[HN Gopher] City of Columbus sues expert who exposed extent of c...
___________________________________________________________________
City of Columbus sues expert who exposed extent of cyberattack
Author : hendler
Score : 195 points
Date : 2024-08-30 14:44 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.10tv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.10tv.com)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Sounds like a straightforward 1st Amendment case.
|
| Might there be any lawyers with opinions (& disclaimers,
| obviously) in the house?
| rolph wrote:
| i think it hinges on what is a threat vs what is mitigation.
|
| should people be informed, thus enabled to respond, or should
| people be etoliated, and kept ignorant of even requiring a
| response.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| My compliments on your vocabulary:
|
| etoliated: Def 2. literary. weakened; no longer at full
| strength. "Her voice was thinner than I recalled..."
| courseofaction wrote:
| Especially by a lack of sunlight. Fitting.
| rolph wrote:
| i really wish the scarewords like darkweb would go away.
|
| the internet is not google, no amount of sand over the head or in
| the eyes will change that.
|
| Columbus officials chose to invalidate threat to public safety by
| way of misinformation, then retaliate when the threat and true
| situation was revealed.
|
| keeping people ignorant of threatscape is not good government.
|
| thinking the 'darkweb' is some sort of containment by obscurity,
| is beyond naive.
|
| the city of columbus is actually inhibiting a proper response and
| perpetuating a cavalier security stance.
|
| this is not going unnoticed.
|
| [1] [This is a bigger issue here': Columbus resident wishes the
| city told residents about the data breach sooner]
|
| https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/columbus-woman-wishe...
|
| [2] Second class-action lawsuit, representing police and
| firefighters, filed against city after cyberattack
|
| https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/second-class-action-...
|
| [3] Ginther confirms personal information of Columbus residents
| exposed in cyberattack
|
| https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/ginther-press-confer...
| ForOldHack wrote:
| Point, point, point, point, point, Game, set, Match.
|
| "this is not going unnoticed." Oh thank god!
|
| "the city of Columbus is actually inhibiting a proper response
| and perpetuating a cavalier security stance."
|
| "On Aug. 13, Mayor Andrew Ginther said the data stolen by
| hackers was either corrupted or encrypted, meaning it was
| likely useless. Hours later, Goodwolf told 10TV that wasn't
| true and he showed what kind of personal information he was
| able to access"
|
| "City officials announced they are providing free credit
| monitoring to Columbus and Franklin County Municipal Court
| Clerk employees and judges and have asked city employees to use
| different passwords for their accounts."
|
| Elvis and common sense has left the building.
|
| https://schneiderdowns.com/our-thoughts-on/city-of-columbus-...
| gsk22 wrote:
| As far as I can tell, darkweb has no actual meaning anymore
| anyway.
|
| I saw an article recently claiming that something like 80% of
| people under 30 access the dark web at least once a week. 80%
| of under-30s use Tor? Seems highly unlikely.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| My understanding is it merely meant sites not indexed by
| search engines. Your employers internal websites or the sites
| for your college coursework would count.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Don't forget bit torrent. There are teenagers out there
| committing several world GDP worth of piracy on the daily
| if you believe the entertainment industry
| Izkata wrote:
| "Not indexed" is the deep web. The dark web is ones that
| use alternate protocols on top of the web so they can't be
| indexed by web search engines (includes things like Tor and
| Discord).
|
| I suppose ones that require authentication (like internal
| employer sites) could also be dark web.
| gsk22 wrote:
| Surely Discord can't be counted as dark web? It's not web
| at all.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Sure it is. I open my web browser, and Discord is in it.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| This is a very clear case of a restraining order being used
| punatively. The body of first amendment case law is very clear.
| The city has no reasonabel expectation that they will win. Their
| intent is to restrain, and intimidate legitimate criticism.
| edm0nd wrote:
| A perfect case for the EFF or ACLU to pickup and help defend
| against such a silly and weaponized restraining order.
| passwordoops wrote:
| ""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"
|
| No, this is about how you lied to your public about the nature
| and format of the data that _you_ failed to protect
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I love how politicians invoke "the dark web" like its some
| bogeyman that hides in the night and preys upon young children.
| It's literally a bunch of websites. That's it.
| superkuh wrote:
| Everything not on Facebook/Google/Twitter is the dark web.
| kabdib wrote:
| _Especially_ sketchy places like Hacker News. Just look at
| the name!
| sva_ wrote:
| https://archive.is/dEBJT
|
| (blocked in EU)
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Former pentester here. Though I'm largely sympathetic with
| Goodwolf, note that releasing actual data is almost always a bad
| idea. It's why bug bounty programs have limited scope.
