DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

Post by smalltorch » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 11:17 AM UTC

sph wrote: post #90

smalltorch wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the exact same thing and that's what I would do too(I didn't). This is from the official openpgp repository and you end up asking your self these things. PGP is set up in a way where this wouldn't be that hard either. You could easily encrypt every message with a master key so that every PGP message sent would be decryptable. That's how group messaging works, everyone encrypts the same message with everyone…

If you want to do encryption the proper way on modern browser, look into https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Crypto_...

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 11:35 AM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #69

hackyhacky wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choo…

> there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both. The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less.

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 11:40 AM UTC

deaux wrote: post #77

hackyhacky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

No , you're spreading misinformation [0]. The company's board does not have a legal obligation to "act in the interest of stockholders regardless of moral impact" in any meaningful manner. Anything, including "positive moral impact", can be spun as being in the interest of shareholders. What you're implying is a legal duty towards short-term profit maximization. Absolutely nothing of the sort exists. [0] https://news…

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 11:48 AM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #68

hackyhacky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

> Not sure what this means That's quite a statement. > I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty" No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand. > the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act…

Post by FireBeyond » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

edot wrote: post #7

lovich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also requires a judge who is willing to interpret the rule the way you want. Law doesn’t execute deterministically like code does.

No that’s the whole point of this article. In this case, the private companies being summonsed are acting as both judges and data holders being summonsed. This doesn’t go to a judge to approve. So in this case, the point they’re making is most private companies just roll over at the sight of a summons, so the law absolutely executes deterministically (ok, not truly deterministic, but you’re relying on the judgement o…