email account was breached by hacker seeking to "derail her campaign". [1] [2] He posted the account's password and several screenshots on public websites. [9]
The hacker wrote that he defeated Yahoo!'s security system by searching for Palin's personal information on Wikipedia and other Internet sources. [3]
Other details, such as the campaign response, have been moved to other sections. I could not locate any reference which says that Yahoo! locked the account, so I removed this detail. If anything is wrong with these edits, please let me know and I will make necessary changes. In general, I don't think reverting non-vandalism is very productive. -- beefyt ( talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Should we include the screenshots of Palin's inbox in the article? Is that legal? Certainly seems relevant. -- beefyt ( talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for details. Thanks - Kelly hi! 17:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I am semi new here, so I am not 100% on the reliable source issue...but... The breach took place on the 16th, not 17th. http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/30029/breaking_sarah_palin_yahoo_email_account_hacked Ukvilly ( talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What's that? Can we find term, the average reader might understand. Splette :) How's my driving? 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And so on. The article should be updated with this info. Will Beback talk 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The article cites several sources stating that the max sentence for the crime is 5 years, but a Huffington Post news article says "Convictions on all four felony charges – identity theft, wire fraud, intentionally accessing Palin's e-mail account without authorization and obstructing an FBI investigation – could send Kernell to prison for up to 50 years.". I didn't see anywere in the article saying 50 years, can anyone confirm if this article is true or a typo or something? If the HuffPost's news articles are considered reliable sources, it's probably notable if true. CIGraphix ( talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article cites several sources stating that "FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville Tennessee residence of David Kernell. Kernell, according to witnesses, fled the scene when the FBI agents arrived.[22]" An article By Bill Poovey | The Associated Press posted http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/042110/sta_612877241.shtml, quotes Kernell's former college roommate, Omiecinski, the first government witness, under oath saying that "he and others were having a party in Kernell's absence at their apartment days later when FBI agents seized Kernell's laptop. He said Kernell afterward always told him to tell the truth about what happened." The statement that Kernell fled the scene is not supported and in fact contradicted and should be removed from the article. Constitutionguard ( talk) 09:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The existing statement in the second paragraph is unsupported and incorrectly lists the charges filed against Kernell. Specifically, it omits the word "anticipatory" in the obstruction of justice change. This will prove to be important as one of Kernell's appeal deals with the legality of this charge. The following was taken from an article by Susan Brenner, Professor of Law and Technology, dated May 19, 2010, from a featured blog of CircleId, entitled Malware and Search Warrants - http://www.circleid.com/posts/malware_and_search_warrant/ The article discusses various issues of the case, and highlights a few points of the upcoming appeals. " October 7, 2008, [Kernell] was charged by indictment with a single count of felony unauthorized access of a computer. On February 3, 2009, [he] was charged in a four-count Superseding Indictment with identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice." The entry should be corrected to reflect accurately the charges and dates involved Constitutionguard ( talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, " The four separate felony counts were: intentionally accessing an account without authorization, identity theft, wire fraud, and obstruction of an FBI investigation. is not the same as "identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and anticipatory obstruction of justice." Anticipatory obstruction of justice, is a legal defination that usually applies to corporations, specifically, the law was written because of the Enron Corportation's immediate distruction of documents that it was required to keep. Individiduals are not required to keep documents, and one of the the appeals of this conviction centers on this prong. Kernell deleted 5 screen captures of her inbox from his computer, and ran a defrag program all before there was any type of FBI investigation. Indeed, when he was contacted by the FBI, he put the computer on his desk for them to pick up according to court testimony. It is important the wikipedia article at least get the charges correct. Please correct this misrepresentation. Constitutionguard ( talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(Help cancelled; question already answered on user talk page, User_talk:Constitutionguard Chzz ► 15:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC))
The following message was sent me because I added content to an article called david kernell, which had no content save a redirect to the sarah palin email hack article. The content I added was deleted. I add it here as requested, although I feel the proper place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article I changed, so I have added it there also.-
My reply: I had sought community consensus before making the changes to David Kernell article, I placed these comments on that article's discussion page. see Talk: David kernell" Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of Wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed." I added this comment over a month ago. I added content to the article yesterday because it is indeed an article, not a redirect page, and thus should have content. As stated, I feel that its existance violates the the policy of Wikipedia, and is a politically motivated attack upon an individual. The fact is that Mr. Kernell is not the only one that obtained unauthorized access to Sarah Palin's account, rather at least five people did, according to trial testimony. I see no mention of them in the article, nor any redirects using variations of their name as is the case with Mr. Kernell Constitutionguard ( talk)
On the page it says that Kernell "guessed" Palin's password, when it seems that he guessed the answers to the Yahoo! security questions, thereby enabling him to change her password. But her original password he never found out, so to say "guessed" seems wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthmuses ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:David Kernell here for further discussion)
Not sure if this is already stated, but I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to get the Sara Palin campaign banner deleted from the bottom of this article. Is Wikipedia being paid for this advertisement ? Constitutionguard ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that wording of the charges against David Kernell be changed to: On April 30, 2010, David Kernell was found guilty of the charges of Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer, but was acquitted on a charge of wire fraud.
This change more accurate describes the actual charges.
The fourth count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 159 (Destruction, Alteration or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations), not anticipatory obstruction of justice. The third count of the indictment against David Kernell charges a violation of 18 § U.S.C. 1030 (unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer as a result of unauthorized access to a computer), not unauthorized access to a computer. ( source: http://www.box.net/shared/2s35qxtn40#/shared/2s35qxtn40/2/41710410/426284466/1 ) The wording should probably be changed in the 3rd paragraph of the article as well.
Also, the sentence about Palin issuing a press release... I'd like to see a source on that. I know that Sarah Palin issued a statement on her facebook account, but that did not directly compare Watergate to this issue. I refer you to the 3rd paragraph of the article.
I'm a new user on Wikipedia and am a bit gunshy about pulling the trigger on an article edit. 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaubrey ( talk • contribs)