|
| The city seems upset that he shared data about ongoing
| investigations and undercover police reports. Depending on what
| exactly he shared, it's hard to fault the city for that. It
| doesn't really matter where the data currently exists; grabbing
| it and handing it off to others is obviously not a good idea.
|
| If his goal was to prove to the reporters that such data existed
| and was available for download, he had many options that didn't
| require accessing the data: screenshot the forum posts, send
| links to the reporters, detail what kind of data was there
| without actually showing any of it, and so on.
|
| Now, if that's what he did, and the city is still reacting this
| way, that's obviously abuse. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to
| order someone to stop disseminating data about ongoing
| investigations to reporters. Would you want your private cases to
| be more widely spread?
|
| I'm really sympathetic to him, because this is an easy mistake to
| make. Before I got into the industry, I thought that this was
| white hat hacking; it's obviously good that he's spreading
| awareness about the breach. But _how_ you do it really matters.
|
| (Caveat: I worked in the industry for about a year in 2016, so
| maybe things have changed. But I'd be shocked if distributing
| actual data from any breach was condoned by anyone who works as a
| pentester, even today.)
|
| > the city says Goodwolf is threatening to publicly share the
| city's stolen data in the form of a website that he will create
| himself. Goodwolf previously told 10TV he does plan to set up a
| website, but it would only allow people to see if their name was
| part of the data breach.
|
| This isn't the same as setting up a site to see if your password
| was compromised. It could let anyone type in someone's name and
| see whether they're a witness in a criminal investigation.
| nostrademons wrote:
| It's somewhat unclear exactly what was shared and how. The
| article and the linked article about the data breach itself
| suggested that Goodwolf downloaded the data to verify its
| contents and then _showed the data to a reporter_ , but he
| didn't actually release any data, nor distribute it into the
| permanent possession of the reporter. This is akin to Boeing
| saying "We had no knowledge of the 737 MAX's problems", and
| then an employee showing screenshots of confidential memos to
| the media saying "Yes you did, here is the truth."
|
| I agree that creating a website where you can look up a name
| and see if they've been part of a police investigation is a bad
| idea, but he didn't actually do that, he only had plans to.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Sure, but the fact that it's unclear is exactly what the city
| is reacting to. The point of the restraining order is that
| they have a reasonable belief that he might have distributed
| it to reporters, and he's on the record saying he might
| create a website where anyone can see information related to
| ongoing criminal investigations or witness identities.
|
| Note that showing the data to the reporter counts as
| distribution. He didn't need to do that to prove to the
| reporter that the data was out there. Even sending
| screenshots of the data would've been ok if he'd redacted
| anything remotely confidential (it would be obvious from
| context that the document is probably legit, and the reporter
| would dig in further).
|
| If he didn't send any sensitive data to anyone, then I
| completely agree with you. But pentesters generally don't
| send actual data to prove a breach exists to anyone but the
| target of the breach. Publicizing the breach itself is fine,
| but the article is pretty clear that's not why they're going
| after him.
| Spivak wrote:
| > I agree that creating a website where you can look up a
| name and see if they've been part of a police investigation
| is a bad idea, but he didn't actually do that, he only had
| plans to.
|
| He still should. The dispatch article has more information,
| this was data that has already been leaked, there is no means
| of protecting it anymore. The only thing to do is release it
| so people know if they've been exposed.
|
| https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/08/30/co.
| ..
|
| Like it sucks that this is the best option but you can't make
| it go away, the data is free.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > The only thing to do is release it so people know if
| they've been exposed.
|
| Are we talking about a Troy Hunt-style (haveibeenpwned)
| website? If so, I don't consider a giant hashset-of-hashes
| a "release" because if _that_ data (haveibeenpwnd 's
| database) gets leaked it's of zero use to anyone because it
| doesn't contain any original data anymore.
|
| But if you mean Wikileaks-style: put it all in a .rar file
| and publicise it, maintaining that the-ends-justify-the-
| means approach despite all the irresponsible-journalism,
| then absolutely no. Yikes. No.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| According to what I read in that article, Goodwolf didn't
| release the data. The hackers released the data, the city lied
| about it, Goodwolf went and retrieved the publicly accessible
| data and gave it to journalists to prove the city's lie.
|
| Unless that article is seriously mischaracterising what
| happened, I can't see how this is anything other than a massive
| civil liberties infringement by the city, who are just trying
| to scapegoat this Goodwolf person. All of the damages they are
| describing were caused by their own negligence.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Retrieving publicly accessible data and then giving it to
| anyone else is the problem when the data contains the
| identities of witnesses for ongoing criminal investigations.
