3 ms·

Agreed - the headline is misleading. The article states that it would actually be illegal for GitHub to release the data.

• zimpenfish 5y ago
  > The article states that it would actually be illegal I might be misreading but doesn't it state a much less strong position of "GitHub and California courts are sticking by tech companies’ traditional hardline interpretation of an arcane 1986 privacy law" - they believe it to be illegal but it may not necessarily be the case because, as they continue, "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself".
  • alisonkisk 5y ago
    It's impossible for GitHub to infringe on the defendant's rights. The court is infringing on their rights by convicting of a crime when there is a reasonable doubt.
  • Closi 5y ago
    Calling the law "Arcane" doesn't change the fact it's federal law (Arcane is hyperbole anyway). You don't get to not follow laws just because they are a little old. Also you can call it a "hardline interpretation", but that probably means it's following the text. Companies are supposed to take a "traditional" interpretation anyway legally, although typically this is referred to as "precedent"! If we remove the words "Hardline", "Interpretation", "Traditional" and "Arcane" which are all hyperbole, the statement actually would read "GitHub and California courts are sticking by a 1986 privacy law" - which of course they would, they are legally required to. > "Arguably, GitHub’s interpretation of the SCA infringes on a defendant’s rights as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court itself". This is just saying that arguably by not breaking one law, they were possibly breaking another law - and in this case the courts need to move.