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

141–150 of 210 posts

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

#141

Post by RajT88 »

badRNG wrote: post #136
randombits0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. We have seen killers this past 10 years walk because of bad laws.

I will not name any in specifics because that may start an internet slap fight.

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

#142

Post by habeebtc »

damagednoob wrote: post #83
nijave wrote: post #77

I saw in a thread somewhere else a while ago a bit more detailed explanation: 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 tr…

> 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. Wow. I was a C# developer for many years and I never realised that ViewState encryption was _opt in_[1]. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/aspnet/bb...

Woah. I did not realize that either.

It would be trivial to loose a bot on government TLD's and see who else is putting unencrypted PII in their viewstate.

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

#143

Post by abecedarius »

skywal_l wrote: post #31
Ekaros wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As European, I find it insane that I could elect the prosecutor or even the police. And in some ways that politicians would have any word on this apart from deciding the funding and laws...

I don't disagree with your point but how a prosecutor must be selected then? If someone is not chosen by a public and popular vote, it must be chosen differently. Any mechanism of choice will have an inherent bias. For example, you could decide that a prosecutor is the best at knowing the law, so let's have a law exam where the one with the best score is named prosecutor. However, being a good prosecutor can't always…

The current setup where only official prosecutors can prosecute crimes is historically recent. I don't know what would be better, but these officials becoming too cozy with other officials is what you'd expect a priori.

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

#144

Post by kypro »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #15

Nothing will happen. Just politicians trying to intimidate media.

If I were to guess they probably know nothing will happen. It seems like the point here might just be to send a message -- sure, perhaps nothing will happen this time, but are you going to take that chance next time?

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

#145

Post by SSShupe »

The HTML document revealed by "view source" isn't something "behind" the web page -- it IS the web page. The State effectively made a document containing the confidential info available to everyone and is now complaining because someone looked at it. I agree with the prior commentators that this is more about politics than law.

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

#146

Post by josefrichter »

Nihilartikel wrote: post #128
josefrichter wrote: post #96

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.

Another perspective is that the private data was extracted and conveyed by the state website to the end user completely without their request or consent! I find it reasonable that the government should be held legally liable for introducing users to the hazard of accidental exposure to confidential data.

I find the question interesting from the general point of view. I don't really know enough details of this specific case to form any opinion.

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

#147

Post by josefrichter »

ki9 wrote: post #103
josefrichter wrote: post #96

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.

Well the reporter didn't "take or use" the SSNs. He found them without looking for them and reported them.

I don't really know what happened there, but the underlying topic is fascinating.

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

#148

Post by pixl97 »

geoduck14 wrote: post #125
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,…

>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. I don't like the framing either, but for different reasons. From my reading, the journalist is being targeted for reporting the vulnerability or perhaps for exploiting the vulnerability- I'm not…

Seeing it and doing nothing is worse in my eyes. That is how you create societies that ignore terrible problems for fear of law enforcement retaliation.

The only way he should be charged is if he committed identity theft or sold the numbers.

This entire debacle is a direct attack on journalists.

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

#149

Post by ensignavenger »

badRNG wrote: post #139
sgjohnson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

The reporter did not access anything they did not have permission to access! It was on a publicly accessible website, posted publicly, for the purpose of public dissemination. The statue is even more restrictive than that- the part you didn't quote:

"A person commits the offense of tampering with computer data if he or she knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization"

No one could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reporter did not have "reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization". The reporter did not know that the website had private information on it when he accessed the page.

The law does allow for a civil action to be taken by the owner of the computer system (In this case the state) which would lower the standard of evidence to more likely than not- but given the facts of the case, I don't think it comes even close to meeting that bar.

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

#150

Post by pixl97 »

jbullock35 wrote: post #114
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.

What ability do prosecutors have to maneuver their case onto a particular judge's docket? How would they do that?

You talking about the cops, the DA, and the judge that eat lunch at the same table, attend the same parties, and go to the same church?

You tell me how indirect influences could possibly happen in separated and just legal system.

Sorry for the snark, but your post seems very naive on how the legal system works.

Post reply on HN