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

171–180 of 210 posts

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

#171

Post by libraryatnight »

siculars wrote: post #123
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,…

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” -Lavrentiy Beria https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-i...

That's a great quote that has next to nothing to do with the rest of that opinion piece.

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

#172

Post by toomuchtodo »

908B64B197 wrote: post #167
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,…

This whole story honnestly paints a very bleak picture of the state of Missouri. Honnestly, if I was a young, college educated innovator would that make me more likely to move to Missouri (or stay there) or move out of state? Is Missouri attracting talent with these policies and practices?

If you are young and educated, you are not the target audience of these theatrics and you’re more than likely going to bounce from the state (Columbia aside, Missouri’s version of an affordable Austin).

Conservatives are swinging for the fences with their base in decline. I can come up with no other explanation for these disingenuous actions.

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

#173

Post by tharkun__ »

salawat wrote: post #168
tharkun__ wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically yes, you are breaking and entering under what I can find as the legal definition of breaking and entering in the US (IANAL and don't live in the US even): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/breaking_and_entering Breaking and entering is the entering of a building through force without authorization. The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary. Breaking also includes entering a…

>Breaking and entering is the entering of a building through force without authorization. Where's the force? Door unlocked. I'll give ya the lack of auth though as I'm not willing to die on the hill of unlocked doors being an implied grant of authorization.

You ignored the second sentence of what I am quoting. Here it is again:

    The slightest force including pushing open a door is all that is necessary.
Not my words. That said, force does not imply amplitude of said force, except colloquially. This is legal stuff though, which, like say physics, has slightly different use of certain words than most people are used to from day to day life.

As in, I would agree with you that force in regular use is usually used in the sense of a large force. But that is not the actual definition and o ly possible use of the word.

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

#174

Post by weare138 »

pixl97 wrote: post #148
geoduck14 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

And it won't stop there. If this becomes case law it's only a matter of time before people in the tech industry are affected.

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

#176

Post by DarylZero »

pixl97 wrote: post #150
jbullock35 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They just asked how. They didn't say it's impossible. The question of how is interesting. The question of whether is also interesting.

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

#177

Post by DarylZero »

badRNG wrote: post #152
ensignavenger wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I totally agree with you in principle. Everything the reporter accessed was publicly accessible. That said, it seems like a prosecutor could articulate an argument that the reporter accessed information he had no reasonable grounds to believe he was authorized to access because he deliberately decoded some Base64-encoded strings that the reporter expected to contain sensitive information. Further, that because the re…

> information he had no reasonable grounds to believe he was authorized to access because he deliberately decoded some Base64-encoded strings that the reporter expected to contain sensitive information

From a mathematical or CS perspective, i.e. from the perspective of objectivity and rigor, the Base64-encoded strings contain precisely the same information as the decoded version.

Even from a lay perspective... it's as if the state issued a public declaration in Chinese, and translating to English was "accessing" different information than the Chinese original.

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

#178

Post by DarylZero »

rsynnott wrote: post #107
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.

I think the ship has sailed on avoiding embarrassment to the state… My feeling is that this is deliberate; the American right wing appears to rather like performative stupidity these days.

Strategic ignorance is the basis of religion and much social power.

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

#179

Post by donmcronald »

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...

> If those identifiers contain sensitive data, such as customer IDs, you should encrypt the view state data in addition to or instead of sending the page over SSL.

It would be hilarious if those docs got updated to say customer IDs or SSNs. Lol.

The craziest part is that if you had made that same mistake and leaked a bunch of SSNs the same government would be fining you and accusing you of being negligent. It's insane.

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

#180

Post by simonh »

luckylion wrote: post #47
simonh wrote: post #39

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…

Germany just had Pimmelgate (Pimmel is a synonym for penis). Hamburg's Senator of the Interior did something and some random guy wrote "you're such a dick" ("du bist so 1 pimmel"). The Senator apparently was very annoyed and asked the state attorney to go after the guy. They summoned him to the precinct, he went, said that he wrote that tweet and declined to say anything else without a lawyer present. They then got a…

Like I said, no system is perfect. It’s a matter of the overall results. You’ll always find individual lapses unfortunately, and we always need to hold authorities to account. Anyway it’s good that there was an uproar about that case.
Post reply on HN