(02-17-2022, 04:57 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote:(02-16-2022, 06:35 PM)LynnInDenver Wrote: BA, my understanding is the the reporter actually sat on the information until the website was actually fixed, and then released the story.
Apologies. I didn't see that in the article, and if it was mentioned, it was a short enough blurb that I missed it in a casual reading.
No worries... this does bring up the other problem... the "let's instigate a knee jerk reaction among my supporters" in terms of the demand that the reporter face charges that aren't really what they did. "Publicly accessible in the HTML of the page" requires a disproportionate stretching of the definition of "hacking", while also casting allusions as to the ethics of the reporter. It will probably provide at least some of the intended effect; some reporters will decide not to pursue future stories of this type because they don't want the public headaches.
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor