4 ms·

Most likely the latter: the server-side code in charge of deleting data did not make a call to their storage api to also remove the object itself. There's a goo

by ve55 5y ago

Most likely the latter: the server-side code in charge of deleting data did not make a call to their storage api to also remove the object itself. There's a good chance that is intentional and serves as a soft-deletion function, such that it could be reverted (or the data otherwise used) if needed.

pitched 5y ago
That was my read on this too and Dr. Bloom accidentally hacked the NIH. The next question though is whether they’ll change this or not? Is the guarantee that anyone can retract at any time important enough to make the db useful? Will the Chinese government mandate no one there ever use it again now?
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Dr. Bloom accidentally hacked the NIH. In case this is why this comment was downvoted, it's worth remembering that others have been charged with CFAA violation for basically the same thing.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Reminds me of this guy that got fined $4k by the court for something similar ? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist-fined-4000-plus-for-publishing-public-documents/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalis...
- jimmyswimmy 5y ago
  Acting in the sense of as a devil's advocate here, but this guy went and rooted around a data repository for stuff that wasn't his... there was a case a few years ago of a guy who scripted the AT&T site to download similarly accessible data [0] and got 4 years jail for it. We can trot out the well-known Swartz story [1] here as well. Though I'm happy to have the information available in this particular case, I can't really say this is different in terms of either the letter or spirit of the law. So: when should we expect to hear this guy being charged with CFAA violation? I'm not holding my breath, and I hope he doesn't, but what he did seems as clear a violation of the law as the two examples listed here. [0] https://www.wired.com/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz

by ve55 5y ago

pitched 5y ago

That was my read on this too and Dr. Bloom accidentally hacked the NIH. The next question though is whether they’ll change this or not? Is the guarantee that anyone can retract at any time important enough to make the db useful? Will the Chinese government mandate no one there ever use it again now?

nitrogen 5y ago
Dr. Bloom accidentally hacked the NIH. In case this is why this comment was downvoted, it's worth remembering that others have been charged with CFAA violation for basically the same thing.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Reminds me of this guy that got fined $4k by the court for something similar ? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist-fined-4000-plus-for-publishing-public-documents/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalis...
jimmyswimmy 5y ago
Acting in the sense of as a devil's advocate here, but this guy went and rooted around a data repository for stuff that wasn't his... there was a case a few years ago of a guy who scripted the AT&T site to download similarly accessible data [0] and got 4 years jail for it. We can trot out the well-known Swartz story [1] here as well. Though I'm happy to have the information available in this particular case, I can't really say this is different in terms of either the letter or spirit of the law. So: when should we expect to hear this guy being charged with CFAA violation? I'm not holding my breath, and I hope he doesn't, but what he did seems as clear a violation of the law as the two examples listed here. [0] https://www.wired.com/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz