Former UT student David Kernell was found guilty on April 30 of a felony and a misdemeanor, two of four counts charged against him, for the hacking of Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail account in September 2008. Over the span of about 21 months, he transformed into an unlikely political lightning rod.
There’s two prevailing opinions on Kernell. Both simply parrot trial prosecutors Greg Weddle and Mark Krotoski and defense attorney Wade Davies. One contends that Kernell should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, while the other brushes aside the matter as simply a college prank.
The anti-Kernell side says the hacking was a personal and political attack, and Kernell should be made an example of.
It’s believed to be personal because screenshots and information from Palin’s private e-mail account – gov.palin@yahoo.com – ended up on the Internet, regardless of how it got there. Palin’s entire address book and inbox became public, including daughter Bristol Palin’s cell phone number. Bristol was home in Alaska and said she received “hundreds” of anonymous phone calls and text messages. The prosecution pulled at the heartstrings, painting a picture of victim Bristol, without parents at home.
But the reason why Kernell even got the idea was from the media controversy of Palin conducting state business on a personal e-mail account. This is not against the law, but what about the idiocy of it? Using Yahoo as a personal account for such sensitive information and having such easily guessed questions is absurd. Former Palin staffer Frank Bailey, who created the account for Palin on Yahoo at her request, testified that he told hubby Todd, “You have to get off Yahoo. It’s not secure.”
In this case, “hacking” might be a misnomer. It usually brings to mind complicated Internet scheming, not a few clumsy clicks to Wikipedia and assorted biographies. The three Yahoo “security” questions asked for Palin’s birthday, zip code and where she met Todd, all stupidly easy to find.
And Bristol was only home without her parents because her parents were fresh on the campaign trail. At some point, there has to be personal responsibility. At the time, Bristol could not even sign a contract for her own cell phone. If their house really is in the “middle of nowhere,” as Bristol testified, and their family is full of public figures, why is she placed in such a precarious situation to begin with?
The hacking is called a political attack because of what Kernell was viewed as. According to a May 27 article in The Telegraph, he was not vocal about politics. He’s a self-described “Obamacrat.” His Facebook told us so. In addition, he’s the son of a Democratic state representative. And, of course, this message he posted as “Rubico” on the board 4chan hurt: “There was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped.”
Another poster responded later, “At least give someone else the password, and let them ruin her life.” FBI agent and forensic examiner Stephen McFall testified that three minutes later, the password was shared.
That is what is damning for Kernell. All the passing remarks from Davies and others about how Kernell was just engaging in a “college prank” go out the window when considering the fact that Kernell’s entire intention was to harm the McCain-Palin campaign and Palin in general. Even when the contents of the inbox were mostly boring (pictures of family, clerical items from her time as governor), the password was still posted, with all the contents leaked. Heck, one trip to WikiLeaks today, and anyone can see everything still.
And even though Palin was wrong to use a private e-mail address for state business, even though Palin was ignorant to use such faulty security for said e-mail, even though it was mindachingly easy for Kernell to “hack” the account, that does not make it right. Too many confuse the fact that Kernell found nothing with how important his actions were. What was Kernell’s intent?
And even if all sorts of conspiracies had come out with the inbox materials, Palin would not have had it coming to her. Private is private.
Still, even with all that, I find it hard to understand the mindset behind some that still wish for further enacted upon a 22-year-old, who is putting his college career on hold and waiting for what will shape the future of his life.
Perhaps it is unfair that Internet crime is so hazy and inconsistent that countless can have their e-mail accounts hacked by ex-lovers or acquaintances, yet, with a public figure, the severity of the moral infraction becomes so much greater. And perhaps it is time to close the book on a case that has dragged on long enough.

— Robby O’Daniel is a graduate student in communication and information. He can be reached at rodaniel@utk.edu.