News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program. Parent comment

Re:I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their do... by mindslight on Tuesday April 14, 2026 @02:38PM (#47769507)
Isn't this just the routine fascist playbook at this point? Start by declaring that the law doesn't even apply to them, on whatever flimsiest of bases.

Personally I would really like to see torts for attorneys who willfully promulgate blatantly incorrect legal interpretations - they're effectively providing incorrect legal advice. A non-attorney is likely to believe such advice coming from a member of the Bar, and the net goal is to discourage the target from seeking further legal advice.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their do... by SoftTalker on Tuesday April 14, 2026 @02:53PM (#47769749)
An attorney whom you have not engaged in counsel is not providing legal advice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their do... by mindslight on Tuesday April 14, 2026 @04:39PM (#47771190)
I'm well aware of how it's currently legally defined - hence "effectively". My comment is in the context of what ought, not what is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their do... by efreak on Wednesday April 15, 2026 @12:05PM (#47781076)
An expert in any subject matter should not be allowed to provide misleading statements, regardless of whether they're speaking in an official/paid capacity. It doesn't matter if it's considered legal advice or not, the fact that you've got a license and know better should be enough.
[ Parent | on HN ]