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

State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

calbar.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#71

Post by richardbarosky »

coding123 wrote: post #12
danso wrote: post #2

According to this LA Times [0] story, the records were apparently found on judyrecords.com, a project recently discussed in a Show HN [1] > State Bar officials learned about the posted records on Feb. 24. As of Saturday night, all the confidential information that had been published on the website judyrecords.com — which included case numbers, file dates, information about the types of cases and their statuses, respo…

I thought something was off about that site. I doesn't seem fair or legal to just publish that data like that. I think in the era of go in and get things things should be "public". Now in the search engine age and data available at your fingertips we need to entirely change our public records laws... Immediately. edit: In fact a HN User said this with NO REPLY from the author of that Show HN: I have some records that…

It's the first reply.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#72

Post by verve_rat »

lazide wrote: post #59
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once something is public, and in control of others, it is impossible to make them 'un-public' without violating the 1st amendment. I do not think that is accurate.

Can you be more specific? How do you propose someone could stop someone from releasing a record they acquired publicly, exactly? Seize it? Prohibit someone from saying something they found out via a public route on penalty of fine or prison?

Um, yes? Courts can issue injunctions to stop people from publishing material they have. If they breach the injunction they can go to jail, or have some other penalties imposed.

Even in the US there are limits on free speech. A judge would weigh 1st amendment rights vs other considerations, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a theatre and all that.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#73

Post by dogleash »

reset-password wrote: post #50

Why is it so impossible for these people/organizations to accept that they made a mistake and own up to it? The entire response by the State Bar of California is nothing but a deflection of blame that rests solely on themselves and their chosen vendor(s). What are they going to do next, call Missouri's governor and ask for the playbook to follow? The humans behind the scenes at the bar are looking incredibly pathetic…

>Why is it so impossible for these people/organizations to accept that they made a mistake and own up to it?

Its the bar. Of all the organizations to respond like lawyers covering their own asses as hard as possible, you have to expect this one.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#75

Post by lazide »

verve_rat wrote: post #72
lazide wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific? How do you propose someone could stop someone from releasing a record they acquired publicly, exactly? Seize it? Prohibit someone from saying something they found out via a public route on penalty of fine or prison?

Um, yes? Courts can issue injunctions to stop people from publishing material they have. If they breach the injunction they can go to jail, or have some other penalties imposed. Even in the US there are limits on free speech. A judge would weigh 1st amendment rights vs other considerations, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a theatre and all that.

Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it.

And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way.

And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#76

Post by robertlagrant »

calrizien wrote: post #67
gnicholas wrote: post #18

On a related note, the California Bar website employs dark patterns that mislead members into paying inflated annual dues. When you renew your membership, there are a variety of addon payments you can opt into by checking boxes for these items. Then, on a later page, there are various addon payments that you have to opt out of. Making things even trickier, these aren't pre-checked boxes, which might lead the user to…

I noticed this too while trying to renew my bar dues. Its so devious. It degrades the whole profession when the gatekeeper is obviously trying to scam you.

It's a sad day when you realise most things are like this.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#77

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

lazide wrote: post #75
verve_rat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, yes? Courts can issue injunctions to stop people from publishing material they have. If they breach the injunction they can go to jail, or have some other penalties imposed. Even in the US there are limits on free speech. A judge would weigh 1st amendment rights vs other considerations, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a theatre and all that.

Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?

No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals.

You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#78

Post by lazide »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #77
lazide wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?

No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals. You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.

We aren’t talking about any of those things - we’re specifically talking about public records however.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#79

Post by salawat »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #77
lazide wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?

No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals. You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.

You sbsolutely do have a right topost blassified documents if you come across them, but have not attained a security clearance.

There's definitely a massive "should" aspect there, however, the courts will protect you in that case. The one who got them for you, or if you committed a crime in acquiring them however...

That is a different story.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#80

Post by fire »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #77
lazide wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?

No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals. You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.

oooh, while reading this thread, it crossed my mind that, well, if this website knows where it got the data from, then it could provide that info to the end-user, so they could actually have the source removed.

It isn't infeasible to see a future where this website could continue to provide the public the benefit of its existence, and also help protect the people who actually do need to have their records protected;

It sort of depends on how anarchistic the maintainers lean, and how much of an appetite courts actually have for fixing record leaks rather than blocking access to the tools or suing...

I guess you could verify a record should be in a sealed state with the file that states the sealing happened, right? I vaguely remember document IDs from the last time I touched anything related to them.

Post reply on HN