Hacker Linked to Palin Emails [UPDATE3]

By DemocracyRules

You may have heard this as a rumor, but the picture is becoming clearer now.  Nevertheless, I do not believe that anyone has been charged yet, so I have to be very careful. 

However, the hacker appears to have publicly confessed to the email hack.  He also appears to have been in possession of the emails first, and to have been the one who posted screen shots of the emails on the internet.

The hacker used a proxy server to hide his true IP address, and cover his tracks.  However, when he posted screen shots of the emails, they showed enough URL info to figure out who he really was.

From TGdaily.com --

"A few days ago, someone going by the name of “Rubico” gloated on 4chan.org that he managed to hack into Sarah Palin’s Yahoo account...

Rubico used a proxy server that shields the source IP address from website logging scripts.  While this sounds great, Rubico posted, “Yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this sh** ever got to the FBI I was FU****”....

In his gloating, Rubico posted up screenshots of the Yahoo account complete with the full URL which included the proxy server url (ctunnel.com) appended with a unique identifier.  For example, we used ctunnel.com to surf to YouTube and the URL reads - http://ctunnel.com/index.php/1010110A/58a5cd1e8ab47088982c83282fd768456ebe14f44221026. So it doesn’t take a genius to go through the logs and match up the ID to the appropriate IP address and BAM, you got the hacker...

'White hat' [good guy] hackers didn’t even need proxy information to find the culprit because they discovered that the Rubico forum handle was linked to  [email protected]. A few searches on Google and YouTube further links this email address to 20-year-old David Kernell, a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville."

________________________________________

Thus, Rubico appears to be linked to David Kernell, the son of Democratic Tennessee state representative Mike Kernell.  David Kernell's apartment was searched today by the FBI.

"Witnesses say Kernell and his friends left the apartment when the FBI agents arrived. Kernell's three roommates were also subpoenaed, and must testify this week in Chattanooga."

Fox News picks it up

Here is David Kernell's blog from 2003  His dad is right, he loves chess. 

The acronym "rubicox" appears on David's blog from 2003.  'Rubico' may relate to the Rubicon river in northern Italy.  When the Roman General Julius Caesar "crossed the Rubicon," he committed himself to march south and capture the Roman state.

'X' means '10' in Roman numerals, so 'rubicox' is similar to 'rubico10'.

There is a possible connection between David Kernell and David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.  This may or may not be a valid connection.  However, a Technocrati search for David Kernell turned up a link to this video of David Plouffe:

Email Hacker Says It Was Easy
_________________________________________

THE LONE GUNMAN THEORY
OK, so once bloggers saw that link with Plouffe, they began to wonder if someone encouraged the hacker (whoever he was) to hack Palin's emails.  Clearly, 'Rubico' was looking for dirt, he said so on his message posting.  Did the hacker act alone, or were others involved?

THE GRASSY KNOLL
The 'grassy knoll' refers to the Kennedy assassination.  Some witnesses claim to have heard gunfire, and saw puffs of smoke coming from a grassy knoll close to where Kennedy was shot.  If those witnesses were right, then there were at least 2 assassins on the scene that day.  Conspiracy theorists have had a field day with this, but nothing has been proved for sure.

So did the hacker act alone, or did he have help? Well, the technocrati link MAY be a puff of smoke, but not more than that.  At least, not until someone figures out why those two people were associated on that technocrati search.  Maybe it was simply because they are both named David (but that seems like a stretch).

The situation becomes more complex when one considers that David Plouffe is known for his adroit use of the internet.  From LibertarianRepublicans:

"Libertarian Republican blog interviewed Computer Applications Specialist Dave Kittley of Abilene, Texas this evening. Kittley discovered the video link late yesterday, and captured it in a screen shot...

Plouffe is known to be a big advocate of NetRoots, a gathering of Leftwing Bloggers, formerly known as Yearly Kos, who often engage in on-line mischief against political opponents. Obama produced a personal video to the NetRoots convention which was held in Austin, Texas the weekend of July 16. Kittley told LR that is entirely possible that Kernell might be a member of the NetRoots community.

