News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by Pyramus on Thursday February 18, 2021 @11:47AM (#26182126)
The information is already public - why distribute it widely when there are potential negative consequences for the named in doing so?

Are you the judge to rule whether the individual has lost his right of privacy?

Yet you comment here under a pseudonym. What if you made a mistake, would you want to be named?

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by CPLX on Thursday February 18, 2021 @12:09PM (#26182469)
> Are you the judge to rule whether the individual has lost his right of privacy?

I mean, there is an actual judge. This is a major legal case, and they've placed the info in the public record. The judge has in fact made a ruling.

I'm not saying it's always a perfect system, but it's definitely a very well established system in the U.S. that all court proceedings are very public. It's one of the core founding principles of the judicial branch, and it's also been a staple of American journalism for hundreds of years.

I personally think the European approach is much better on this specific issue, and that right to be forgotten laws and similar are justified.

But the reason I mentioned it in this context is that the idea that journalists naming people who are clearly notable in the context of reporting news only seems to generate a critical response when it's someone that the average HN reader identifies with.

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by sillysaurusx on Thursday February 18, 2021 @01:09PM (#26183308)
(Your last sentence is a fine point, but they aren't pseudonymous. Their bio contains personally identifiable information.)