Anonymous, the internet-based group that has recently taken on Scientology, has stepped up its vigilantism by hacking Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, assumedly to find E-mails containing public office business. Screen shots of the hack were posted on Gawker and Wikileaks (which is the slowest site on the internet right now). The Wikileak angle makes the act look like whistleblowing.
Now, there has been growing talk about whether/how much public business Palin conducted through her personal e-mail. This is a very serious and potentially illegal activity because records of business communication are public records and become very tricky to obtain (legally and technically) from a private account. Yes, Palin is accused of a very serious ethical and legal violation in doing this. However, hacking her E-mail is also a very serious crime because of who she is (hence the involvement of the Secret Service and FBI). What does this indicate about Anonymous' self-conception and direction? Should we be particularly afraid? Should we be happy?
Recent Anonymous activity has focused (very valiantly in my opinion) on protesting Scientology for breaking up families, kidnapping, violating non-profit status through profit-making schemes, and other worse and lesser crimes. Their actions have included protests in front of Scientology buildings, hacking Scientology websites, and publicizing their claims. Nothing at the level of Palin or publishing personal information (recently, as far as I know). They do have a more sordid past, but there's little I can find factually about those times. (Side Note: the Palin incident with the earlier activities may put Anonymous in boiling water.) Now, they've stepped up to one of the most visible political figures in the country with a direct confrontation that involves unabashed criminality. That's a lot of exposure wrapped up in a very starkly defined situation.
The basics driving Anonymous thus far has been pretty clear and well-founded - revealing and stymying the blatantly illegal/abusive use of power. But, some people have questioned their sincerity, veracity, and self-control and a number of boards are lighting up around these notions. I'm not one of those people, I think their motives and information are clear. However, I am concerned about the level of infiltration this time. Following the same principles, they have now launched an attack on a public figure using illegal activity. Yeah, hacking a website and altering its content crosses legal lines, but publicizing stolen personal information is a much clearer crime. Should I be personally afraid? No, I'm not abusing power. I could suffer collateral damage if Anonymous used more viral methods (though they seem, so far conscientious of limiting their troublesomeness to the tyrant). So, I and I think others should be worried about expanding methods and outspokeness. But at the same time, their principles leave us alone and provide us a strong arm against corruption. We have to take Vigilante Ethics much more seriously.
What do I predict? There may be much more information gathered from the hacking which has yet to be released. All of the documentation I've found right now was meant to validate that the account was Palin's (contact list, pictures, confirmed e-mails). The purpose of the breach was probably to find public business and, ideally, dirty business. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that Palin did use her private account for public business, so there is reason to expect that there was some solid evidence gathered. We may see that soon. If that comes out, Anonymous will come under an incredible amount of pressure and it will continue the polarizaiton in the U.S. since Palin was introduced. If there is a real case to be made, the truth may overshadow the hacking. If the evidence is weak, revealing it will feed the prevailing discourse that liberals are out to get Palin.
Keep your eyes and ears open for a bigger scandal
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Anonymous v. Palin
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hot Woman on Woman Action
Just got this E-mail beginning to be circulated by women for women on Sarah Palin. I personally agree with this one; hence, I'm helping spread the word.
Subject: Fwd: WOMEN SPEAK OUT
Just in from a friend. Within this message is an invitation to make
your own personal statement and send it along to
womensaynopalin@gmail.com
Lend your voice, if you wish.
*Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters,
We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt
since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential
candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible
decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous
farce in the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential
candidate that has a real possibility of becoming fact.
Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of
what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead
to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she
is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform,
environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom
of speech (as mayor she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire
the librarian who stood against her), gun control, the separation of church
and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real
preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.
We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a
mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but
solely as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for
Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in
the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and
great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so
demonstrably benefited from.
First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does
not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is
presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could
win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.
Therefore, we invite you to reply here with
a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this
country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our
nation.
Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of residence.
We will post your responses on a blog called "Women Against Sarah Palin,"
which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your
reply at your earliest convenience the greater the volume of responses
we receive, the stronger our message will be.
Thank you for your time and action.
VIVA!