Kittlery also pointed out to LR that the video, which encourages volunteers to become the "cavalry" of the Obama campaign, has since dissappeared from Kernell's Technorati page..."

So at this point, all we seem to have is a puff of smoke.  The rest is speculation: (1) No one has been charged, or even been named "a person of interest". (2) Therefore, we haven't even found the "lone gun-man" for sure.  (3) Without more information, any speculation about 'the grassy knoll' is very insubstantial. 

(4) However, there DOES seem to be a group of affiliated individuals who are determined to squeeze as much defamation as they can out of the content of the Palin emails. 

Since the email defamations are mainly coming from political activist Dems, at least some of them are likely to belong to NetRoots. NetRoots is very proud of their unleashed activitsm.

Little Green Footballs finds evidence of a major, coordinated attack on Palin, professionally run by a PR firm, and backed up by NetRoots.

A LOT has come to light in just the last 2 days, so we shall see.

_________________________________________

The web chatter about this leaves many questions unanswered.

(1) Will it be deemed that a crime has been committed?   For example, this view is typical on comment threads: "At what point does an illegal act by a citizen to shed light on a politician of dubious nature, become a good thing?"  (Sort of e-vigilantism.) Or, "Republicans have no right to privacy. They've got no right to govern either."

(2) What to charge the hacker with?  Under the Stored Communication Act (SCA), it is illegal... "to access without permission a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage."  However the wording of the law, and the precedents may be shaky.

(3) Blogger Andrew Grossman points to the writ of the subsection of law entitled, "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers".  He thinks this is a viable route to prosecution because the law, "prohibits virtual trespassing for the purposes of stealing information. So cracking the password to a governor’s email account and perusing her messages is a clear violation. The punishment: criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 5 years."

(4) The Palins may also be able to file a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy.

RE the 'grassy knoll' theory, we'll know we're in trouble if David Kernell starts saying, "I'm just a patsy..."

To be continued...

Comments

[Andrew Boylston]

I'll once again dispute calling this kid a "hacker". Just a dumb kid who did some easy guesswork.

_________________________________
{From DR -- Andrew, thank you for taking time to read my rather long post. It was difficult to write. Here is a common definition of 'hacker'
___________________
(Webster's) Pronunciation: \ˈha-kər\ Function: noun Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks 2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity (a tennis hacker) 3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer 4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
----------------
He clearly fits definition #4. }
_______________________________

If he had been a true hacker, he would have used two or three proxy servers, one of them from a foreign country which wouldn't give up the information readily, and then when he posted the screen caps of the e-mails, a little gausian blur (or just simply blacking out the URL) would have probably been enough to insure that he wasn't discovered. Lastly he should have posted it, once again through a double proxy, totally anonymously.

Not the sort of crime you want to take credit for. {From DR -- Whaaat????}

He should never have done it in the first place. Just stupid. He'll regret this for quite a while.

Totally unrelated, he has a Class A chess rating (1900) which puts him just below expert (which is, incidentally, the category I'm in, just below master, with a rating of 2170, though I haven't played chess in years.)

[Gina Cobb here: So you admire the alleged lawbreaker, then, at least for his chess skills. But you make the point that he needs more practice to be a "real" hacker. If he did what is alleged, he's not just a "dumb" kid -- you claim he's not dumb yourself. No, he is a dishonest man who has no respect for the privacy of other people's confidential communications and one who has violated federal laws in pursuit of partisan political advantage. I find your continued defense of this alleged lawbreaker completely unworthy of you.]

{From DR -- Andrew, what's your theory, the 'lone gunman' or the 'grassy knoll'? If he is an inept person who somehow pulled this off, that seems to argue for the 'grassy knoll' theory. He may have had help.-- Pro Patria}

[Andrew Boylston]

So you admire the alleged lawbreaker, then, at least for his chess skills. But you make the point that he needs more practice to be a "real" hacker. If he did what is alleged, he's not just a "dumb" kid -- you claim he's not dumb yourself. No, he is a dishonest man who has no respect for the privacy of other people's confidential communications and one who has violated federal laws in pursuit of partisan political advantage. I find your continued defense of this alleged lawbreakers completly unworthy of you.

