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

181–190 of 210 posts

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

#181

Post by kthejoker2 »

badRNG wrote: post #155
kthejoker2 wrote: post #154

From a tort perspective, it seems like the client assumes all the risk of an HTTP request: I made a request for this URI - without (obviously) knowing its contents - and you send me some contents. Even if I as the client attempt to send a malicious payload, etc. the server can transmit back whatever it would like any time - that's the rules of the game. So the server holds all the power, and as long as I got a "200 O…

>I think the same conclusion would have to be made here: if you send something and stick a 200 on it, the recipients are entitled to what you sent them. Disclaimer: I don't work with web tech, but wouldn't that also permit a lot of activities we would absolutely consider unethical, like SQL injection? It seems like you could certainly craft a request to circumvent security controls to receive a 200 response back that…

I mentioned this in my post - you'd just need more of a burden of proof of ill intention in the request itself to bring this kind of charge.

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

#182

Post by MR4D »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #166
MR4D wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have it - it’s the 3 branches of government that provide for an independent judiciary.

In USA? Judiciary are political appointees aren't they. Apologies if that was a joke.

It depends. Some are elected and some are appointed. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

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

#185

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…

> For every objection that is coming to your mind reading this, think to yourself whether you are confident you could convince a tech-illiterate prosecutor (who is looking to "hold fake news accountable") to see things your way.

Ask the prosecutor if sharing stolen Base64-encoded SSNs would be _legal_ because Base64-encoding makes them _different information_ than the original SSNs.

You won't be able to convince the prosecutor of anything ever, but you won't get a straight answer to that question either.

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

#186

Post by DarylZero »

leros wrote: post #124
sgjohnson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably won’t even get to jury. It might get dismissed with prejudice before it goes to trial.

It will still end up costing this person tons of legal fees and probably years of stress to get there though.

Not only legal fees (which probably will be covered by someone else in this case) but mandatory court appearances that are scheduled antagonistically and punitively.

The punishments for missing these dates are among the most extreme and disproportionate in the whole system.

(With no due process, and COVID infections for all.)

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

#187

Post by jimnotgym »

Talanes wrote: post #34
jimnotgym wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes

Craig Murray only just got out of prison for court reporting while not part of the proper crowd, so is it really that different over there?

Didn't Craig Murray go to prison for contempt of court?

As Wikipedia recalls it, a judge in a sexual harassment and attempted rape trial issued an order to keep the accusers anonymous. Mr Murray was found to have broken that order. Unless you want to elaborate on the specifics, I think your comment is without merit

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

#188

Post by DarylZero »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #23
denton-scratch wrote: post #19

> 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".

The process is the punishment here. The only adequate protection against capricious prosecution is that in principle you can make a stink and vote out the elected officials abusing their power.

>The only adequate protection against capricious prosecution

That isn't adequate protection at all.

It allows the voters to elect officials who will persecute the minorities that those voters want persecuted.

Most especially, black people in the USA definitely need protection beyond that.

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

#189

Post by jimnotgym »

ttybird2 wrote: post #30
jimnotgym wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the UK. I am very suprised yes

God save the queen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528

...from malicious US interference in the justice system?

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

#190

Post by DarylZero »

tragictrash wrote: post #87
damagednoob wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Someone interviewed for my company last month. One of his previous experiences was listed as "dynamic SQL". My third question was how do you prevent SQL injection attacks. He didn't know.

Blame your own process, that guy was doing the right thing to get interviews.
Post reply on HN