Sincerely,
Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston
New York, NY
womensaynopalin@gmail.com
**PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to your women friends and
acquaintances, you could be blessed with a country that takes your
concerns
seriously. Stranger things have happened.
Type rest of the post here
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Pulse: First Swings at Palin
As soon as Palin's name was announced it seems like a number of people have shot off several initial problems. Berkeley Economist Brad DeLong's blog has been buzzing with a short list of problems and a long list of harsh critique. Like the claims being made, I think the bloggers, reporters, and commentary are a bit too quick on the draw for their own confidence; however, the true implications are yet to be seen.
I'll list the issues here and flesh them out below. For your own education, I suggest reading the past week and a half of DeLong's blog. It's okay to skim. Also check out Wikipedia's article on the "Bridge to Nowhere" and Palin's firing of the Public Safety Commissioner. They don't cover everything, but some of the basic, factual issues.
The first big issues is the firing. The claims are that Palin fired the commissioner for not firing her ex-brother-in-law trooper on "trumped up charges." Second, Palin was in support of the "Bridge to Nowhere," one of the biggest porkbarrel fiascos this decade, and is now parading that she was against it. Third and more generally, reports are comming in from Alaskan bloggers and reporters that McCain's campaign did not do any background investigation into Palin. Essentially he's going in blind on the second most important government official and his second in command.
The story on the firing is probably the most well-documented and contentious. There is ample evidence that the commissioner was pressured to fire the trooper. There were complaints lodged against the ex-brother-in-law trooper (by Palin family), and some of them were substantiated (a verbal death threat, illegally shooting a moose, and tasering his son [which he claims his son wanted to know what it felt like and he used the "training setting"]). The trooper was reprimanded and suspended for ten days. Nine months later, Palin is elected governor. In another month, the Palin family and gubernatorial staff began pressuring the new commissioner to have the Trooper fired, despite the fact that the only complaints in his file were those lodged by the Palins. Nothing happened with the Trooper as pressure continued. Six months into it, the commissioner was fired.
The state senate has since started an ongoing investigation which should present its findings before the election. The Attorney General also just finished an investigation into the situation revealing that Palin and her office did "improperly" speak of the trooper in one of the twenty-four instances recorded. Palin denies applying any pressure. The result was a two month paid leave for a gubernatorial official. I'm waiting for the senate's investigation before settling on a full opinion, especially since the timeline and quotes found on DeLong's blog indicate a much more troubling version than Wikipedia and the AG's report.
The second issue is the "Bridge to Nowhere." It was bridge designed to connect a 8,000 person town to the second busiest airport in Alaska (there's now a ferry that runs ever 15-30 minutes). The cost: over $400 million. I haven't looked up the actual value, but $400 million is enough. The Federal Gov. committed to picking up half the bill through Sen Ted Stevens. After the recent outrage over pork-barrel spending, the government gave Alaska the money, but did not earmark it for the bridge. What happened to that money is explained by the story of Palin.
Palin was governor at the time. She supported the bridge until the government pulled its earmark funding. After the pork-barrel outrage and funding changes, she did an about-face and spent the money for the bridge on other highway projects. The issue now is that she parades the fact that she was against the bridge as a part of her responsible government appeal. In my mind, it's riding the political wave and smoothing over inconvenient history through clear lying.
All of this ultimately points, for DeLong and detractors, to McCain's absolutely poor judgement and renegade temperament. During the investigations into Palin's background by bloggers and journalists, it keeps coming up that no one has asked for any of her records. Also, as soon as what has been called (lamely) "Troopergate" started coming out nationally, the McCain team immediately hit the ground in Alaska apparently to do background research. Even in the reports given by major news outlets, McCain had only met Palin once before (and maybe once during) the Veepstakes and his staff met with her three or four times at most before she was selected. This is not the way to select the most important partner in this country.
The poor judgement has to do with not doing background research and selecting an apparently unvetted and unseasoned politician with little national or international experience. The renegade temperament is lodged for the seemingly hasty, intuitive choice contra the mainstream voices of who were fitting options. DeLong is putting as if McCain is not a maverick, but uncontrollably temperamental.
Like I said in the beginning, the truth of these claims and their import should be fleshed out in the coming weeks. I'll be there with more from the political pulse.
Posts