Gina,

I'm really not sure where you are coming from with any of this comment.

At no point have I defended his actions. In fact, in the above post I even say "He should never have done it in the first place. Just stupid. He'll regret this for quite a while."

I did not express admiration for his chess playing skills. I just merely noted what his ranking was and where it puts him in the USCF rating system. As he is actually rated about 300 points below me in the USCF rating system, there's nothing for me to admire.

I don't think he needs more practice to be a "real" hacker. I think he's not a hacker at all. I wouldn't encourage him, or anyone, to become one.

I've also never claimed that he's not dumb, just because I noted that he has a decent chess rating does not mean that I am equating this with intelligence. Some of the greatest chess players in the world have been incredibly stupid in all other respects, the most notable example of this being Bobby Fischer, a man who was a complete genius at chess, and yet so completely undeveloped as an individual as to be a total lunatic in other respects.

As this is the second time where you have either (a) failed to correctly read my post or (b) deliberately attempted to distort what I have said, I would ask that you improve your reading comprehension of my posts, or quit trying to inject them with thoughts and statements that are not there.

Let me state for the final time: I do NOT condone his actions, I do not approve of it. He has broken the law, and he will have to face the justice system. End of story.

I do still think he's just some dumb kid (in that he is obviously lacking common sense) who thought he was doing something clever and then got in over his head. He'll still have to face the consequences.

[Gina Cobb]

GINA COBB responds:

Andrew writes: "At no point have I defended his actions. In fact, in the above post I even say "He should never have done it in the first place. Just stupid. He'll regret this for quite a while.""

Gina Cobb responds: To claim that a criminal act is "just" stupid is to defend it, by attempting to both trivialize the offense and mitigate the punishment.

To claim that the perpetrator is a "dumb kid" is to attempt to mitigate the crime by appealing to the criminal's youth and lack of intelligence.

The crime of breaking into someone's private e-mail account was not "just" stupid. I was morally wrong as well as legally criminal.

The alleged offender is not "just" a "dumb kid." He is over 18 years old, legally bound by his contracts and legally responsible for his crimes.

So, yes, Andrew, you are defending him. You are using the exact same "defenses" -- weak though they are -- that a criminal lawyer would use in attempting to defend this adult.

Andrew writes: "I did not express admiration for his chess playing skills. I just merely noted what his ranking was and where it puts him in the USCF rating system. As he is actually rated about 300 points below me in the USCF rating system, there's nothing for me to admire."

. . . . I've also never claimed that he's not dumb, just because I noted that he has a decent chess rating does not mean that I am equating this with intelligence. Some of the greatest chess players in the world have been incredibly stupid in all other respects, the most notable example of this being Bobby Fischer, a man who was a complete genius at chess, and yet so completely undeveloped as an individual as to be a total lunatic in other respects."

Gina Cobb responds: Then why did you bother to mention it, Andrew? Why not bring up his hair style and surfing background, or some other random fact? Are you just posting random noise or did you have a reason to bring up his chess ranking?

You brought up his chess ranking only for one reason: to suggest that this alleged criminal is not stupid.

Andrew writes: "As this is the second time where you have either (a) failed to correctly read my post or (b) deliberately attempted to distort what I have said, I would ask that you improve your reading comprehension of my posts, or quit trying to inject them with thoughts and statements that are not there."

Gina Cobb responds: This is at least the third, fourth, or fifth time that you have used personal insults and unfounded attacks on me or others at this website to try to cover over your own misstatements and mistakes. We did not misunderstand what you wrote. You claimed not to condone the hacker's acts out of one side your mouth, and tried to trivialize the offense out of the other.

This, combined with your initial reaction of blaming Sarah Palin for her own private e-mail account being hacked is totally intolerable. "Still, the ease with which her Yahoo account was hacked suggests that she's not very up on security." Right.