|
| I'm really far on the side of hackers here, but I'm having
| trouble justifying sending any data whatsoever to journalists
| related to criminal investigations. Even one witness's name,
| sent merely to prove that the breach happened, could be
| enough to cause direct harm to that case if the reporter
| decided to reveal it. You don't need to do that to show a
| reporter that the breach happened. And it's up to the
| reporter themselves to prove the breach is real.
| Spivak wrote:
| And that's why you send the data to reporters. Literally
| the people whose job it is to handle this correctly. They
| are the next stop when the city doesn't give you the time
| of day. He didn't send it to some disreputable news
| podcaster, they're the primary newspaper for the city.
| dccoolgai wrote:
| But that "harm" was caused by the City failing to secure
| the data - not this one person who said "the city failed to
| secure the data - anyone can get it".
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Intent matters. The city was incompetent, but
| distributing data about active criminal investigations is
| malicious, or at least dangerous. And unlike Snowden, he
| wasn't trying to expose abuses by sending the documents
| to reporters.
|
| Here's an example from my own life: I created books3, an
| AI training dataset of almost 200k books. This was thanks
| to The Eye, who hosted a copy of Bibliotik, a popular
| shadow library. But everyone is suing the AI companies
| themselves for using the training data, even though the
| original harm was caused by The Eye and Bibliotik.
|
| > not this one person who said "the city failed to secure
| the data - anyone can get it".
|
| If he simply said that, there wouldn't have been a
| problem. He sent actual data related to ongoing criminal
| investigations, and was on the record saying he might set
| up a website to more widely disseminate information about
| that data -- which could include names of witnesses in
| those investigations.
| nick238 wrote:
| I mean, if the city keeps saying, "no, there wasn't any
| data released", then maybe backs up and says "there wasn't
| any _sensitive_ data released ", and keeps backing up, at
| some point you need to cut to the chase and be like, "OK,
| here's the most salacious shit possible. Explain that."
|
| I don't know how to do that responsibly (just share it with
| a reputable reporter?), but I definitely get the feeling if
| you're constantly subjected to bad faith.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Oh, I agree. But let the reporters do that. It's their
| job. Just point them towards the data and they'll do the
| rest.
|
| If someone's butt is going to be on the line, it should
| be a corporation's (the news agency), or perhaps an
| individual investigative journalist. Not you. Not for
| something like this, anyway. If it was just social
| security numbers I might agree with you, but police
| databases are obviously dangerous to disseminate, even if
| it's just to prove they exist. He could've sent redacted
| screenshots.
|
| Point being, we don't know what he sent, but sending
| anything at all from a _police database_ is a bad idea.
| No lawyer would ever say that that's legal, let alone
| ethical.
| rolph wrote:
| i think i get it.
|
| you are in danger but you dont need to know that, its not
| your job to protect yourself, thats our job.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| The people who compromised and published the data (and the
| people who allowed them to do that) are responsible for
| 100% of the harm caused here. Once the data has been
| published, the harm is already done, and from a legal
| perspective any questions about accessing it and further
| communicating it are protected by 1A.
|
| By the time Goodwolf got to the data, it had already been
| compromised and published. The only way he could have
| possibly contributed to the harm was by drawing attention
| to it. If you take that perspective, then the city has
| further contributed to that harm themselves by taking legal
| action against Goodwolf. Furthermore, you could also
| conclude from this argument that the city had some moral
| responsibility to lie to the public about the nature of the
| breach, and that all those who knew the truth would also
| have the moral responsibility to protect that lie.
|
| I would say this is an incredibly perverse position to
| take. All of the data compromised in this breach was
| already published, and in the hands of criminals. For
| anybody whose data was included in this breach, the city
| lying about it was just putting them in further jeopardy.
| Now they will at least have the opportunity to learn about
| the breach. The journalists are hardly likely to abuse it.
| The only legitimate harm caused by Goodwolf was to harm the
| integrity of the lying city officials. They deserve that
| harm, and the other side of that coin is that the public
| benefits when corruption is exposed.
| rockskon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It 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)
| lima wrote:
| This is data that criminals _already_ publicly released.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I happen to know this guy. He has an extremely bad reputation
| in the furry community for doxing people and bringing up old
| criminal records to publicly shame and cancel people. He
| actively tries to hurt people.
|
| He's about as far from an ethical hacker as you can be. He's on
| a crusade.
