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

71–80 of 168 posts

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

#71

Post by ozfive »

andrewflnr wrote: post #35
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…

There was no lock. The door was open with an "open house" sign and the owners were just hoping you wouldn't notice the sensitive documents lying on the table.

The sensitive documents were paid bare on the porch. He just walked up to the door and looked down.

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

#72

Post by 908B64B197 »

andrewfromx wrote: post #21

i had the same reaction at first, omg everyone knows about view source, this is a non-issue it was PUBLIC! But then the argument about "even if your lock is bad, doesn't mean someone can break into your house and steal your stuff." And I tried to look at that from the point of view of a normal non-tech person who doesn't know about view source or curl, they just know the normal view did not contain the info and someo…

> And I tried to look at that from the point of view of a normal non-tech person who doesn't know about view source or curl

Safari read aloud would have blurted out the SSNs in this case. So even for a layman, the lock analogy falls short.

> Like what if I sent out a paper newsletter to all my neighbors but printed it on recycled paper that happen to have SSN info on the other side

Court would place responsability on the person who failed to inspect the paper used. There's a reason medical offices all have shredders; you can't reuse paper with patient's personal information on it.

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

#73

Post by ozfive »

quantified wrote: post #2

On the one hand, as someone familiar with software and computer systems, it’s hard to see the prosecution winning. And the acquittal could prove stinging for the guv and the prosecutor. On the other hand, 12 Missouri citizens and a few appellate judges could convict and uphold, making things much less safe on line in Missouri. Sad this thing is still going on. What’s really up with the governor?

Those people then should all be scrutinized to see if they have ever viewed source in a browser. I'm betting a large portion of society including the prosecutor and the governor have viewed source in the browser themselves.

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

#74

Post by dfxm12 »

nobleach wrote: post #62
Bud wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know you're probably saying this half-jesting... But the harsh reality is that if a judge cannot understand the minutiae of "browser requested one thing and the PLANTIFF's server sent personal info, unencrypted", then the precedent that is set is an awful one. I get that the amount of technical stuff that needs to be understood here is beyond what your average NON-hacker-news type might understand... but when it co…

According to the article, charges haven't been filed yet. Likely the DA is very closely examining the letter of the law with an expert right now to see if they have a reasonable case. A judge wouldn't be involved until there's a trial. Even then, the judge doesn't have to play a role in deciding if the defendant is guilty or not (see bench trial vs trial by jury). If there is a trial, in either case, there would likely be an expert witness testifying.

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

#75

Post by nobleach »

ozfive wrote: post #69
nobleach wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're probably saying this half-jesting... But the harsh reality is that if a judge cannot understand the minutiae of "browser requested one thing and the PLANTIFF's server sent personal info, unencrypted", then the precedent that is set is an awful one. I get that the amount of technical stuff that needs to be understood here is beyond what your average NON-hacker-news type might understand... but when it co…

It's really not though. Even my parents know and understand what view source is in the browser. A browser is simply a way to render information sent. Once it was wilfully sent and in your browser you are not accessing a machine in a criminal way. I hope that if they even try to bring charges the reporter and the newspaper counter sue for violation of rights. Mozilla and the Chrome team need to weigh in on the defenda…

Yep, the counter-suit would be the angle I'd hope they'd pursue. "YOU exposed PII, you are in breach... no one 'broke into a system'"... but as others are mentioning in this thread, the article doesn't explicitly say the reporter is being charged. So I'm probably getting my blood-pressure up for no reason.

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

#77

Post by ambrozk »

I've written a statement to be issued by the reporter in question: "If the State DA is stupid enough to help Mike Parson prosecute me to avoid blame for his own incompetence, it will be my pleasure to face him in court, make him a national laughing stock, and end his career."

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

#78

Post by ozfive »

nobleach wrote: post #75
ozfive wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not though. Even my parents know and understand what view source is in the browser. A browser is simply a way to render information sent. Once it was wilfully sent and in your browser you are not accessing a machine in a criminal way. I hope that if they even try to bring charges the reporter and the newspaper counter sue for violation of rights. Mozilla and the Chrome team need to weigh in on the defenda…

Yep, the counter-suit would be the angle I'd hope they'd pursue. "YOU exposed PII, you are in breach... no one 'broke into a system'"... but as others are mentioning in this thread, the article doesn't explicitly say the reporter is being charged. So I'm probably getting my blood-pressure up for no reason.

Same here... Damn it's supposed to be vacation and project time!

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

#79

Post by wvenable »

Supermancho wrote: post #59
chrsig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your intent by crafting such a link was clear.

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

#80

Post by natechols »

nulbyte wrote: post #53

> 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 t…

A better headline would be "MO Governor makes a fool of himself repeatedly". I would feel safe betting money on the reporter's continued freedom - the more important question is how much the paper will need to spend on legal defense before it gets thrown out. Which I suspect is actually the point, unless Parson really is that dumb.
Post reply on HN