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

The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

mchap.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 230 posts

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#181

Post by actuallyalys »

ajkjk wrote: post #118
internetter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you agree this data should cost 30 million dollars to retrieve? Do you agree that 10tb of storage should cost 1000s of dollars? Would you be mad if someone sent you data you did not ask for and then threatened legal action if you did not grant full access to your personal data in return? I don't agree with all his takes. It's absurd he toyed with the idea of asking to keep this data, for instance... But I…

Sounds like he was fucking with people who work for Seattle and then acting indignant and affronted when he gleaned even the slightest bit of irritation or frustration in response.

Maybe he could have been more polite, but the author‘s responses here and other blog posts make it clear that he was actually intending to use the metadata and wasn’t just “fucking with“ city employees.

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#182

Post by legitster »

eli wrote: post #138
legitster wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? What lawyer would insist on their client getting searched via a warrant?

Damn near all of them. I would challenge you to find a defense attorney who would, in general, advise you to consent to a search even if you "have nothing to hide."

We're not talking about a blanket consent to search. We're talking about a controlled destruction of something dangerous.

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#183

Post by patja »

dragonwriter wrote: post #128
patja wrote: post #96

This is why city council member Dan Strauss, when going door to door campaigning, gives out his personal Gmail address rather than his city of Seattle address. Is this legal? It sure doesn't seem ethical

It's generally illegal for public employees or officers of any kind to make more than incidental use of public resources for any personal, rather than public-business purposes (political or otherwise), and further its even more illegal for public officials to use public resources for political campaign purposes. So, yeah, using a non-city email address as his campaign contact email seems not only legal and ethical, b…

He's the currently serving incumbent. When he gives me an email address, it's not as if I'm going to be contacting him inquiring about the details of his campaign. It's more likely I'm going to contact him about why the police are dragging their heels to assign more patrols around Ballard high School where more than five students have been mugged, some at gunpoint, in recent weeks.

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#184

Post by chaps »

judge2020 wrote: post #160
cortesoft wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it is USPS who messes up, though, and delivers it to the wrong address, even though the address on the package is correct? Even more confusing, what if the package is FROM the USPS, is addressed to someone else, but accidentally delivered to you?

You are not allowed to open someone else’s mail, even if it’s in your mailbox.

For mail with someone else's name on it, sure. But in this case, the "mail" had my name on the front, back and side... plus a username and password that only I know. So yeah, not sure that really applies here.

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#185

Post by chaps »

legitster wrote: post #172
cortesoft wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can just agree with their legal team (and your lawyer) on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything ("fruit of the poison tree"). This part is completely wrong. “Fruit of the poison tree” only counts if the original search was illegal. If you let them search for something specific, nothing is stopping them from using anything they find, ev…

If you get to define the terms of the search with a lawyer, wouldn't that make the terms of any additional snooping illegal? Again, I get that a warrant is a great bar to them searching your stuff. But if they already know you have what they are looking for, a warrant seems bad!

Friend, I don't know how to say this politely, but I'll try my best: you're really missing something fundamental here and I'm not sure what it is or why you're so persistent on thinking it's okay to allow a government agency full access to your drive through third party contractors. Please, for your own sake, do some independent research. Or talk to a lawyer. Or read articles about prosecutorial abuse. Many of us have told you this is a bad idea and in no uncertain terms: it's a BAD idea to allow unfettered access to your shit.

I highly recommend you take an afternoon off and sit in a criminal court room and watch how criminal cases progress through the system. Especially for things like drug crime, and especially when evidence is weak. You will learn so much.

Please do that for yourself?

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#186

Post by pc86 »

chaps wrote: post #184
judge2020 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not allowed to open someone else’s mail, even if it’s in your mailbox.

For mail with someone else's name on it, sure. But in this case, the "mail" had my name on the front, back and side... plus a username and password that only I know. So yeah, not sure that really applies here.

OT but replying here hoping that you see it rather than a new top-level comment on this deservedly popular article.

This is a fascinating blog and I hope you have the time to do and write more articles like this one!

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#187

Post by chaps »

pc86 wrote: post #186
chaps wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For mail with someone else's name on it, sure. But in this case, the "mail" had my name on the front, back and side... plus a username and password that only I know. So yeah, not sure that really applies here.

OT but replying here hoping that you see it rather than a new top-level comment on this deservedly popular article. This is a fascinating blog and I hope you have the time to do and write more articles like this one!

Thank you! I genuinely appreciate the kind words. I'm hopeful I'll have the next one out by the end of the year. A less successful story, but it's a good'n.

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#188

Post by adastra22 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #86
thsksbd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And did you have to sign it? What would have happened if you hadn't? Why do you have to sign a legally enforceable document because some idiot messed up?

Not OP, but signing it probably made the mess immediately disappear. Even if there was no legal requirement, the stress and potential expenses are not worth it if the data was genuinely deleted. Taking a moral stand has costs that not everyone can bear.

And besides it’s an affidavit not an NDA. It’s just a legal document claiming that what he said happened, did in fact happen. Not sure what the moral stand is here in not signing it?

Re: The City of Seattle accidentally gave me 32M emails for $40 (2018)

#189

Post by chaps »

chankstein38 wrote: post #36
chaps wrote: post #2

Hah, that's a much simpler title. :)

How do I find more information out about FOIA requests? Also, in your post I think you mentioned "FOIA junkies" or something along those lines, this implies to me there's a community of people who understand this stuff and talk about it. That sounds really interesting to join. Is there a subreddit or something?

Muckrock.com is a wonderful source of information as a starting point. It has many, many, many requests publicly online. They also run documentcloud.org, which has many millions of documents received through FOIA.

There are definitely groups out there that have collectively caught the "FOIA bug". It's a very fun culture of sharing and holding those in power accountable when they otherwise wouldn't be. I recommend just submitting a random request to a random agency about something you're interested as another alternative starting point. What tends to happen, amusingly, is that once someone submits their first, then something kinda clicks in their head and they submit another, then another... then they sue. It's all very organic and it's very uplifting to see someone grow in this field. We generally try to do our best to teach others what we've learned (tactics, strategy, wording, techniques, etc). So if you pick something up, definitely share the love.

Post reply on HN