The author recounts their experience in an Illinois court fighting for access to public records pertaining to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request portal. They discovered and reported a SQL injection vulnerability in the portal, which the state acknowledged but failed to fix promptly. After repeated denials of their FOIA requests related to the vulnerability's remediation, they sued. The judge ultimately ruled in their favor, compelling the state to fulfill the request and highlighting the absurdity of the situation: having to sue to get information about how the government plans to fix a security flaw in a system designed for accessing information. The author concludes by advocating for stronger Illinois FOIA laws to prevent similar situations in the future.
A satirical piece in The Atlantic imagines a dystopian future where Dogecoin, due to a series of improbable events, becomes the backbone of government infrastructure. This leads to the meme cryptocurrency inadvertently gaining access to vast amounts of sensitive government data, a situation dubbed "god mode." The article highlights the absurdity of such a scenario while satirizing the volatile nature of cryptocurrency, government bureaucracy, and the potential consequences of unforeseen technological dependencies.
HN users express skepticism and amusement at the Atlantic article's premise. Several commenters highlight the satirical nature of the piece, pointing out clues like the "Doge" angle and the outlandish claims. Others question the journalistic integrity of publishing such a clearly fictional story, even if intended as satire, without clearer labeling. Some found the satire weak or confusing, while a few appreciate the absurdity and humor. A recurring theme is the blurring lines between reality and satire in the current media landscape, with some worrying about the potential for misinterpretation.
NOAA's publicly available weather data, collected from satellites, radars, weather balloons, and buoys, forms the backbone of nearly all weather forecasts you see. Private companies enhance and tailor this free data for specific audiences, creating the apps and broadcasts we consume. However, the sheer scale and expense of gathering this raw data makes it impossible for private entities to replicate, highlighting the vital role NOAA plays in providing this essential public service. This free and open data policy fosters innovation and competition within the private sector, ultimately benefiting consumers with a wider range of weather information options.
Hacker News users discussed the importance of NOAA's publicly funded weather data and its role in supporting private weather forecasting companies. Several commenters highlighted the inherent difficulty and expense of collecting this data, emphasizing that no private company could realistically replicate NOAA's infrastructure. Some pointed out the irony of private companies profiting from this freely available resource, with suggestions that they should contribute more back to NOAA. Others discussed the limitations of private weather apps and the superior accuracy often found in NOAA's own forecasts. The potential negative impacts of proposed NOAA budget cuts were also raised. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes highlighting the value of NOAA's weather information, particularly for severe weather events.
Archivists are racing against time to preserve valuable government data vanishing from data.gov. A recent study revealed thousands of datasets have disappeared, with many agencies failing to properly maintain or update their entries. Independent archivists are now working to identify and archive these datasets before they're lost forever, utilizing tools like the Wayback Machine and creating independent repositories. This loss of data hinders transparency, research, and public accountability, emphasizing the critical need for better data management practices by government agencies.
HN commenters express concern about the disappearing datasets from data.gov, echoing the article's worries about government transparency and data preservation. Several highlight the importance of this data for research, accountability, and historical record. Some discuss the technical challenges involved in archiving this data, including dealing with varying formats, metadata issues, and the sheer volume of information. Others suggest potential solutions, such as decentralized archiving efforts and stronger legal mandates for data preservation. A few cynical comments point to potential intentional data deletion to obscure unfavorable information, while others lament the lack of consistent funding and resources allocated to these efforts. The recurring theme is the critical need for proactive measures to safeguard valuable public data from being lost.
Summary of Comments ( 370 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43175628
HN commenters generally praise the author's persistence and ingenuity in using SQL injection to expose flaws in the Illinois FOIA request system. Some express concern about the legality and ethics of his actions, even if unintentional. Several commenters with legal backgrounds offer perspectives on the potential ramifications, pointing out the complexities of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the potential for prosecution despite claimed good intentions. A few question the author's technical competence, suggesting alternative methods he could have used to achieve the same results without resorting to SQL injection. Others discuss the larger implications for government transparency and the need for robust security practices in public-facing systems. The most compelling comments revolve around the balance between responsible disclosure and the legal risks associated with security research, highlighting the gray area the author occupies.
The Hacker News post "I Went to SQL Injection Court" (regarding the blog post about FOIA issues in Illinois) has several comments discussing various aspects of the situation.
Many commenters focus on the absurdity of the legal arguments and the judge's apparent lack of technical understanding. One commenter highlights the judge's confusion between SQL injection and simply using SQL, pointing out that using SQL isn't inherently malicious. This commenter expresses frustration with the legal system's inability to grasp basic technical concepts, leading to flawed judgments. Another commenter sarcastically suggests that using a web browser constitutes "browser injection" because it involves sending commands to a server, mirroring the faulty logic applied to SQL injection.
Several comments discuss the implications of this case for security research and vulnerability disclosure. Commenters express concern that this ruling could discourage security researchers from reporting vulnerabilities, fearing legal repercussions for simply demonstrating how an exploit works. They argue that this chilling effect could have detrimental consequences for online security. One commenter draws a parallel to medical research, arguing that prosecuting someone for demonstrating a vulnerability is akin to prosecuting a medical researcher for demonstrating how a virus spreads.
Another commenter expresses concern over the reliance on "intent" in determining the legality of security testing. They argue that focusing on intent is subjective and difficult to prove, making it a poor basis for legal decisions in technical matters. This commenter suggests that a more objective standard based on the actual actions taken would be preferable.
Some comments delve into the specifics of Illinois law and the legal arguments presented. One commenter notes the apparent contradiction between the court's ruling and the Illinois Compiled Statutes, suggesting a misinterpretation of the law. Another points out the apparent lack of evidence presented by the prosecution, focusing solely on the method used rather than any demonstrable harm caused.
A few commenters offer practical advice and alternative perspectives. One commenter suggests that using a proxy server could potentially circumvent the legal issues raised in the case. Another commenter offers a more cynical view, suggesting that the prosecution may be motivated more by politics and personal vendettas than a genuine concern for cybersecurity.
Finally, some commenters express broader concerns about the increasing criminalization of security research and the potential for chilling effects on legitimate activities. They advocate for clearer legal frameworks and better education within the legal system about technical matters to prevent similar situations in the future.