It should be noted that Thomson Reuters would stand to gain from having more of this information published, because it would increase the value of their own products.

As it would for Bloomberg, LexisNexis, and similar companies. It would also increase the value of innumerable public and academic libraries.

ROI for bribery/lobbying is up to 22,000%.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forg...

super hard to read on mobile. who thought those annoying half-screen overlays were a grand idea? the nav bar also doesnt autohide well and causes scrolling issues.

I usually try to open it in reader mode in the firefox mobile app, that tends to cut to the meat in articles like this. As a bonus it also creates an instant dark mode.

I was just thinking that it looks great on desktop.

Given Wikileaks and such, the protection from the courts can only last so long. Eventually, someone is going to cough up a memory card, or photos on their mobile device.

I think the law should allow harmful secret keeping. But I trust honest people and technology can resolve that; probably doing more damage than the legal route.

"I think the law should allow harmful secret keeping." Even if those secrets allow for a company to continue to sell products that they know are harmful to human health? The argument against trusting honest people and technology is that historically they have not delivered. See the recent Boeing crashes as an example or the long history of Dupont. By allowing harmful secret keeping, thousands of people are sickened and die every year. Even if eventually a good person steps forward and exposes the issue, the dead don't come back to life and those already sickened have to deal with it for the remainder of their shortened life. If a company has internal evidence that their products are harmful to human health and they continue to sell them then in my opinion all that knew about the secret but said nothing should be criminally prosecuted.

> I trust honest people

How can we know any given person is honest? We can only see their public reputations, not the things they do behind closed doors. The more power they have, the harder it becomes to remain honest. Any system that depends on the honesty of the humans involved is doomed to corruption from day one.

Especially when that person's salary / bonus is tied to the suppression of negative information.

Well, not being troll-y, that would, by definition compromise their honesty. That is, if they are that biased by that influence then they should not be considered honest.

Actions speak louder than words, and all that stuff.