6 ms·

> So they're name dropping Google in the title for clickbait No, Hutchinson found the documents by searching on Google for the meeting minutes. The website mig

> So they're name dropping Google in the title for clickbait No, Hutchinson found the documents by searching on Google for the meeting minutes. The website might have protected the place where you found the link to the meeting minutes, but the meeting minutes themselves were hosted in a directory that not only was publicly accessible if you had the URL, but also allowed Google's crawler to access it and store it. There is a slippery slope here, either way (if he gets free or if he gets sentenced), but none the less, Google is relevant to the case.

tehwebguy 5y ago
Google is super relevant to the case if they identified someone who downloaded a non-protected file in response to a police request. Not sure there is any slope left to slip on, this is basically the worst case scenario already I think. Edit: Whoops, all of my assumptions were wrong!
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I beg to differ. I don't think Google is relevant. As far as I can see, Google provided a search-result, which eventually (after Google's batted it around internally a few times) turns into an HTTP request to the CBS website, which resulted in password-free access to a public document. So that will show up in the CBS webserver's access log; that's how they got the IP address. Nothing to do with Google. Getting from the IP address to the person is messier; websearches, requests to ISPs, and presumably searches of activist databases the cops no doubt maintain might all have played a part. My guess is the cops knew there was no case against him, because they tried the URL, and saw that there was no password challenge; but charged him anyway, because he was an activist, and they wanted to intimidate him.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    He wasn't charged.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      You're right, he wasn't charged. He was "just" arrested.
- Maxburn 5y ago
  I did not get that impression. The defendant said he used google to find these things, google did not snitch on him. He was in turn discovered by sharing them on social media.
- jsnell 5y ago
  But we know from the article that's not how he was identified. Instead it was from the access logs of the company that he downloaded the file from. > Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses:
mattmanser 5y ago
Police statement from the article: He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken So they already dropped it.
- jzb 5y ago
  “already dropped it” That doesn’t make it okay. Being taken into custody is something I’d consider an overreaction and frightening for a person to endure. They should’ve looked into it before moving to pick them up in the first place. If the shoe was on the other foot- an activist claiming a developer broke in to obtain info- I bet police would’ve done more research.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    >That doesn’t make it okay. Being taken into custody is something I’d consider an overreaction and frightening for a person to endure. Fully agreed. And not just that, the law enforcement officers seized his personal devices (phone + laptop) for 4 weeks and went through them. Note: I am not sure if both phone+laptop were taken away for 4 weeks, but the article states that both were seized at one point, and explicitly mentions that the laptop was held for 4 weeks before being returned.
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    Different societies have different social standards. This is assuming you are none British/English/etc.
  - mattmanser 5y ago
    I personally think it's fair enough, the company probably claimed it was secure, therefore he must have hacked them. The police reacted, but when he could show it clearly wasn't secure and exposed to the public, they dropped it. And hopefully gave the company a private ticking off about wasting police time. In the UK, an arrest under reasonable suspicion gives them the right to search your property for evidence, and to be honest they had reasonable suspicion, he had private company documents. It's not like that company can cry wolf again, the police will be far more skeptical next time of their claims, having dealt with them before.
corobo 5y ago
Yeah but the title makes it sound like Google Drive or something grassed him up. They weren't downloaded from Google, they were found using it
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  ...but that means Google has downloaded it earlier to index it. I guess Google should get raided as well.

tehwebguy 5y ago

Google is super relevant to the case if they identified someone who downloaded a non-protected file in response to a police request. Not sure there is any slope left to slip on, this is basically the worst case scenario already I think. Edit: Whoops, all of my assumptions were wrong!

denton-scratch 5y ago
I beg to differ. I don't think Google is relevant. As far as I can see, Google provided a search-result, which eventually (after Google's batted it around internally a few times) turns into an HTTP request to the CBS website, which resulted in password-free access to a public document. So that will show up in the CBS webserver's access log; that's how they got the IP address. Nothing to do with Google. Getting from the IP address to the person is messier; websearches, requests to ISPs, and presumably searches of activist databases the cops no doubt maintain might all have played a part. My guess is the cops knew there was no case against him, because they tried the URL, and saw that there was no password challenge; but charged him anyway, because he was an activist, and they wanted to intimidate him.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  He wasn't charged.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    You're right, he wasn't charged. He was "just" arrested.
Maxburn 5y ago
I did not get that impression. The defendant said he used google to find these things, google did not snitch on him. He was in turn discovered by sharing them on social media.
jsnell 5y ago
But we know from the article that's not how he was identified. Instead it was from the access logs of the company that he downloaded the file from. > Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses:

mattmanser 5y ago

Police statement from the article: He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken So they already dropped it.

jzb 5y ago
“already dropped it” That doesn’t make it okay. Being taken into custody is something I’d consider an overreaction and frightening for a person to endure. They should’ve looked into it before moving to pick them up in the first place. If the shoe was on the other foot- an activist claiming a developer broke in to obtain info- I bet police would’ve done more research.
- filoleg 5y ago
  >That doesn’t make it okay. Being taken into custody is something I’d consider an overreaction and frightening for a person to endure. Fully agreed. And not just that, the law enforcement officers seized his personal devices (phone + laptop) for 4 weeks and went through them. Note: I am not sure if both phone+laptop were taken away for 4 weeks, but the article states that both were seized at one point, and explicitly mentions that the laptop was held for 4 weeks before being returned.
- teclordphrack2 5y ago
  Different societies have different social standards. This is assuming you are none British/English/etc.
- mattmanser 5y ago
  I personally think it's fair enough, the company probably claimed it was secure, therefore he must have hacked them. The police reacted, but when he could show it clearly wasn't secure and exposed to the public, they dropped it. And hopefully gave the company a private ticking off about wasting police time. In the UK, an arrest under reasonable suspicion gives them the right to search your property for evidence, and to be honest they had reasonable suspicion, he had private company documents. It's not like that company can cry wolf again, the police will be far more skeptical next time of their claims, having dealt with them before.

corobo 5y ago

Yeah but the title makes it sound like Google Drive or something grassed him up. They weren't downloaded from Google, they were found using it

seba_dos1 5y ago
...but that means Google has downloaded it earlier to index it. I guess Google should get raided as well.