|
| Now that doesn't mean this should be illegal but I'm not on his
| side.
| someguydave wrote:
| It could be that there are assholes on four sides here
| (blackhat guys, city, whitehat guy, journalists)
| Spivak wrote:
| This is a bit "what were you doing at the devil's sacrament"
| but I digress it's not that important.
|
| You should be able to be the worst person in the world and
| not hung for it. There's no reason to not be on his side, it
| doesn't mean you endorse him. The other side is an
| embarrassed government throwing their weight around to hang
| him for what isn't and shouldn't be a crime.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| > You should be able to be the worst person in the world
| and not hung for it.
|
| Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do
| anything they want and not face repercussions?
| kbelder wrote:
| Well, they should be able to do anything they want that's
| _legal_ without facing _legal_ repercussions.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| He's facing _civil_ repercussions. He, as a worker of the
| city, disseminated information to the press that reveals
| undercover police reports, witness names and testimonies,
| and various other sensitive information. That may not be
| illegal, but if he broke a contract or other agreement
| then it's expected that he faces repercussions.
|
| The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the
| severity, but he's in the wrong for directly handing over
| the hacked information he has to journalists.
| Spivak wrote:
| No, I'm saying your rights aren't conditional on whether
| or not you're an asshole.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-
| violent felons. That's beside the point though, because
| his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and
| being charged are completely different. One is civil, the
| other is criminal.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and
| the legal matter is against the property, not the
| property owner. Still, I would argue that the property
| owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
| late2part wrote:
| "against the property"
|
| You probably think identity theft is a customer's
| problem, not the bank too.
|
| Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't
| make it right.
|
| It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should
| never have been considered reasonable.
| yimmothathird wrote:
| Only if that person is me
| foundry27 wrote:
| It's easy to downvote and move on, but I don't think that
| does justice to the valid underlying concerns this parent
| comment raises. I don't agree with the idea that there's
| "no reason" to question the guy's actions - because his
| methods do raise serious ethical and safety concerns - but
| I think it's right to caution against kneejerk reactions
| that might lead to government overreach. We should be wary
| of how power can be used to silence people, even if those
| people did shitty things in the past or are controversial
| figures.
|
| Ignoring the underlying point being made won't make it go
| away, and won't help educate any of our peers who might
| take some of this stuff at face value.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| My recommended remedy is to write your own sibling
| comment that makes the same point in a less downvotable
| way. Most of us are against government overreach, but
| we're against logical overreach too, and the GP comment
| did a lot of that. Just not very well argued on a very
| sensitive topic.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Law isn't black and white. Motives do matter in the US
| legal system.
|
| For an extreme example, murder requires intent. Most
| computer crimes also fall into this.
|
| In this case he crossed the line a professional security
| researcher would not have by showing the data to a third
| party.
| summermusic wrote:
| > Goodwolf is the name he uses for interviews and is not his
| legal name.
|
| I read this and immediately suspected that he is a furry
| superkuh wrote:
| Do you though? I could say the same about kayodelcaon, but
| it'd be against HN rules just like your unsupported character
| attack that addresses none of the legal claims against him
| is.
|
| The facts of it are that he did not do the hacking and did
| not make the information information online. He's just
| mirroring the easily available information because the city
| was lying about it. That's journalism. If the city wants to
| sue someone they should look internally and at the initial
| hackers/posters of the information in public.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Take a look yourself at what others have said. Go to
| en.wikifur.com and look at the Connor_Goodwolf page. That
| doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Even if you
| think some of his causes are good, he does not do his due
| diligence and does not care if he's wrong.
|
| My personal experience is from my own conversations with
| him and conversations with people in Cincinnati, Dayton,
| and Columbus.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I looked this guy up on the furry wiki like you suggested and
| it seems the "old criminal records" he tries to shame people
| for are being sex offenders and animal abusers. I'm not
| surprised to hear the furry community finds this is
| controversial. _Gag_
|
| > _Goodwolf maintains the K9 Sentry webpage and Facebook and
| Twitter accounts._
|
| > _K9 Sentry scours mainly the furry community 's main sites
| and social media services[3] for signs of malfeasance
| regarding those furries[4] involved in criminal activities of
| sexual (sex child abuse, zoophilia, bestiality, etc) or
| violent type (cruelty to animals et al)._
|
| > _The site maintains several help services and
| directories[5] to keep track of the convicted furs in the
| fandom and keeps abreast of past and present cases by posting
| the latest on the K9 Sentry site, its social media accounts,
| and on the furry wiki, Wikifur._
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Those aren't the only criminal records he brings up. I also
| said:
|
| > Even if you think some of his causes are good, he does
| not do his due diligence and does not care if he's wrong.
