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

201–210 of 210 posts

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

#201

Post by kcplate »

DarylZero wrote: post #198
kcplate wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that the data was encrypted in a way that was easy to defeat, and the reporter specifically decrypted the data using a method that would not be generally available or known to a layperson without having specific tech knowledge…that reporter is going to have a tough time defending against a “hacking” claim—especially in a state with an overly broad legal definition about accessing unauthorized data. They capitalize…

The data wasn't encrypted at all. I suppose it's true, though, that poorly-encrypted ciphertext still contains the original information as the plaintext. Encryption has the clear intent of removing all the plaintext information from ciphertext, producing a random string that is useless without a secret key, but this may fail, and then the plaintext information remains. However, encoding information (in Base64 or othe…

Ok so let’s use the word “encoded” instead of encrypted, but the distinction between the two to a layperson might not be as nuanced as a reader on Hacker News might understand. Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror.

If the law is overly broad about unauthorized access of the information and if by default the information being accessed is not plainly readable without conversion requiring special knowledge or software, I think a conviction might be likely and justified.

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

#202

Post by kingcharles »

sgjohnson wrote: post #64
netizen-936824 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I don't know if you or the post above have any knowledge of the criminal justice system in the USA. I've been in the front-row for thousands of criminal cases and the number that got dismissed before trial, not based on evidence suppression which doesn't apply in this case, is pretty much zero. I got one dismissed based on perjured grand jury testimony, and another based on an indictment flaw, but neither of those things would apply here.

Whether a jury would convict. Juries are much more complicated than most people imagine. For a start, the prosecutor is going to show the statute and the evidence and show how the person violated the statute. There might not be a proper legal defense.

You might be thinking of jury nullification where a jury acquits a defendant even where they are proven guilty, simply because the charges are bullshit. This almost never happens. Although it really should happen much more often.

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

#203

Post by DarylZero »

kcplate wrote: post #201
DarylZero wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data wasn't encrypted at all. I suppose it's true, though, that poorly-encrypted ciphertext still contains the original information as the plaintext. Encryption has the clear intent of removing all the plaintext information from ciphertext, producing a random string that is useless without a secret key, but this may fail, and then the plaintext information remains. However, encoding information (in Base64 or othe…

Ok so let’s use the word “encoded” instead of encrypted, but the distinction between the two to a layperson might not be as nuanced as a reader on Hacker News might understand. Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror. If the law is overly broad about unauthorized access of the information and if by default the information being accessed is not plainly readable without…

> Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror

What does "raise eyebrows" mean?

You hypothesize a jury that simply doesn't understand the word "encoding," and can't be taught its meaning because it sounds like "encryption"?

If a message were broadcast in Morse code, then you could be convicted for unlawful access if you were to decode that into letters, right? Because it's Morse "code," an encoding.

I guess juries might not convict in that case because they've heard of "Morse code", but not "Base64 encoding"?

Anyway, if communication with juries is this fragile (and maybe it is) then a jury conviction really means nothing and the trial system as a whole is pretty hopeless and certainly cannot justify imprisonment of anyone.

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

#204

Post by gaws »

wonderwonder wrote: post #194
gaws wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are very much on the slippery slope of elected officials making prosecutors punish people they don't like. Are you living under a rock? This has been happening for a while.

Appreciate the insult, hope it makes you feel good about yourself.

Makes me sad that you're not the only one.

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

#205

Post by netizen-936824 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #95
netizen-936824 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical analogy is the only correct one. The other analogies are just plain wrong. This data is what forms the page that is displayed and is accessible to anyone that can tap the server. This data is what they broadcast to the public You wouldn't be able to go and shout a bunch of SSNs in the middle of the street and then prosecute anyone who was listening

The accusation is of (1) theft using (2) technology. So there's two aspects to it. That you focus on the technology side, fine, but don't dismiss people who say the "theft" is not in fact theft, regardless of "technology" involved.

If I throw a sack of potatoes into the street, I don't think it would be theft to take a picture of them and mail it to me saying "hey bro you dropped yer taters"

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

#206

Post by kcplate »

DarylZero wrote: post #203
kcplate wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so let’s use the word “encoded” instead of encrypted, but the distinction between the two to a layperson might not be as nuanced as a reader on Hacker News might understand. Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror. If the law is overly broad about unauthorized access of the information and if by default the information being accessed is not plainly readable without…

> Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror What does "raise eyebrows" mean? You hypothesize a jury that simply doesn't understand the word "encoding," and can't be taught its meaning because it sounds like "encryption"? If a message were broadcast in Morse code, then you could be convicted for unlawful access if you were to decode that into letters, right? Because it's…

“Raise eyebrows” is basically an idiom that means “have skepticism for (what is being told to them)”. I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. The defense argument has to overcome the jury’s lay understanding of decode by arguing that although yes, we are revealing information…its not really revealing anything since it was easy to reveal in the first place for someone with the skills to do it.

