4 ms·

> "At worse, only the internet etiquette has been breached." Proceeds to announce the name of a stalking victim. Classy.

camillomiller 11y ago
It'a name that's in a plain text document that anybody can personally look up on its browser. What's the point of hiding it, if it's a very good point for his article?
- werid 11y ago
  Now it's indexed by search engines?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt Not that I agree it should be further divulged, mind you.
- MatthewWilkes 11y ago
  He could have made exactly the same point with a fake name and institution. The information became public due to incompetence, he's made it much more visible… I don't care to speculate on what personal failing might be the reason.
  - rlidwka 11y ago
    It won't be exactly the same point. With a fake name there is no proof that the information in question ever existed. I would've probably masked a name, but institution url should stay there, so anyone could check that the point is valid.
    - MatthewWilkes 11y ago
      Okay, that's fair, but it would be the same point for practical purposes, in my opinion. I don't personally believe that it's necessary for people to get hand-holding to independently verify his individual claims. Certainly other people could copy his methods to reproduce the results, but I'm not sure what the benefit is of links into the individual leaks of sensitive information.
- relet 11y ago
  The point would be just as well made if he did not list the actual name.
- biot 11y ago
  The exact same point can be made by redacting or anonymizing the individual's name. Perhaps the organization rethinks its use of the comment and removes it. However, this blog post will live on through the archives of the internet in perpetuity, forever labeling that individual and, unfortunately, helps out their stalker.
luch 11y ago
And he's also wrong. I assume he's French, and French law specifically says that any unwanted access to restricted parts of a "data processing system" is punishable by a hefty fine and/or prison time. For example, I think bug/vul bounties programs are illegal in France (but IANAL). A relatively famous French blogger was convicted once in trial for having publicly reported that a governemental agency was letting GoogleBot index confidential/restricted documents : http://bluetouff.com/2013/04/25/la-non-affaire-bluetouff-vs-anses/ http://bluetouff.com/2013/04/25/la-non-affaire-bluetouff-vs-... [FR] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist-fined-4000-plus-for-publishing-public-documents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist... [EN].
- mackwic 11y ago
  I believe that only services hosted on the French ground are eligible to the French law. Also, showing the link but not the content is a smart move because it doesn't prove that the author looked for the content of these documents, when the robots.txt is obviously a file you should be able to consult.
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    French law would then be different than German law, where the ground the intended audience is on matters. Of course it is much harder to prosecute someone, when the server is in a country that does not cooperate.
- brazzy 11y ago
  How exactly is robots.txt a "restricted part"?
  - delinka 11y ago
    I believe the intent was that if robots.txt claims to disallow a section of a website, then French law would say that section is off-limits to visitors and visiting disallowed sections is punishable by law. I doubt that this is a valid interpretation of the law. The robots.txt file simply mentions parts of the site that shouldn't be indexed, not which parts of a site shouldn't be viewed by the general public. You use a robots.txt file to prevent a search engine from following links that would enumerate all the possible dynamically-generated content on your site to conserve resources and to prevent junk results appearing for a search user. Tangentially relevant: when you do have something you want indexed, it should probably be a static page that lives at a permanent URL. But never attempt to use a robots.txt file to "hide" sensitive data.
Lorento 11y ago
Google for "Lisa Wilberg esc" (just like what a stalker might do to narrow it down to the correct uni) and you get the robots.txt file itself in 3rd place. The author isn't doing any more harm than Google already is. It's already easily searchable.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  The author is bringing more unwanted attention to a victim. Why not contact the school and let them know of their error, or change the woman's name? Reprinting her name and the institution name accomplishes nothing good.
  - userbinator 11y ago
    According to the date it would be almost 2 years ago, not exactly a current event... There's plenty of others with the same name as her (58k according to Google), that file is now 404, and archive.org doesn't have it (due to its mention in the robots.txt), so whatever information in it that could've been useful for a stalker is long gone.
    - ohitsdom 11y ago
      Does it matter that the event was 2 years ago? I'm sure the victim wants to move on and put this well behind her.
    - MrJackSpade 11y ago
      Signed up real quick to post this... Her name shows up in a news letter, inc middle name, published and indexed by the school in 2012. It lists her occupation (a very public one) and even where you can find her works. This alone would be enough to get in touch with her. It was pure morbid curiosity that lead me to search for it, but its totally still relevant if you were looking for her. Unfortunately, given her occupation, its unlikely that anything short of the stalker giving up or getting arrested will grant her any sort of reprieve.
      - deleted 11y ago
ohitsdom 11y ago
Strongly agree. I emailed the school to let them know about the error on their part. How hard would it have been for the author to do the same, and to change the name of the victim and institution to protect her?
judemelancon 11y ago
I doubt the stalker has forgotten it.
JadeNB 11y ago
Is it possible that has been removed (in which case, kudos to the author)? I didn't see a name in the document, and the name that Lorento mentions doesn't appear.