|
| If you can't see what I'm talking about, read the whole
| list of everything he's done, read the article above, and
| try to understand the person.
|
| It is him, his methods, and the innocent people he has
| harmed that are controversial, not the things he stands
| against.
| ang_cire wrote:
| This was not "releasing" information, though, it was already
| public. The "dark web" isn't someplace you require some special
| invite-only connection to, it's just regular websites (even if
| they use TOR) that anyone can access if they know where to
| look.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| It is naive to suggest that it is equally easy for the
| general public to search the dark web for an illicit data
| breach vs. go to a a publicized website.
|
| Hell, I am in infosec and it would probably take me a few
| hours or more to find raw data. A grandma can click a website
| on CBS and type a name.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| Except there is a reasonable chance that he distributed
| illegally obtained uncensored data to people outside of the
| investigation, while being part of the investigative team.
| That's not something you do, even if it's not illegal.
| bitnasty wrote:
| > part of the investigative team
|
| The article doesn't mention this...
| rockskon wrote:
| ????
|
| I'm not quite certain what law he's accused of violating. He
| didn't download the info from the gov website so there couldn't
| be allegations of unauthorized access. He didn't hack the
| website either.
|
| What gives?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.).
| tptacek wrote:
| For what it's worth, he didn't generate this data from an
| attack; he's just downloading it from Tor BBSs. The term
| "cybersecurity expert" contains multitudes.
| coding123 wrote:
| > 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
|
| Lol, unless the article is reporting something off, features like
| Chrome or Firefox reporting one of your passwords may have been
| compromised would be illegal.
|
| The reality is that this city is wrong.
| xbar wrote:
| Embarrassed city sues annoying jerk who told everyone how full of
| crap city should was.
|
| Suing security researchers for investigating the contents of
| disclosed information is ineffective at protecting anyone.
| xyst wrote:
| Reminds me of a story on Dark Net Diaries. Researchers are
| hired by state to do physical penetration testing at some court
| house in the middle of nowhere. Pentesters get caught.
| Pentesters comply with security and local PD and explain
| situation.
|
| However some other asshole shows up to the scene claiming
| jurisdiction (county sheriff?), raises hell, makes a random
| call (county officials?), then arrest the pen testers on the
| spot for B&E.
|
| State leave them out to dry in some county jail cell. I think
| the state ultimately ended up getting embarrassed and tried to
| sue the company and pen testers for some civil damages and
| pursue criminal charges.
|
| In the end, they end up getting dropped and reputation of pen
| testers were ruined for a period of time.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Hacking syndicate: not sued
|
| Public website hosting hacked records: not sued
|
| Lying public servant: not sued
|
| Joe Schmoe for pointing out all three: sued
| nick238 wrote:
| I wonder if the ideal way to expose this would have been to
| approach some law firm showing that you (just you) were wronged
| by the City, here's the data, some basic auditing showing where
| it was from, statements by the city, hackers, etc.
|
| Then just be like, yeah, there's like 3 TB of data there, maybe
| it's class-action worthy, hint, hint.
| jmyeet wrote:
| "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen
| again."
| kabdib wrote:
| Our property values were great until they installed the
| seismographs.
| theginger wrote:
| I get access denied to 10tv.com No idea why, do they ban UK / EU
| readers?
| lobsterthief wrote:
| A lot of local news publishers in the US do that to save money
| and not have to deal with compliance in other countries.
|
| It's beyond stupid and lazy
| xyst wrote:
| even us readers with ad block get a paywall.
|
| https://archive.ph/dEBJT
| mmsc wrote:
| Add it to the list: https://github.com/disclose/research-threats
| xyst wrote:
| This is wild. Researchers are simply pointing out how bad the
| security system is for the City of Columbus, OH.
|
| > On Aug. 13, Mayor Andrew Ginther said the data stolen by
| hackers was either corrupted or encrypted, meaning it was likely
| useless. Hours later, Goodwolf told 10TV that wasn't true and he
| showed what kind of personal information he was able to access.
|
| lol - the entire city leadership needs to be recalled. They get
| caught with their pants down (no security), lie to the public
| ("it's encrypted bro!1! trust me I'm a politician!!), lies get
| rightfully called out, and their response is to pour gas on the
| fire with this silly lawsuit funded by the local tax payers.
| foundart wrote:
| This seems like a better write up.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/08/city-of-columbus-su...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-30 23:00 UTC)