[nimbius]

So it seems Parsons administration decided this is the hill to die on in 2021.

he had every opportunity to pump the brakes on this investigation but decided doubling down on a journalist had a better payoff, and a more prominent ability to cast him as a white knight protecting the state of Missouri against fiendish hackers.

the 'view source' prosecution strategy is certainly something id hope to keep out of the spotlight as long as possible as its chum in the water for technologists and privacy groups. the EFF could easily eviscerate it in court, as could the FSF and god help you if a cyber security firm takes interest. although most computer privacy laws in the US are written with a fire hose to catch anything remotely pertaining to an integrated circuit, these laws all generally restrict themselves to the domain of interstate commerce, healthcare, and energy.

Parsons fight is against an established journalist using an established and well respected process to report an information security exploit...so its really tough to see if or how a competent prosecution hopes to land any charges outside the governors "Lol do it anyway" edict which, fwiw, feels eerily similar to the malarkey Aaron Schwartz was put through.

[evan_]

> a more prominent ability to cast him as a white knight protecting the state of Missouri against fiendish hackers.

The goal isn't to appear as a white knight protecting the state from hackers, it's to mount a crusade against big-city journalists.

[ta3927590]

Malarkey may be the intent. Knowing the case is nonsense and having no expectation of winning, you press on because even if eventually found not-guilty, the process of the defendant getting there if prosecuted can be used to destroy their career, reputation, finances, etc. Enough that it still feels like a win to the state, who rarely has much to lose in a relative sense.