To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened by lifting and pulling in a certain way. Then, that person opens the window, enters the building, takes pictures of sensitive information, and later tells the government about the window, then writes to the world later after the government replaces the windows about how easy it was for them to enter and find that sensitive information, would they be guilty of breaking in and stealing information? I think yes.

Even if their intent was not malicious, and ultimately resulted in more secure data, they did something that was not authorized and then capitalized on it after. If the law doesn’t have a caveat for that situation and if the jury is doing its job and doesn’t have an instruction to allow the out, a conviction is likely.

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

#207

Post by DarylZero »

kcplate wrote: post #206
DarylZero wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the word “decoded” as opposed to decrypted would raise eyebrows to a layperson juror What does "raise eyebrows" mean? You hypothesize a jury that simply doesn't understand the word "encoding," and can't be taught its meaning because it sounds like "encryption"? If a message were broadcast in Morse code, then you could be convicted for unlawful access if you were to decode that into letters, right? Because it's…

“Raise eyebrows” is basically an idiom that means “have skepticism for (what is being told to them)”. I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. The defense argument has to overcome the jury’s lay understanding of decode by arguing that although yes, we are revealing in…

I'm not asking you about the meaning of a common idiom. I'm only asking about what you mean. What are you trying to say.

> I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word.

If they're not "open" to understand what Base64-decoding means, then they're not open to understand what the defendant did. Maybe that's true. If so it's a very deep indictment of the process. If what you are saying is true, the judge should not allow the prosecution to use the word "decode."

> To use a metaphor—if a state building is closed, but a person with certain knowledge knows that the windows on the building are easily opened

We don't need a metaphor. I used another actual example (not metaphor) of a encoding -- Morse code. A person who takes a transmission in Morse code and writes it down on paper has decoded it.

Is decoding Morse code allowed "without authorization"? Do I have a right to broadcast information on my HAM radio and then demand prosecution of any people who decode it?

It seems you would argue yes. Or else "no, but only because juries have heard of Morse but not Base64."

If the state, in this case, had used strings of "." and "-" to encode the data in Morse code, instead of Base64, do you think they would have the same case?

Or what if they had used Greek instead of English? (I think if you insisted to use a metaphor for encodings, that would actually be a good one.)

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

#208

Post by kcplate »

DarylZero wrote: post #207
kcplate wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Raise eyebrows” is basically an idiom that means “have skepticism for (what is being told to them)”. I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. The defense argument has to overcome the jury’s lay understanding of decode by arguing that although yes, we are revealing in…

I'm not asking you about the meaning of a common idiom. I'm only asking about what you mean. What are you trying to say. > I think the standard lay person on a jury would not necessarily be open to a defense attorney attempting to explain that the word “decode” in goes against their base understanding of the word. If they're not "open" to understand what Base64-decoding means, then they're not open to understand what…

You are relying on special knowledge and understanding so it’s simple to you. It’s not necessarily simple to the 70 year old grandmother sitting on a jury. Does she understand what Morse code is, probably. Can she create an equivalence between Morse code and Base64? Well that is what a defense attorney has to do now, ain’t it?

But all of that still doesn’t matter if that reporter was in possession of data he was not authorized to have and the law prohibits that . So what you have is decoded data in possession by someone who wasn’t allowed to have it but could be valid for him to have possession if it was encoded. If that is the way the law is written or the jury instruction is given…it’s a hill for the defense to climb.

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

#209

Post by wonderwonder »

gaws wrote: post #204
wonderwonder wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate the insult, hope it makes you feel good about yourself.

Makes me sad that you're not the only one.

Have an upvote and a good day :)

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

#210

Post by sixothree »

batch12 wrote: post #88
sixothree wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember the US isn't exactly one entity, but a collection of 50 states. Still it's sad that the least educated states seem to have so much power lately.

Which states are these that should have less power than the states with the "smart" people?

I mean you could start with the abuse of power mentioned in the article.
Post reply on HN