related discussion from yesterday >> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362079" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362079</a>
On the home page of Florida Today, there are right now 9 different articles defending or supporting Rebekah Jones, some of them linked multiple times, for a total of 12 links on the home page with the following headlines;<p><pre><code> Rebekah Jones pushes back after dashcam released
Exclusive interview with Rebekah Jones
Evidence 'weak' for warrant on Rebekah Jones home
Jones reacts to release of FDLE raid footage
FDLE releases bodycam video of Rebekah Jones raid
Fired FDOH scientist denies wrongdoing
Rebekah Jones described equipment seized
Fired FDOH scientist: ‘I spoke out of necessity'
Rebekah Jones talks whistleblower complaint</code></pre>
How can the state claim the access was unauthorized when it shared password between users and also published it on a document on its website? The former may be irresponsible but is commonly excused but the latter?
Everyone knows the evidence and information supporting the raid was nonsense. She refused to bend the knee to a conservative administration while people were dying, and the political machine decided to lash out.
This is complete BS.<p>The complaint alleges that 1750 messages were posted on an communications system urging employees to blow whistles.<p>Those messages were linked to an IP address which Comcast pointed at Jones’ home.<p>Is that enough for a conviction? No, it’s not hard to establish reasonable doubt with that.<p>But that’s damn well enough for a search warrant to sieze electronics from somebody’s home. Being fired for insubordination, she had motivation, the terrible security practices gave her opportunity, and IP logs are a clear piece of evidence that it could be her.<p>That’s a pretty solid ground for granting a search warrant.<p>Hanging up on officers and denying them entry for twenty minutes is a good way to make them nervous about your intentions as well.<p>IPs can be spoofed? Sorry it would take a hell of a lot of sophistication for that to be what happened or outright evidence falsification on the prosecution. Is it more likely that a somewhat troubled woman logged in to work computers to try to stir up trouble or that a sophisticated act of framing occurred?
This is a pretty bad article.<p>Their expert isn't: "Butler, at the University of Florida, said making an IP address that appears to come from elsewhere isn't that complicated."<p>And the legal analysis is weak, but that's apparent from the title: "Experts: evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy"<p>Yes, search warrants are to search for evidence. If the evidence wasn't flimsy they'd have had an arrest warrant.<p>It offers as a defense that there were no damages.<p>"What (Jones) did, didn't cause any damage," she continued. "Normally you don't see prosecutors prosecuting for computer crimes something that didn't cause any harm... it seems to be a very sketchy use of discretion to try to use this very serious statute against somebody who didn't cause any harm to your systems."<p>But it neglects to recognize that the damaging act is the message, and whatever actions or defamation it may cause, not the stolen CPU time.<p>It quotes the EFF to say that an IP alone isn't good evidence, "It's a thin read to just use the IP address, and it's one that we really, really discourage," said Cindy Cohn, the EFF's executive director. But it misses that they had an IP <i>and</i> it coincided with a small set of people who had access and motive.<p>They note that the police had an IP, but no linkage of IP/customer/date. This does allow challenging the warrant, but doesn't make it instantly null and void.<p>It says "Cybersecurity and digital rights experts also said the fact that the emergency system in question relied on a shared user name and password further complicates the case."<p>No, it doesn't. Fired people are not authorized users. And they have an IP address which points to a specific one of those users, so that's not complicated.<p>It then attempts to conflate misuse of data with unauthorized access of the system at all by claiming that this case is similar to Van Buren v. United States which is about a police officer using his authorized access to do something which was forbidden.<p>I have no opinion about the case but this article is trying to give me one. Not facts, it just wants to skip straight to opinions.