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

Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

stltoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#51

Post by philistine »

tschwimmer wrote: post #28
ljm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the lock analogy works at all. The reporter asked for a page of information, it contained information that wasn't supposed to be there, and he's being blamed as if his eyes manifested it into existence. Seems more akin to shining a UV light on a piece of paper. (Interesting how the sibling comment came to a similar example with invisible ink.)

I actually like the paper analogy a lot, let's extend it: Say the journalist was instead freely handed a redacted government document on sheets of paper. The reporter notes that it was redacted poorly and the redacting can be peeled off or a bright light can be shined on it to reveal the text underneath. By doing this, is the reporter committing a crime? I have no idea. My intuition says probably not, but I think int…

With your redacting example, we don't even need to decide if looking at the paper with a light is illegal. The reporters discovered the poor redaction, and immediately informed the State that it was poorly implemented. They did not disclose this was a problem until the problem was fixed, and new papers were handed out without this flaw. How can you argue someone did something illegal in this case!

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#53

Post by nulbyte »

> Gov. Mike Parson on Wednesday expressed his opinion the Cole County prosecuting attorney would bring charges in the case of a Post-Dispatch reporter who alerted the state to a significant data vulnerability.

The actual headline reflects the content of the article better: "Parson says he believes prosecutor will bring charges in Post-Dispatch case." Having read the article, I don't see anyone but Parson opine that the reporter will be prosecuted, and if this whole ordeal has done nothing else, if has at least offered adequate reason for me to dismiss Parson's opinions with prejudice.

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#54

Post by nulbyte »

Buttons840 wrote: post #18

> “If somebody picks your lock on your house — for whatever reason, it’s not a good lock, it’s a cheap lock or whatever problem you might have — they do not have the right to go into your house and take anything that belongs to you,” Parson said. The reporter did the equivalent of noticing a lock was rusted through and barely hanging on. He poked the lock and it crumbled to pieces. He didn't take anything, he reporte…

> The reporter did the equivalent of noticing a lock was rusted through and barely hanging on. He poked the lock and it crumbled to pieces.

No. The reporter did the equivalent of opening a book available to be read by the public and having the audacity to try and figure out what the words on the pages meant.

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#55

Post by ezoe »

akersten wrote: post #10

We desperately need a law that says (or at least need people in power to understand that) if your server sends it (as an agent working on behalf of your interests), you decided it was ok for me to receive it! For HTTP this understanding is literally conveyed in the status code (200-OK). Once data is sent to the client, you can't say they are breaking the law by looking at it[0]. Anyone with a text-based browser would…

Or stop using common law system? Follow strict Nulla poena sine lege?

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#56

Post by Bud »

tyingq wrote: post #27

What the reporter saw was the base64 encoded contents of the typical .Net "VIEWSTATE" session stuff, that looks like this: Meaning he likely just pasted the contents into a web based base64 decoder. I am totally mystified how a competent DA wouldn't have dropped this immediately.

This is Missouri. It might be hard to find a competent DA in the entire state.

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#57

Post by HillRat »

jimbob45 wrote: post #12
Toutouxc wrote: post #9

I have no idea how US courts work. Can whatever it is that's currently happening end in the reporter "winning" and possibly walking away with some compensation?

Yes[0]. It's unlikely to ever get that far though - 95% of cases settle pre-trial [1] because this kind of stuff is all fun and games until someone has to put their words on the line. Especially when you're the governor and big public losses like these weigh heavily in voters' minds. [0] https://focuslawla.com/rare-happens-plaintiff-ordered-pay-de... [1] https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-laws...

We're talking criminal prosecution here, though -- the only pre-trial settlement is a plea bargain or a dropped prosecution, neither of which are likely if the prosecutor really takes this dog to trial. The next steps are going to hinge on whether the Missouri Highway Patrol is a competent and relatively non-political entity, since they just returned their investigation to the prosecutor's office.

Now, even if a jury convicts this is unlikely to stand on appeal just given the bare facts as we know them, but the state can definitely drag the reporter through jail, trial, and possible imprisonment as an example of what happens to anyone the governor takes a dislike to.

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#58

Post by Animats »

Section 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights,privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than$ 1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This law has never been used to protect First Amendment rights. But, on its face, it could be.

Re: Reporter may be prosecuted for using “view source”

#59

Post by Supermancho »

chrsig wrote: post #45
kuroguro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that both of those shouldn't be punished. I'm not sure how one would properly define the law tho - for ex. an SQL injection could also be "just a query parameter" and the server would haply reply with a 200.

With a sql injection, you have to willfully provide an input with the hope that it results in injection my understanding is that the reporter looked at the source that was being sent as intended -- no manipulation of input by the client

> With a sql injection, you have to willfully provide an input with the hope that it results in injection

If I send you a link that happens to include arguments that happen to be a SQL injection (or my cat steps on my keyboard in just the right way), there was no intent.

Post reply on HN