3 ms·
I mean, if the city keeps saying, "no, there wasn't any data released", then maybe backs up and says "there wasn't any sensitive data released", and keeps backi
by nick238 2y ago
I mean, if the city keeps saying, "no, there wasn't any data released", then maybe backs up and says "there wasn't any sensitive data released", and keeps backing up, at some point you need to cut to the chase and be like, "OK, here's the most salacious shit possible. Explain that."
I don't know how to do that responsibly (just share it with a reputable reporter?), but I definitely get the feeling if you're constantly subjected to bad faith.
- sillysaurusx 2y agoOh, I agree. But let the reporters do that. It’s their job. Just point them towards the data and they’ll do the rest. If someone’s butt is going to be on the line, it should be a corporation’s (the news agency), or perhaps an individual investigative journalist. Not you. Not for something like this, anyway. If it was just social security numbers I might agree with you, but police databases are obviously dangerous to disseminate, even if it’s just to prove they exist. He could’ve sent redacted screenshots. Point being, we don’t know what he sent, but sending anything at all from a police database is a bad idea. No lawyer would ever say that that’s legal, let alone ethical.
- rolph 2y agoi think i get it. you are in danger but you dont need to know that, its not your job to protect yourself, thats our job.