camillomiller 11y ago

It'a name that's in a plain text document that anybody can personally look up on its browser. What's the point of hiding it, if it's a very good point for his article?

werid 11y ago
Now it's indexed by search engines?
- icebraining 11y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt Not that I agree it should be further divulged, mind you.
MatthewWilkes 11y ago
He could have made exactly the same point with a fake name and institution. The information became public due to incompetence, he's made it much more visible… I don't care to speculate on what personal failing might be the reason.
- rlidwka 11y ago
  It won't be exactly the same point. With a fake name there is no proof that the information in question ever existed. I would've probably masked a name, but institution url should stay there, so anyone could check that the point is valid.
  - MatthewWilkes 11y ago
    Okay, that's fair, but it would be the same point for practical purposes, in my opinion. I don't personally believe that it's necessary for people to get hand-holding to independently verify his individual claims. Certainly other people could copy his methods to reproduce the results, but I'm not sure what the benefit is of links into the individual leaks of sensitive information.
relet 11y ago
The point would be just as well made if he did not list the actual name.
biot 11y ago
The exact same point can be made by redacting or anonymizing the individual's name. Perhaps the organization rethinks its use of the comment and removes it. However, this blog post will live on through the archives of the internet in perpetuity, forever labeling that individual and, unfortunately, helps out their stalker.

luch 11y ago

And he's also wrong. I assume he's French, and French law specifically says that any unwanted access to restricted parts of a "data processing system" is punishable by a hefty fine and/or prison time. For example, I think bug/vul bounties programs are illegal in France (but IANAL). A relatively famous French blogger was convicted once in trial for having publicly reported that a governemental agency was letting GoogleBot index confidential/restricted documents : http://bluetouff.com/2013/04/25/la-non-affaire-bluetouff-vs-anses/ http://bluetouff.com/2013/04/25/la-non-affaire-bluetouff-vs-... [FR] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist-fined-4000-plus-for-publishing-public-documents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/french-journalist... [EN].

mackwic 11y ago
I believe that only services hosted on the French ground are eligible to the French law. Also, showing the link but not the content is a smart move because it doesn't prove that the author looked for the content of these documents, when the robots.txt is obviously a file you should be able to consult.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  French law would then be different than German law, where the ground the intended audience is on matters. Of course it is much harder to prosecute someone, when the server is in a country that does not cooperate.
brazzy 11y ago
How exactly is robots.txt a "restricted part"?
- delinka 11y ago
  I believe the intent was that if robots.txt claims to disallow a section of a website, then French law would say that section is off-limits to visitors and visiting disallowed sections is punishable by law. I doubt that this is a valid interpretation of the law. The robots.txt file simply mentions parts of the site that shouldn't be indexed, not which parts of a site shouldn't be viewed by the general public. You use a robots.txt file to prevent a search engine from following links that would enumerate all the possible dynamically-generated content on your site to conserve resources and to prevent junk results appearing for a search user. Tangentially relevant: when you do have something you want indexed, it should probably be a static page that lives at a permanent URL. But never attempt to use a robots.txt file to "hide" sensitive data.

Lorento 11y ago

Google for "Lisa Wilberg esc" (just like what a stalker might do to narrow it down to the correct uni) and you get the robots.txt file itself in 3rd place. The author isn't doing any more harm than Google already is. It's already easily searchable.

ohitsdom 11y ago
The author is bringing more unwanted attention to a victim. Why not contact the school and let them know of their error, or change the woman's name? Reprinting her name and the institution name accomplishes nothing good.
- userbinator 11y ago
  According to the date it would be almost 2 years ago, not exactly a current event... There's plenty of others with the same name as her (58k according to Google), that file is now 404, and archive.org doesn't have it (due to its mention in the robots.txt), so whatever information in it that could've been useful for a stalker is long gone.
  - ohitsdom 11y ago
    Does it matter that the event was 2 years ago? I'm sure the victim wants to move on and put this well behind her.
  - MrJackSpade 11y ago
    Signed up real quick to post this... Her name shows up in a news letter, inc middle name, published and indexed by the school in 2012. It lists her occupation (a very public one) and even where you can find her works. This alone would be enough to get in touch with her. It was pure morbid curiosity that lead me to search for it, but its totally still relevant if you were looking for her. Unfortunately, given her occupation, its unlikely that anything short of the stalker giving up or getting arrested will grant her any sort of reprieve.
    - deleted 11y ago

ohitsdom 11y ago

Strongly agree. I emailed the school to let them know about the error on their part. How hard would it have been for the author to do the same, and to change the name of the victim and institution to protect her?

judemelancon 11y ago

I doubt the stalker has forgotten it.

JadeNB 11y ago

Is it possible that has been removed (in which case, kudos to the author)? I didn't see a name in the document, and the name that Lorento mentions doesn't appear.