3 ms·

One can be used to automate extortion. For example, sites with mugshots popped up once they were online. If you got arrested for any reason and didn't want pote

One can be used to automate extortion. For example, sites with mugshots popped up once they were online. If you got arrested for any reason and didn't want potential employers to see your mugshot in the first page of a Google search, you had to pay these sites an "administrative fee." Similarly, you could post 911 records with addresses if they were available with a simple request, and I can see how that could bring property prices down, depending on the kind of incident.

dvtrn 7y ago
One can be used to automate extortion. So the difference is automation? Suppose someone used Microsoft Office to quickly template and print envelopes with the addresses of 10 different municipalities and stuffed them with boilerplate requests for public information, and then used the responses from those municipalities to carry out extortion. Should the law act differently towards the individual who mails a lawful open records request than the one who queries for records via HTTP if they used the same records, provided by the same municipalities and jurisdictions to carry out unlawful activity post hoc?
- ghaff 7y ago
  I would have thought it obvious that friction is very much a part of the equation that has historically gone into deciding what information should be public, what should be formally sealed, and what should be actively expunged from the public record to the degree possible. Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? This would be pretty close to it however Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it on the opposite side, no, this is absolutely not what I'm arguing. If querying a public record online gives rise to a sufficient argument that public harm is being caused, legislatures are not ignorant of this, and they are certainly not deaf to it. At the Federal level, SCOTUS recently reversed a decision of how to answer that very question with regards to Food Stamp data and how it can be queried, and even if it should be queryable at all: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-i... All of my comments here I am trying to make as objectively as possible without passing judgement on any concern or aspect of it, but simply remark on how open records laws are implemented and how laws affect those records and the ones who query them. Any assertion that I am making an assessment or judgement about the people involved runs contrary to my motives in even bothering to comment here.
landryraccoon 7y ago
Why only consider automated extortion, and not automated data analysis for good? For example, looking for patterns of systemic discrimination or racism that could easily be explained away as coincidence when looking at only a single incident, but is blatant when taken in aggregate? Or automated searches for suspected corruption or bribery? I think the bias should be in favor of transparency. Automated information gathering can be used to protect the public as well as for harm.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  I suspect for every one bot combing records for evidence of corruption (run by a local concerned citizen) there will be thousands of bots run by disinherited Nigerian princes looking for easy marks and for dirt to use for social engineering. On the balance you will get one corrupt official fired for a whole bunch of people scammed, extorted or otherwise taken advantage of. Think back to history of spam for example, I recall it reached huge percentages back in the day, before effective measures were introduced. Even now spam traffic is 45% of all email traffic.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Because massive cost and scale shifts entirely change the regime: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453971

dvtrn 7y ago

One can be used to automate extortion. So the difference is automation? Suppose someone used Microsoft Office to quickly template and print envelopes with the addresses of 10 different municipalities and stuffed them with boilerplate requests for public information, and then used the responses from those municipalities to carry out extortion. Should the law act differently towards the individual who mails a lawful open records request than the one who queries for records via HTTP if they used the same records, provided by the same municipalities and jurisdictions to carry out unlawful activity post hoc?

ghaff 7y ago
I would have thought it obvious that friction is very much a part of the equation that has historically gone into deciding what information should be public, what should be formally sealed, and what should be actively expunged from the public record to the degree possible. Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information. Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons? This would be pretty close to it however Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it on the opposite side, no, this is absolutely not what I'm arguing. If querying a public record online gives rise to a sufficient argument that public harm is being caused, legislatures are not ignorant of this, and they are certainly not deaf to it. At the Federal level, SCOTUS recently reversed a decision of how to answer that very question with regards to Food Stamp data and how it can be queried, and even if it should be queryable at all: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-i... All of my comments here I am trying to make as objectively as possible without passing judgement on any concern or aspect of it, but simply remark on how open records laws are implemented and how laws affect those records and the ones who query them. Any assertion that I am making an assessment or judgement about the people involved runs contrary to my motives in even bothering to comment here.

landryraccoon 7y ago

Why only consider automated extortion, and not automated data analysis for good? For example, looking for patterns of systemic discrimination or racism that could easily be explained away as coincidence when looking at only a single incident, but is blatant when taken in aggregate? Or automated searches for suspected corruption or bribery? I think the bias should be in favor of transparency. Automated information gathering can be used to protect the public as well as for harm.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
I suspect for every one bot combing records for evidence of corruption (run by a local concerned citizen) there will be thousands of bots run by disinherited Nigerian princes looking for easy marks and for dirt to use for social engineering. On the balance you will get one corrupt official fired for a whole bunch of people scammed, extorted or otherwise taken advantage of. Think back to history of spam for example, I recall it reached huge percentages back in the day, before effective measures were introduced. Even now spam traffic is 45% of all email traffic.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Because massive cost and scale shifts entirely change the regime: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453971