3 ms·
Unless I'm mistaken, the city lied about the data existing in a form unusable to the hackers. That lie is, itself, giving a false sense of security to witnesse
by rockskon 2y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, the city lied about the data existing in a form unusable to the hackers. That lie is, itself, giving a false sense of security to witnesses for ongoing criminal investigations. Witnesses whose data is data is accessible on a website primarily (though not exclusively) accessed by criminals.
As is described in the article, this is one of the best cases of responsible disclosure I can think of in recent memory - refuting a government lie that put at-risk people's lives in danger.
- kabdib 2y agoIt looks fractally terrible, but: > "This is not about speech. It's not. It's about the actual action of > going on the keyboard, going into the dark web, gathering the information, > downloading it to your computer and then disseminating it to people > who are in the press or otherwise," Klein said. ... sounds a lot like free expression (especially when the city is lying)
- t_sawyer 2y agoYou are correct. The Mayor of the city said the data stolen was either encrypted or corrupted and unusable. The mayor also refused to confirm something had taken place for weeks. I’ve been following this since early August because I grew up in Columbus and still have family there. Ginther is a terrible mayor and has handled this mess about as poorly as you can. The researcher they’re trying to quiet exposed that Ginther was lying about the data being unusable.