101–110 of 210 posts
This is a fascinating question. I can see strong arguments on both sides. Just because something is publicly accessible, it doesn't make it free to take or use. Of course there will never be a strict line, so one needs to take into account the intent, intensity, and the usual parameters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was…
Specially when the public side is underfunded and defending yourself is insanely expensive. Not that law is cheap anywhere, but from recent cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and officer Potter it seems just stupid and broken.
This is a fascinating question. I can see strong arguments on both sides. Just because something is publicly accessible, it doesn't make it free to take or use. Of course there will never be a strict line, so one needs to take into account the intent, intensity, and the usual parameters.
This is a fascinating question. I can see strong arguments on both sides. Just because something is publicly accessible, it doesn't make it free to take or use. Of course there will never be a strict line, so one needs to take into account the intent, intensity, and the usual parameters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because any system could or do have biases, that’s no good defence of a system we know has terrible pernicious biases that are visibly compromising it’s integrity. I’m a Brit, and I’d have good expectations of being treated fairly if I faced prosecution as an innocent person here in the UK, in France, Germany, or plenty of other countries. I have no such confidence about the USA. Especially so if the crime I was…
Specially when the public side is underfunded and defending yourself is insanely expensive. Not that law is cheap anywhere, but from recent cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and officer Potter it seems just stupid and broken.
> The reporter discovered that the source code of the website contained Social Security numbers of educators. The reporter alerted the state about the social security numbers. After the state removed the numbers from the web page, the Post-Dispatch reported the vulnerability. I really hate the idea that trying to do the right thing (reporter telling MO DoE about SSNs being in their HTML) results in prosecution to sav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably won’t even get to jury. It might get dismissed with prejudice before it goes to trial.
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.
My feeling is that this is deliberate; the American right wing appears to rather like performative stupidity these days.
I think a lot of analogies miss the point that data was copied and transmitted to the client and accessed client side. I think it'd be more accurate to compare to a barcode Imagine requesting a voter registration form and you receive a letter in the mail with all previous residents social security numbers encoded in QR codes that were added as a "convenience feature" for the voting office In that case, it'd be ridicu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes
I don't know why you're surprised. The courts have shown time and again that they are part of the establishment (that includes the civil service and government), and will act in accordance with government wishes most of the time. "Yes, Minister" was documentary not fiction (also, since we seem to be remaking/rebooting everything good, can we have an updated version of this, please?)
This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of thing that Humphrey would stop Hacker doing, if Hacker had the ability, which he didn’t. The only times Humphrey lets Hacker indulge in overreach are to put him in a situation that Humphrey can then save him from.
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.
Why would it embarrass the state any more than the governor’s public comments already have?
That's basic legal harassment 101.