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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#81

Post by vageli »

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.

> 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.

Did the reporters who broke the pentagon papers see court? Only the source as I recall, which seems contrary to your statement.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#82

Post by kingcharles »

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've seen similar, but it's rare because it is such a dark pattern, and on a more high-profile site that nail would get hammered down pretty quickly.

I was going to joke that you're a lawyer, you should sue them, but they're not doing anything illegal, just very shady.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#83

Post by wolverine876 »

rhacker wrote: post #48
wolverine876 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there are limits; there are no absolutes in anything. We don't have absolute free speech: you can't slander, commit fraud, conspire to commit a crime, incite a deadly stampede, etc. I think the main concern is that the more powerful the actor (e.g., government is very powerful) the more important transparancy is, and the more vulnerable the actor, the more important privacy is. For example, if an Apple (picki…

With your same example though, now this employee is listed in a bunch of Apple lawsuits and will be unable to ever get a job again because of this kind of search engine.

That was part of my point: The vulnerable person has more need of privacy.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#84

Post by wolverine876 »

SllX wrote: post #46
wolverine876 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there are limits; there are no absolutes in anything. We don't have absolute free speech: you can't slander, commit fraud, conspire to commit a crime, incite a deadly stampede, etc. I think the main concern is that the more powerful the actor (e.g., government is very powerful) the more important transparancy is, and the more vulnerable the actor, the more important privacy is. For example, if an Apple (picki…

So what’s the limiting principle you would use? That’s the problem. I no more care about Apple’s speeding violations than I do Joe Schmo’s, but I probably do care about whether Joe here has a criminal history if I’m interviewing him, and the nature of that history. You could go by legal entity, just make lawsuits involving corporations public, and lawsuits between individuals private: but while Apple might have globa…

Two thoughts:

* There are different levels of availability: For example, some court records could be public but not available outside the courthouse.

* Court records could be public by default, but take into account certain factors: Public interest, the power of the party, the vulnerability of the party. Criminal cases should probably be public - it is not dispute resolution (as with civil cases) but the government taking someone's freedom and/or property. The government's actions should be transparent.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#85

Post by giantg2 »

djbusby wrote: post #34
ejb999 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> we need to entirely change our public records laws... Immediately. I am certain that many people in government would agree with you - they would LOVE to be able to hide what they are doing and not be held accountable for decisions they make (or don't make). We need more public disclosures, not less, imo. >>So there are records that were once ‘public’ but are no more, but this database makes them public again. This…

What's the point of sealed records then? How would that be managed? We should let citizens have some privacy right?

I don't think the discussion is about sealed records. I think the main point here is that the state needs to adequately seal the record.

As a side note, I don't think Bar complaints should be private. People running the system should be transparent. The only reason transparency should be limited is with the name of the witness. Otherwise, how can we be sure the system is functioning correctly?

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#86

Post by giantg2 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #16
coding123 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Without transparency, including public records, how do we hold the powerful accountable? Court records are public to prevent secret government courts from abusing people (among other reasons). How do we operate a democracy, which depends on citizens controlling their country? And most importantly, who does get access to the records? That exculsive access will give them a lot of power.

One thing to note, judicial and Bar complaints are generally not considered court records.

In theory, anything that went to trial would have transcripts available (unless it's sealed, like for minors). Many of these complaints could still have the transcripts available for the cases associated with them. But it's hard to tell what the alleged problem or misconduct is. I emphasize alleged because I assume the nonpublic ones were ones in which the lawyer was not found "guilty". In my state, the Bar will only investigate prosecutors if the court has already issued a statement determining prosecutorial misconduct occurred. So prosecutors get off without scrutiny most of the time.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#88

Post by SllX »

wolverine876 wrote: post #84
SllX wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what’s the limiting principle you would use? That’s the problem. I no more care about Apple’s speeding violations than I do Joe Schmo’s, but I probably do care about whether Joe here has a criminal history if I’m interviewing him, and the nature of that history. You could go by legal entity, just make lawsuits involving corporations public, and lawsuits between individuals private: but while Apple might have globa…

Two thoughts: * There are different levels of availability: For example, some court records could be public but not available outside the courthouse. * Court records could be public by default, but take into account certain factors: Public interest, the power of the party, the vulnerability of the party. Criminal cases should probably be public - it is not dispute resolution (as with civil cases) but the government t…

I think I’m with you on the first one, but I think on point two you have too many heuristics that themselves would have to be litigated and eat into court time.

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#89

Post by gnicholas »

kingcharles wrote: post #82
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've seen similar, but it's rare because it is such a dark pattern, and on a more high-profile site that nail would get hammered down pretty quickly. I was going to joke that you're a lawyer, you should sue them, but they're not doing anything illegal, just very shady.

I actually made a screen recording and thought about writing up a blog post. But it seemed like the overlap between [people who care about law/lawyers] and [people who care about dark patterns] was too small to warrant much effort. I considered sending it to Above The Law, and I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has any!

Re: State Bar of California addresses breach of confidential data

#90

Post by NightMKoder »

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…

My sense that is that any written record (especially publicly posted records), an admittance of guilt can later be used as evidence in court. That is, if the bar needs to defend itself in court later, admitting guilt now would make that a lot harder.

And they're a bunch of lawyers -- they likely know that.

Post reply on HN