Tech giants must protect reporter-source privacy in leak cases. (freedom.press)
from Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world on 21 Mar 01:45
https://programming.dev/post/27278222

#technology

threaded - newest

sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org on 21 Mar 02:01 next collapse

Meanwhile, in tech giants’ boardrooms across the country:

<img alt="" src="https://media.tenor.com/OVDH7JOSnikAAAAd/serious-laugh-harder.gif">

Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world on 21 Mar 02:12 next collapse

Unless it’s a leak within Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, or X of course.

America demands retribution.

dohpaz42@lemmy.world on 21 Mar 02:34 next collapse

I shouldn’t be surprised there is an act allowing Big Brother to surreptitiously request data on reporters. Dubs and Dick really stuck it to us over with the Patriot Act and everything that followed.

I don’t see why this doesn’t constitute a constitutional crisis. This is exactly why there is a first amendment.

iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org on 21 Mar 02:48 collapse

Yeah… we’ve been well past the point of constitutional crises that never get addressed or even an eye batted toward them for decades lol.

Press freedom has been fucked for so long.

One of the few things I agree with Thomas Jefferson concerning the actual functioning of the US government is that the Constitution should be revisited and updated more often. It would definitely encourage greater awareness of the document and keep many from both (1) having it used as a dogmatic/pseudoreligious excuse to fit into whatever narrative the oligarchs hope to push and (2) failing to enshrine fundamental liberties in a national codex.

As it is, we’re way too far gone for that shit and I think a complete restructuring is in order, which I don’t think will happen in our current union. Gonna take some major change and pain to get there.

Ulrich@feddit.org on 21 Mar 04:20 collapse

the Constitution should be revisited and updated more often

Trump would love that…

iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org on 21 Mar 14:02 collapse

That’s why I’m saying we’re way too far gone for that lol I agree. It’s predicated on democratic systems working and those have been broken for a while.

Edit: We’ve been fucked since Marbury v. Madison and the electoral college, but the idea of a less dogmatic approach to the constitution from the get go has its upsides. Way too late for that and I’m thinking in terms of future societies building off of what might have been done better.

demesisx@infosec.pub on 21 Mar 14:29 collapse

I’d argue that FPTP is the real barrier. It makes it a FACT that we can only have two parties.

<img alt="" src="https://infosec.pub/pictrs/image/ffce9b0d-56f0-41b6-aac5-baf8596f2518.jpeg">

iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org on 21 Mar 18:54 collapse

Absolutely true. I wasn’t even thinking about voting systems with my comments but definitely a significant barrier.

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world on 21 Mar 03:21 next collapse

“Must” in a headline means “won’t.”

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 21 Mar 03:29 collapse

“Must”

hello, police? I need to report a misuse of RFC 2119

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works on 21 Mar 14:58 collapse

Since nobody looks things up anymore:

RFC 2119:

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels

  1. MUST This word, or the terms “REQUIRED” or “SHALL”, mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.