71–80 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a case that could potentially embarrass the state, I'd think the prosecution would try hard to make sure the case appears on the right judge's docket.
They can try all they want, but do they have a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a better analogy. The implication is that somehow the raw HTML is more valuable than the rendered webpage. You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it. [Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's…
It’s a good analogy in terms of how far the “breaking into” stuff you go. The journalist literally only saw what you legitimately see from the street, just as “view source” only shows you what you’re supposed to see anyway. As far as the technical analogy goes, I’d probably agree.
This data is what forms the page that is displayed and is accessible to anyone that can tap the server. This data is what they broadcast to the public
You wouldn't be able to go and shout a bunch of SSNs in the middle of the street and then prosecute anyone who was listening
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a better analogy. The implication is that somehow the raw HTML is more valuable than the rendered webpage. You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it. [Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's…
It’s a good analogy in terms of how far the “breaking into” stuff you go. The journalist literally only saw what you legitimately see from the street, just as “view source” only shows you what you’re supposed to see anyway. As far as the technical analogy goes, I’d probably agree.
Just because the browser only renders certain parts of the returned document doesn't mean that the government site didn't send you the whole document
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A better analogy would be you're walking in the street past a neighbor's house and notice their front door wide open with no one around. You can see a purse and car keys near the door. You phone that neighbor, and tell them their door is open and their purse and keys are easily visible from the street. Would Parson consider this breaking and entering?" This was only a few lines below that.
That's not a better analogy. The implication is that somehow the raw HTML is more valuable than the rendered webpage. You don't get to publish a "rendered webpage"; what you publish is raw HTML. If you didn't want people to read it, you didn't ought to have published it. [Edit] Also, taking a copy of the HTML isn't like taking keys and a purse. If you take keys and a purse, the owner has been deprived of them. That's…
It's a good analogy.
The web page used an old .NET framework that serialized the application state, base64 encoded it, then dumped it in a hidden form field at the bottom. When you navigate pages, the data is POSTd back to the server to achieve a "stateless" web app on the server side
The reporter had to view source and base64 decode the data
Obviously still trivial but I think the laws are also very ambiguous on "decoding" and "accessing"
> If somebody picks your lock on your house It's not like picking a lock. It's more like turning over a sheet of paper to read what's on the other side. If this guy gets convicted, I'll eat my hat (I wear a fedora). "Thy just thow their fedora wherever the floor is And start doing horas and taps".
"A better analogy would be you're walking in the street past a neighbor's house and notice their front door wide open with no one around. You can see a purse and car keys near the door. You phone that neighbor, and tell them their door is open and their purse and keys are easily visible from the street. Would Parson consider this breaking and entering?" This was only a few lines below that.
Say your neighbor has an atrium and gets medication delivered. Said medication is clearly labeled as light/heat sensitive, and the package is left by the delivery person in direct sunlight. Their front door is unlocked.
You open the door and tuck the package safely inside.
Breaking and entering?
Anyone telling me that qualifies has some serious thinking on Mens Rea to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are surprised? We already know that a prosecutor will try for higher sentences near an election and... well, they are elected. It isn't hard to imagine that an elected official works with other elected officials, especially if they want to do other things in government.
I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes
Someone anonymous on Twitter threatens to kill you. You go to the front desk of your local police and they say "You have our sympathies, but we have limited resources, and we don't know whether it's really a serious matter or not, or even if the perpetrator is within our jurisdiction."
You threaten on Twitter to kill your MP. They go to the head of the local police force who decides it _is_ a serious matter, looks into it and finds you _are_ in their jurisdiction, and some police officers come knocking at your door.
Is this the rule of law operating as intended, reflecting the reality that MPs have been murdered before, and in a world unfortunately constrained by finite policing budgets?
Or is it a double-standard, where a wealth of usually-unenforced laws allow the powerful to oppress their opponents?
> If somebody picks your lock on your house It's not like picking a lock. It's more like turning over a sheet of paper to read what's on the other side. If this guy gets convicted, I'll eat my hat (I wear a fedora). "Thy just thow their fedora wherever the floor is And start doing horas and taps".
"A better analogy would be you're walking in the street past a neighbor's house and notice their front door wide open with no one around. You can see a purse and car keys near the door. You phone that neighbor, and tell them their door is open and their purse and keys are easily visible from the street. Would Parson consider this breaking and entering?" This was only a few lines below that.