Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 210 posts

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#131

Post by randombits0 »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #62
pyrale wrote: post #18

I don't really like the framing that the reporter is framed for using "view source". This reinforces the idea that the people responsible for this are just uneducated. I'm sure, at this point, someone already explained them. That reporter is a victim of harassment, and that if it wasn't for "view source", it could be for some unrelated stuff. It's the same as protesters being arrested for all kinds of bogus reasons,…

They might prosecute, but I bet a jury would throw it out

No, they won’t. The linked article is BS. This is much ado about nothing. YHBT. HAND.

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#132

Post by account-5 »

State makes the personal information of state employees freely available to anyone with an internet connection and a web browser.

Reporter notices, reports it to the state, waits for it to be fixed, then runs the story.

State governor goes after reporter.

The state governor is either an idiot, or trying to cover up iltheir incompetence, or both. And doing so in a way that makes him look like more of an idiot.

If the prosecutor takes this up then either they're an idiot or being pressured to do so, by the idiot in charge.

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#133

Post by dekhn »

badRNG wrote: post #127
TameAntelope wrote: post #13

This smells like clickbait. No charges have been filed, just a statement from a governor who has a history of bloviating about the press. “Likely to be charged” is a huge stretch.

I don't think it is that big a stretch. There's more details in the Verge article[1]: > They turned the case over to Cole County Prosecuting Attorney Locke Thompson on Monday, December 27. Governor Parson then held a press conference on Wednesday, December 29, where he cited a state statute related to computer tampering and repeatedly suggested Thompson should use it to prosecute Renaud and the paper. As of the time…

The STL Dispatch covered every single angle of responsibility before and during taking this action. Even if they violated the letter of some law, the only outcome of a court case will be to embarass the state by exposing how incompetent they were, and how responsible the reporter and the paper were in disclosure.

My guess is the prosecutor will decline to pursue.

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#134

Post by badRNG »

dekhn wrote: post #133
badRNG wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that big a stretch. There's more details in the Verge article[1]: > They turned the case over to Cole County Prosecuting Attorney Locke Thompson on Monday, December 27. Governor Parson then held a press conference on Wednesday, December 29, where he cited a state statute related to computer tampering and repeatedly suggested Thompson should use it to prosecute Renaud and the paper. As of the time…

The STL Dispatch covered every single angle of responsibility before and during taking this action. Even if they violated the letter of some law, the only outcome of a court case will be to embarass the state by exposing how incompetent they were, and how responsible the reporter and the paper were in disclosure. My guess is the prosecutor will decline to pursue.

Thompson is a small-town Missourian elected prosecutor, facing pressure from fellow conservatives to "hold the fake news accountable" as stated in the latest attack ad against the reporter from a conservative PAC [1]. At best it's a coin toss imo.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#135

Post by rubyist5eva »

jvanderbot wrote: post #110
tshaddox wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it embarrass the state any more than the governor’s public comments already have?

Just because you understand it to be a ridiculous charge and view the gov as embarrassing himself, does not mean all have made that judgment for themselves. Those holdouts would latch onto a verdict as truth and view the gov as vindicated. That's basic legal harassment 101.

I’m sure the governor would rather see this all the way to the end, lose and then cry foul than just admit he is wrong too. He probably already knows he is wrong but no politician would ever admit it. Politicians will dig in their heals until they’ve dug their own grave than admit fallibility. They are incapable of it.

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#136

Post by badRNG »

randombits0 wrote: post #131
netizen-936824 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might prosecute, but I bet a jury would throw it out

No, they won’t. The linked article is BS. This is much ado about nothing. YHBT. HAND.

This definitely is not "much ado about nothing."

I prefer the Verge article on this one though [1]. Relevant quote from the article:

> They turned the case over to Cole County Prosecuting Attorney Locke Thompson on Monday, December 27. Governor Parson then held a press conference on Wednesday, December 29, where he cited a state statute related to computer tampering and repeatedly suggested Thompson should use it to prosecute Renaud and the paper.

It was just earlier this week that this was turned over to the prosecutor's office. This prosecutor is an elected official, and the Missouri conservative PAC has put their money behind this by placing attack ads against the reporter, and framing this as "holding the fake news accountable" [2]. Also, IANAL but if we're going by the letter of the law, the local Missouri computer crime section certainly does seem to include the actions of the reporter [3], even if the SSNs weren't Base64 encoded. Bad law, but the fact that the law is bad doesn't have bearing on whether they'll decide to prosecute.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/31/22861188/missouri-govern...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E

[3] https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095

Re: Reporter likely to be charged for using “view source” feature on web browser

#139

Post by badRNG »

sgjohnson wrote: post #69
rchaud wrote: post #67

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?

IANAL, but the local Missouri computer crime statute is very broad [1]. Technically, the reporter seems to have factually "Accessed a computer, a computer system, or a computer network, and intentionally examined information about another person" without "authorization." Considering the conservative PAC for the state has already pushed attack ads against the reporter [2], and the fact that the prosecutor is elected (potentially supported by conservative PACs), I definitely see a possibility of this going to court and potentially arriving at a conviction. Again, IANAL, and I don't know the jurisprudence or case history behind this particular statute.

[1] https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.095

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBPeRa7U8E

Post reply on HN