• conciselyverbose
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    "Only individuals willing to navigate and interact with the criminal element on the dark web, who also have the computer expertise and tools necessary to download data from the dark web, would be able to do so,” city attorneys wrote. “The dark web-posted data is not readily available for public consumption. Defendant is making it so.”

    Fuck off

    The same day, a Franklin County judge granted the city’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Ross. It bars the researcher “from accessing, and/or downloading, and/or disseminating” any city files that were posted to the dark web. The motion was made and granted “ex parte,” meaning in secret before Ross was informed of it or had an opportunity to present his case.

    Fuck off

    In a press conference Thursday, Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein defended his decision to sue Ross and obtain the restraining order. “This is not about freedom of speech or whistleblowing,” he said. “This is about the downloading and disclosure of stolen criminal investigatory records. This effect is to get [Ross] to stop downloading and disclosing stolen criminal records to protect public safety.”

    Fuck off

    If you had disclosed that data was exposed, maybe you could argue about what he was doing with the data. Maybe. But you told the public that the data was harmless, and that the information he downloaded was worthless junk, meaning that your position was that he couldn’t do harm by downloading the files. And as far as we know, the only harm he’s done is proving you’re incompetent or a liar.

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have seen a recent trend of legal claims that if data is in the open on the dark web that it isn’t actually “readily available for public consumption.” I hope that eventually gets shut down by a reasonable verdict, but it almost feels like an effort to make using TOR or other privacy tools illegal, not by passing a law but using court rulings to say the only reason to have those is to engage in criminal activities.