You can just read the posts before trying to rebut the plaintiff in the case. The City of Chicago argued a bunch of stuff, but what matters is what the judges decided. Chicago's "no matter how insignificant" argument failed in Chancery Court and wasn't revived either in Appeals Court or at the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, we lost because the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the statute such that "file layouts" were per se exempt, regardless of how dangerous they were(n't), and then decided SQL schemas were "file layouts".
(SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts, but whatever).
> SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts
Which is you disagreeing with what a judge has decided?
It seems hypocritical to shut-down someone arguing with one aspect of the case on that basis, only to end with your own disagreement with a judge's decision.
No, I think you're mistaken. That the case didn't turn on how marginal a security risk was isn't a matter of opinion. That a SQL schema isn't a file layout is (though: there's clearly a right answer to that: mine).
Ultimately, we lost because the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the statute such that "file layouts" were per se exempt, regardless of how dangerous they were(n't), and then decided SQL schemas were "file layouts".
(SQL schemas are basically the opposite of file layouts, but whatever).