Hacker News Reader

Comment by ratsmack | Hacker News Reader

>Cole County Prosecutor Locke Thompson released a statement Friday saying there is an argument to be made that there was a violation of law, and that the issues at the heart of the investigation have been resolved through non-legal means, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

That sounds more like that "we would have prosecuted the reporter" if they hadn't discovered that the "state education commissioner initially planned to thank the newspaper for finding the problem".

They should have profusely thanked him and also given him an award.

View on HN

> also given him an award

Find a vulnerability for a big tech company, get $10,000. Find a vulnerability for the government, get prosecuted. I wonder why government IT is so far behind the private sector!

Except that they didn't get prosecuted.

well, it was on table for a brief moment... hence the article to communicate it is not happening...

And the place is sufficiently corrupt enough to have the prosecutor walking a tightrope so Parsons doesn't go after his ass too. I found the prosecutors statement very unsettling. He basically said that the reporter conducted criminal action but they are going to let it go because he has been punished enough already. Missouri sounds like a toxic, corrupt hell hole.

How stressful do you think the last couple of months have been for that reporter?

Stressful but also good. Much more widely known than had not been subject to this threat. Probably good for future career prospects.

Except, to be honest, I know this story (and love to make fun of it), but I couldn't pick the name of the reporter out of a list of names

However i am probably right to assume that you are neither hiring in journalism nor working in that field.

In reverse, you probably know a lot names of startup or IT personalities, that nobody outside our field would ever need to know

I am not at all convinced that one story where the subject's reaction is out of place makes for a great career boost - though i can see ways how it achieves the opposite.

"Known to cause lots of work for legal department" could, for some bosses, be considered a negative signal in hiring. Moreover, "pisses of people with power": same.

"pisses off people with power" is sort of what it says on the résumé for any journalist worth hiring

> what it says on the résumé for any journalist worth hiring

To a good editor, yes. But I'm not sure the majority of editors are good ones, so while your point isn't exactly false, the GP's is also true (with all the other ones).

Depends. Might have been a bit stressful, but this is exactly the kind of "good trouble" a good journalist hopes to be in.

They thought they had just found a mistake in the government's IT system; instead, now that have a story about a mistake in the IT system and an idiot governor who doesn't understand infosec and is too bad a leader to delegate to people who do.

From the Statement by Josh Renaud about Missouri investigation:

> This decision is a relief. But it does not repair the harm done to me and my family. // My deepest desire is that somehow this situation might be redeemed. And I believe it can be. // My actions were entirely legal and consistent with established journalistic principles.

You seem to be reading too much into what I wrote. I simply implied that what parent wrote was incorrect.

I don't wish that limbo to you. Not being prosecuted after such serious threats from big people is no small thing.

Well, I think if the matter reaches the prosecutor's office and it sits there for several months before a determination is made whether to proceed, it's not a stretch for the party involved to prepare as if he will be prosecuted.

What are the details behind «resolved through non-legal means».

The display of corruption has been stellar.

> What are the details behind «resolved through non-legal means».

The prosecutor did what the governor refused to do: Asked someone with a clue, and found out that absolutely no crime took place. Technical / factual means, not legal.

Clearly states need to start issuing equity options to govt employees on their future tax revenue. That and somehow raise property values in the middle of Missouri to $500/sq ft.

You can definitely thank the government for lowering property values!

> Find a vulnerability for the government, get prosecuted.

In fairness the government is, of course, not a monolith. There are multiple federal bug bounty programs out there [0] [1]. This is probably better stated as "find a vulnerability in the systems of a deeply corrupt, gerrymandered, and unpopular state's government's sites and be prosecuted in that state."

[0] https://www.hackerone.com/hack-the-pentagon

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/12/14/dhs-announces-hack-dhs-b...

The government is so fragmented and ineffective that even if I did find a pentagon vulnerability, I'd feel like some other department would prosecute me for it.

One of the most unfair cases relating to security testing I've ever read about was that involving Coalfire Labs and the Iowa courthouse: https://www.cyberscoop.com/coalfire-security-pros-arrested-f...

Here's the darknet diaries episode where I first heard about it: https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/59/

I think we shoudnt even call it a vulnerability. They send the 'secret' information in the html file, hoping that the browser does not render it (which it doesnt, so 'viewing source' was the way to see the information). I am actually surprised that the dont charge the person who set up that system; it is like broadcasting the confidential information.

They should prosecute the hacker who wrote that dangerous "view source" feature

Just another reminder that DAs and prosecutors are just cops with law degrees. No interest in figuring out what really happened and furthering justice, everyone on the other side of the line is guilty and they only decide to charge or not based on whether it serves them, and most importantly they are never, ever wrong.

That's a state of mind that is favored by an adversarial system.

Granting the premise (not sure quite what the premise is) for the sake of argument, what would be the alternative?

I read it as more of “he did nothing wrong but I can’t make the governor look bad so I’ll imply it was obvious he was guilty but we’re being magnanimous about it.”

That seems to be exactly what he's saying. People here seem to want to make the DA out to be as stupid as the governor or as a malicious person, but based on this statement he didn't actually think he had a case. Saying that something could be argued means that you're coming in with an argument that could be accepted if you overlook all sorts of details and context.

Yep. The right way to read this is that if a persecutor thinks there's a case, they'll prosecute.

Not prosecuting means they don't think they can possibly win. Anything that comes out of their mouths after is window dressing.

I also feel MBCook is probably right. In this particular case, however, there does not appear to be any argument for prosecution that does not immediately look preposterous as soon as you give it any thought. If this is so, then, by equivocating - for political expediency or any other reason - the DA is inviting doubts about his competence or integrity.

I'm hoping that "the issues at the heart of the investigation have been resolved through non-legal means" is a paraphrase for saying that the DA pointed out to the governor, directly or through his aides, that any attempt to prosecute would fail and bring down a heap of public ridicule.

> the DA pointed out to the governor, directly or through his aides, that any attempt to prosecute would fail and bring down a heap of public ridicule

If so, then apparently not strenuously enough: The governor went right out and issued a press release that invites just as much ridicule as his previous statements.

That was certainly my interpretation. I can't really think of a more politically savvy thing the prosecutor could have said.

"there was an argument to be made that there was a violation of law" is fantastic in the way it appears to be saying something but it's not actually saying anything.

That's some serious weasel wording. "There is an argument to be made" means that one could make that argument, not that you are making the argument, or that the argument has any merit, or whether it would be thrown out of court, or whether you consider this whole thing a waste of your time and would rather be doing your real job right now.

Actually, I think I'm going to use that.

There’s an argument to be made that this DA is competent at his job.

A far better one than him phrasing it that way; a way which shows that he is pretty competent.

Sounds like he's just being diplomatic. It would sound a lot more like criticizing the governor if he were to say things like "There is no argument whatsoever that can be made. In fact I don't know how the this dumbass case ever got this far" and so forth.

Why is it so hard for states to admit that they were wrong?

They really act as if there would be an immediate coup if people saw the rulers were flawed.

Because someone on the other side will use it in a campaign add within 48 hours.

> They really act as if there would be an immediate coup if people saw the rulers were flawed.

January 6 was kind of a big deal...

There was a violation of the law: the dissemination of private information by the government. Unfortunately they are not interested in prosecuting that but it would have been nice if someone had sued them as they were sending it completely in the open. At leasr they could make some introspection in what kind of contracting process is in place because it's a complete disaster.

The language is steeped in "don't embarrass the boss"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com