3 ms·
Saying a public person's email address is private information that could lead to physical harm is quite a stretch. If the NYP had redacted the email addresses t
by barbacoa 6y ago
Saying a public person's email address is private information that could lead to physical harm is quite a stretch. If the NYP had redacted the email addresses they would have named a different excuse.
- bmarquez 6y agoI've seen commenters on HN that claim that the emails are suspect because they don't include DKIM signatures. Redacting the email would make it even more suspicious in their eyes.
- joe_the_user 6y agoSure, Maybe Twitter would have found other reasons to block the story if it didn't violate an explicit policy literally, for example it being fake news. Calling something fake news takes more investigation and judgement so the reason they gave was simplest. It's like, boy, they sure have it in for a sleazy and deceptive hit-piece meant to influence an election at the last moment. Unfair!
- boomboomsubban 6y agoI'm not saying that, it is a list of three. And on the guideline for "private information," non-public emails are explicitly mentioned.
- barbacoa 6y agoIf it has been published in a major newspaper is it still non-public?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoYes, it is compromised private information.