[TT-392]

If it was just in the html the website served to you, and it just basically has it written in a way that tells the browser to not display that part of the html. Wouldn't that be closer to handing a journalist a government document with some text, then a line saying: "don't read the stuff below this line", and then a bunch of sensitive stuff below that in plain text?

[Buttons840]

All analogies are flawed. My main point was that, in terms of the Governor's own analogy, and also literally, the reporter didn't "take" anything.

All analogies aside, intent matters, and the reporters intent was to report a vulnerability and then to report the Government's actions to the public once the vulnerability was fixed. Neither of which are illegal.

[bart_spoon]

No, because there is a difference between “being displayed by default” and “explicitly forbidden from being viewed”. It’s closer to requesting information, and in response being handed a bunch of material, some of which is in a stack of papers and some of which is enclosed in an unsealed, unmarked envelope. It isn’t displayed by default, but it’s there, and with the most minimal of effort it’s viewable, there is nothing explaining it shouldn’t be viewed, and it’s not absurd to assume that if it was included in the bundle of information you received in response to a question, it’s fine to view.

The onus is on the person providing the information to not include it in what they provide, not the viewer to not look at information provided.