DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by deaux » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #95

deaux wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Can be spun" is doing a lot of work in your argument. In fact, corporate officers are routinely sued (or even criminally prosecuted) for failing to advance specifically the company's interests. Trying to "spin" general moral good as a net positive for the company when it negatively impacts share price typically does not sway a jury. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo...

We're now entering complete FUD territory. Firstly your link is aimed at the UK. This thread started about Google and talked about the US. But hey, let's imagine it's focused on the US.

Let me quote what you were claiming:

> the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

Yet now you're saying yourself:

> failing to advance specifically the company's interests

You silently swapped the "stockholder's" interests - which is what this thread, and the oft mentioned "fiduciary duty", are about - for the "company's" interests. In this legal context, these are two very different things.

And then if you actually read the duties they list (i.e. the ones to the company, not the shareholders) and the breaches they talk about, it's stuff like self-dealing, conflicted transactions, usurping corporate opportunities, securities law violation. This has nothing to do with making business decisions in order to prioritize short-term shareholder value.

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

#102

Post by deaux » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #93

mmooss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> What is that based on? It's based on the (US) law. Corporate officers failing to advance the interests of the company can be prosecuted civilly or criminally. There is no analogous legal obligation to act morally or in the interest of the general public. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo...

This is absolutely not true. Your link is focused on the UK, the "interests of the company" are independent of "the interests of shareholders", and the duties/breaches listed there revolve around betraying the company (not shareholders) for individual gain. Insider trading, embezzlement, leaking, conflicts of interests. Nothing at all like "making a decision that prioritizes morals over short-term profits".

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

#103

Post by deaux » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

nativeit wrote: post #70

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…

How are unsustainable decisions and practices working in the best interests of the shareholders?

They aren't, and as such, deciding to forego short-term profit by making sustainable decisions and practices is of course not illegal whatsoever, nor does any company ever get sued for it.

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

#104

Post by deaux » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #97

mmooss wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. But you are kidding yourself if you think Apple is willing to sacrifice billions of dollars for a "moral good". I'm not saying (publicly traded) companies never act morally. I am saying that given a choice, they will always choose profits over morality. > No…

> Not a theory. It's literally the law.

It is not, which is why you've failed to show that law, or indeed any cases in the last 50 years of companies having been successfully sued for such a thing.

It's honestly so obvious that this couldn't be the law that I can't assume good faith here. It's completely untenable as a principle, it wouldn't be possible to run a business if it were the law. Imagine what that law would look like. Would it be short term profit maximization? Would it be long term? What would that term be?

You're literally saying that there's a law that would ask judges to decide whether business decision X maximizes Y-term profit. A child could see how that would be impossible. It's asking for a fortune teller on a subject that is inherently very volatile. The whole point of running a business is believing that you can make decisions that you think are right to succeed. If this were real, you'd genuinely see companies running from the US because it'd be untenable to run a business there.

This is the worst case of FUD I've seen on HN bar none, because it's one person being so persistent about a complete myth.

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

#105

Post by SR2Z » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #67

SR2Z wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

> 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…

No, it does not mean money. A fiduciary duty is a duty to manage money in someone else's best interests.

It's confusing because "fiduciary" sounds like you have to optimize for the mercenary interests of shareholders, but that is not true. Not every corporation is founded to turn a profit; what do you think the fiduciary duty looks like for a nonprofit?

The general obligation for the company to behave morally comes from two places: specific laws and the fact that its employees want to sleep at night. These are more powerful than a lot of people want to give credit for.

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

#106

Post by DrHungers » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Note that the DHS budget ($100bn) is sufficient to provide healthcare to every uninsured child, and about half (EDIT: a third) of what it would cost to provide universal healthcare to every American under 18 at the CMS average rate. At the end of the day this sort of wastefulness eventually attracts attention.

I hope it attracts attention. Everything bad that rational people predicted about the DHS when it was created has come true, but people seem to have become comfortable with their civil liberties taken away.

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

#107

Post by 8note » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #54

xocnad wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you are not even addressing how easily a model could hide all kinds of special treatment - either way - at the whim of its creators, be they the government or some outside "trusted" party

Judges can hide all sorts of special treatment too. At least with a model as opposed to a soul we can study it and improve it.

what the judge sees is all public record, and can be appealed up the chain, and ultimately overridden by a pardon.

for a model, we would need all the training data, training method, fine tuning, etc to all be public record, along with all of the operations at inference time.

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

#108

Post by spl757 » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 10:03 PM UTC

The government isn't big brother, they just let mega corps do all of the spying via "ads" and then just buy your data from a data broker to whom you let have all of your personal information for game on your phone that gives you a little dopamine hit.

We somehow let corporations just take the data that we all create every day and then sell it and make billions in profit.

I want that to change. I want to own any and all data I create interacting with anything anywhere, to be copyright by me, in an enforcable way. I should get paid for the data I generate. The problem is that as long as we, collectively, allow ads that spy on us in exchange for really nothing other than amusement and that pursuit of the next dopamine hit we get. I can't enforce agency and ownership of the data I create unless we, collecively, change the rules. We have the power to do that by voting for the candidates that speaks to the issues you care about. We also need to tell politicians what we want, because if we do not, nothing will change. I think the data we create should be automatically copyright of the person generating it, so I can make money from my data if I choose, or not to, if I don't.

Don't you want to own and make money from the data you create every single day?

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

#109

Post by mmooss » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 10:50 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #93

mmooss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> What is that based on? It's based on the (US) law. Corporate officers failing to advance the interests of the company can be prosecuted civilly or criminally. There is no analogous legal obligation to act morally or in the interest of the general public. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo...

Required amorality is a widely told story (by the amoral), but it's disinformation.

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

#110

Post by mmooss » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 10:53 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #97

mmooss wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. But you are kidding yourself if you think Apple is willing to sacrifice billions of dollars for a "moral good". I'm not saying (publicly traded) companies never act morally. I am saying that given a choice, they will always choose profits over morality. > No…

> It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products.

As I said in the GP, Apple's engineering investment in privacy is far beyond what customers understand and what helps sales. Lots of companies simply add the word 'privacy' to their marketing and do nothing about it that has an impact ('we use 256-bit encryption to protect your data!' seems popular on websites).

> And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much.

Which studies?