> ... the core issue is that the website didn't properly protect its data.
It seems that the bigger issue is that the activist was arrested by the police on supposedly only IP address evidence presented by the company/society.
Somehow the IP had to be linked to the person, probably a warrant should be needed for that too.
That's not a bigger issue because the police simply had a warrant for the person who shared the documents. The first sentence of the article is:
> A man who viewed documents online for a controversial London property development and *shared them on social media* was raided by police after developers claimed there had been a break-in to their systems.
"...Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses: "Now, how that ended up with me being in the frame, I don't know. There's part of this that doesn't add up..."
..."
They didn't even have that much evidence, google didn't participate in finding the defendant. He shared these docs on social media and was found that way.
It seems that the bigger issue is that the activist was arrested by the police on supposedly only IP address evidence presented by the company/society.
Somehow the IP had to be linked to the person, probably a warrant should be needed for that too.