Oh, and by the way, notice how you used the word "hacked' yourself in that comment -- and now you want to claim this man isn't a "hacker" at all. Sorry, but "hacking" is not defined by whether a crime is "easy" or involves "guesswork." Knowing which window to break to gain easy entry to a house for a burglary also involves easy guesswork. That it was "easy" or that the victim could have been better "up" on security is not a defense to a crime nor to moral wrongdoing.

You'll respond "but I didn't say it was a defense!" Sure. Then why did you bring it up? Why did you bring up:

1. He's a "kid" (even though he's 20 years old)
2. It wasn't "really" a "hack" because it was easy
3. He's "dumb"
4. But he's great at chess!
5. And even though his father is a Democratic party official, the Democratic PARTY had nothing to do with this break-in, no-siree-bob!
6. But Governor Palin must not be"up" on security
7. Which are all points that I, Andrews, as a proud Republican strict fiscal conservative, who believes in enforcing the criminal law, believe are vitally important to post on this website in response to the news of this crime.

The fact that it reads like the closing argument in the upcoming criminal trial is purely coincidental.

I don't like hypocrisy, Andrew. And your double standard is obvious. You tried to score political debating points against Sarah Palin out of this crime committed against her, and you've defended -- yes, defended -- the hacker, even while admitting the obvious point you can't do anything about, that his action was a crime.

I'm not sure which is worse -- attacking the innocent victim of a crime or defending the (alleged) criminal -- but when you do both, I have a real problem with that.

[Andrew Boylston]

Gina,

This isn't a court room, but if it was "My client knew he did something illegal but is dumb" is not a defense. Or, not a good defense. I stick by my statement that I was never defending this kid.

I prefaced my comments about his chess rating as "Totally unrelated", and only brought it up to supplement the information which was in DR's original blog post: "Here is David Kernell's blog from 2003 His dad is right, he loves chess. "

Also, if I was trying to portray this kid as "dumb" in his defense, then why would I bring up his chess ranking to prove that he's smart? Obviously it was idle chatter linked to DR's original post, and as I play chess, just something I happened to find interesting in passing.

And in direct response to your points, 1 through 7.

1. 20 years old seems like a kid when you're 50. There is no age limit on kid, it can be a child or young person. He seems like a kid to me.

2. It's not a technical hack, but yielding to the definition provided by DR above from Websters, namely 4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system I will concede that this was a hack

3. Obviously.

4. Totally unrelated as I have already pointed out.

5. Just because his father is a Democratic State Representative does not mean
that his action was endorsed or encouraged by the Democratic Party in anyway. [Irrelevant smears on relatives of Republicans deleted by moderator.] Stick to the facts and avoid the Hyperbole.

6. I still maintain that Governor Palin should not have had a Yahoo account for official Government business. [Moderator: Your evidence for which is?] The security risks are abundant and obvious, and any security consultant would have strongly advised otherwise. Saying this does not excused the kid's crime.

7. Go ahead and just call me a Moderate Republican from now on. "proud Republican strict fiscal conservative" is too much of a mouthful, and just seems to muddle your perception of me. You can call me a RINO if you like. By the way, for me, there is no pride involved in being part of a political party, there is only pride involved in being an American.

I think this only seems like the closing argument in a trial to you because you're a lawyer.

I've consistently said that he committed a crime, and that he will have to face up to the punishment. That's not a good closing argument. The rest of it has merely been me quibbling about the term "hack", questioning Palin's use of an unsecure e-mail server for Government correspondence, and some idle conversation about the hacker's habits.

I also didn't think that I'd been personally insulting, and if you feel personally insulted, then I offer an apology.

______________________________
{From DR -- Well Andrew, in any case, it looks like YOU won't be able to accuse ANYONE ELSE of being HARD HEADED!

-- Oh, by the way, your #6 is a red herring. The AP fabricated the part about her using her private email for official business.-- Pro Patria}