5 ms·

>The City of Chicago's lawyers went the opposite direction Not really. >I wrote that SQL schemas would provide “only marginal value” to an attacker. Big mista

by snitty 1y ago

>The City of Chicago's lawyers went the opposite direction Not really. >I wrote that SQL schemas would provide “only marginal value” to an attacker. Big mistake. Chicago jumped on those words and said “see, you yourself agree that a schema is of some value to an attacker.” The City of Chicago's argument was that something of ANY value, no matter how insignificant, would help an attacker exploit their system, and was therefore possible to keep secret under the FOIA law.

fc417fc802 1y ago
Such a literal interpretation isn't reasonable. There are all sorts of patterns that can be indirectly leaked through supposedly unrelated data. Yet FOIA exists and is obviously intended to be useful. So obviously there must be some threshold for the value to an attacker. He attempted to communicate that schemas are clearly below such a threshold and they used his wording to attempt to argue the opposite.
mcphage 1y ago
> The City of Chicago's argument was that something of ANY value, no matter how insignificant, would help an attacker exploit their system, and was therefore possible to keep secret under the FOIA law. I’m glad that argument lost, since it totally subverts the purpose and intention of the FOIA. Any piece of information could be of value to some attacker, but that doesn’t outweigh the need for transparency.
numpad0 1y ago
> “only marginal value” to an attacker > “see, you yourself agree that a schema is of some value to an attacker.” IANAL, it appears justice systems universally interpret this type of "technically yes if that makes you happy but honestly unlikely" statements as "yes with technical bonus", not a "no with extra steps" at all, and it has to be shortened as just "unlikely from my professional perspective" or something lawyer approved for intended effect. Courts are weird.
- tptacek 1y ago
  To be clear: I think it was dumb of me to have written those hedges in my testimony, but they didn't really impact the case.
chaps 1y ago
Yes really. Our argument, upheld by a judge, was that there was no value to an attacker. Their point stands legally, but nothing else. Despite all that, Chicago still pushes back aggressively. Here's a fun one from a recent denial letter they sent for data within the same database: "When DOF referred to reviewing over 300 variable CANVAS pages, these are not analog sequential book style pages of data. Instead, they are 300 different webpages with unique file layouts for which there is no designated first page." This is after I requested every field reflected in within the 300 different pages because it would be unduly burdensome to go through. I'm waiting for the city's response for the TOP page rather than the FIRST page. It's asinine that we have to do this in order to understand how these systems can blindly ruin the lives of many. They also argued the same 7(1)(g) exemption despite me being explicit about not wanting the column names. Effectively turning their argument into them saying that the release of information within a database, fullstop, is exempt because it could be used to figure out what data exists within a database. That's against the spirit of IL FOIA, which includes this incredibly direct statutory language: Sec. 1.2. Presumption. All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930500-foia-burdensome-chapman-lpl-04102025/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930500-foia-burden... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930501-foia-burdensome-chapman-lpl-04242025-1/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930501-foia-burden...
- tptacek 1y ago
  Upheld by several judges, in fact. :)
tptacek 1y ago
You can just read the posts before trying to rebut the plaintiff in the case. The City of Chicago argued a bunch of stuff, but what matters is what the judges decided. Chicago's "no matter how insignificant" argument failed in Chancery Court and wasn't revived either in Appeals Court or at the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we lost because the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the statute such that "file layouts" were per se exempt, regardless of how dangerous they were(n't), and then decided SQL schemas were "file layouts". (SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts, but whatever).
- xnorswap 1y ago
  You shut down someone disagreeing because: > [...] what matters is what the judges decided But then say > SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts Which is you disagreeing with what a judge has decided? It seems hypocritical to shut-down someone arguing with one aspect of the case on that basis, only to end with your own disagreement with a judge's decision.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    No, I think you're mistaken. That the case didn't turn on how marginal a security risk was isn't a matter of opinion. That a SQL schema isn't a file layout is (though: there's clearly a right answer to that: mine).

by snitty 1y ago

fc417fc802 1y ago

Such a literal interpretation isn't reasonable. There are all sorts of patterns that can be indirectly leaked through supposedly unrelated data. Yet FOIA exists and is obviously intended to be useful. So obviously there must be some threshold for the value to an attacker. He attempted to communicate that schemas are clearly below such a threshold and they used his wording to attempt to argue the opposite.

mcphage 1y ago

> The City of Chicago's argument was that something of ANY value, no matter how insignificant, would help an attacker exploit their system, and was therefore possible to keep secret under the FOIA law. I’m glad that argument lost, since it totally subverts the purpose and intention of the FOIA. Any piece of information could be of value to some attacker, but that doesn’t outweigh the need for transparency.

numpad0 1y ago

> “only marginal value” to an attacker > “see, you yourself agree that a schema is of some value to an attacker.” IANAL, it appears justice systems universally interpret this type of "technically yes if that makes you happy but honestly unlikely" statements as "yes with technical bonus", not a "no with extra steps" at all, and it has to be shortened as just "unlikely from my professional perspective" or something lawyer approved for intended effect. Courts are weird.

tptacek 1y ago
To be clear: I think it was dumb of me to have written those hedges in my testimony, but they didn't really impact the case.

chaps 1y ago

Yes really. Our argument, upheld by a judge, was that there was no value to an attacker. Their point stands legally, but nothing else. Despite all that, Chicago still pushes back aggressively. Here's a fun one from a recent denial letter they sent for data within the same database: "When DOF referred to reviewing over 300 variable CANVAS pages, these are not analog sequential book style pages of data. Instead, they are 300 different webpages with unique file layouts for which there is no designated first page." This is after I requested every field reflected in within the 300 different pages because it would be unduly burdensome to go through. I'm waiting for the city's response for the TOP page rather than the FIRST page. It's asinine that we have to do this in order to understand how these systems can blindly ruin the lives of many. They also argued the same 7(1)(g) exemption despite me being explicit about not wanting the column names. Effectively turning their argument into them saying that the release of information within a database, fullstop, is exempt because it could be used to figure out what data exists within a database. That's against the spirit of IL FOIA, which includes this incredibly direct statutory language: Sec. 1.2. Presumption. All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930500-foia-burdensome-chapman-lpl-04102025/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930500-foia-burden... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930501-foia-burdensome-chapman-lpl-04242025-1/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25930501-foia-burden...

tptacek 1y ago
Upheld by several judges, in fact. :)

tptacek 1y ago

You can just read the posts before trying to rebut the plaintiff in the case. The City of Chicago argued a bunch of stuff, but what matters is what the judges decided. Chicago's "no matter how insignificant" argument failed in Chancery Court and wasn't revived either in Appeals Court or at the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we lost because the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the statute such that "file layouts" were per se exempt, regardless of how dangerous they were(n't), and then decided SQL schemas were "file layouts". (SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts, but whatever).

xnorswap 1y ago
You shut down someone disagreeing because: > [...] what matters is what the judges decided But then say > SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts Which is you disagreeing with what a judge has decided? It seems hypocritical to shut-down someone arguing with one aspect of the case on that basis, only to end with your own disagreement with a judge's decision.
- tptacek 1y ago
  No, I think you're mistaken. That the case didn't turn on how marginal a security risk was isn't a matter of opinion. That a SQL schema isn't a file layout is (though: there's clearly a right answer to that: mine).