3 ms·
This is an important distinction that the city fails to articulate. The city lied about the breach, so getting a restraining order immediately looks petty and
by unethical_ban 2y ago
This is an important distinction that the city fails to articulate.
The city lied about the breach, so getting a restraining order immediately looks petty and abusive.
But you make a good point that such a website would not actually be useful. Anyone who is in those documents knows it, and allowing the public web the ability to look people up by name is dangerous.
The "hacker" is correct to speak loudly about the lies the city told. He would be incorrect to create a lookup.
- kmoser 2y ago> He would be incorrect to create a lookup. Not if the lookup simply acknowledged whether a name exists in the records, without giving other context (e.g. property tax, DMV, criminal investigation, etc.).
- FireBeyond 2y agoI'm more concerned with "Making it so people can only look themselves up". Like how was he planning to enforce that? Trust and honesty? Or maybe you upload your ID to him first? I think that he's playing all weaselly now that there's some pressure.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- unethical_ban 2y agoIf the context is a 50% chance "witness in a criminal case" then the implied context is pretty strong.