3 ms·

I don't think that is the case, and I didn't care that the parent poster did so. The guidelines are succinct, you can confirm this https://news.ycombinator.com/

I don't think that is the case, and I didn't care that the parent poster did so. The guidelines are succinct, you can confirm this https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think the harm from doing that, however, is you can make a mistaken conclusion on limited information and personalize something. Doing so can make you run afoul of Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. or Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. So in good faith reply, nullc, I think I am reacting appropriately to the situation and even though you could describe these in ways that seem similar in common language, they scenarios are very different.

nullc 2y ago
I agree they're different but I think you have the sense reversed: In the case you complained about the private information is still just being shared within government agencies and is still protected by felony penalties for further wrongful disclosure. So for example, if a DOGE employee gives you that tax info they're committing a felony and if you further publish it you're also committing a felony (though perhaps if you're using it to advance the administration's agenda you won't be prosecuted-- but at least you could be). Obviously any expansion of access is a risk. But the risk of creating a database in the first place is I think qualitatively different and worse. In the case of the beneficial ownership data, it's a new massive collection of information which right out the gate is permitted to be shared outside of the federal government-- both with state entities and businesses. And wrongful use is not a felony, further redistribution is not a felony-- so I think we should be pretty dubious about what limitations exist when they don't have teeth. I hope that explains my perspective better and why I thought the contrast was relevant. (As far as the history check-- I think I only bothered looking because your account name was 'throwaway', and I think it's useful to know if I'm responding to an earnest participant vs a troll. My apologies for the dismissive presentation of my position: I do think it's useful to contrast the policies on these two issues).

nullc 2y ago

I agree they're different but I think you have the sense reversed: In the case you complained about the private information is still just being shared within government agencies and is still protected by felony penalties for further wrongful disclosure. So for example, if a DOGE employee gives you that tax info they're committing a felony and if you further publish it you're also committing a felony (though perhaps if you're using it to advance the administration's agenda you won't be prosecuted-- but at least you could be). Obviously any expansion of access is a risk. But the risk of creating a database in the first place is I think qualitatively different and worse. In the case of the beneficial ownership data, it's a new massive collection of information which right out the gate is permitted to be shared outside of the federal government-- both with state entities and businesses. And wrongful use is not a felony, further redistribution is not a felony-- so I think we should be pretty dubious about what limitations exist when they don't have teeth. I hope that explains my perspective better and why I thought the contrast was relevant. (As far as the history check-- I think I only bothered looking because your account name was 'throwaway', and I think it's useful to know if I'm responding to an earnest participant vs a troll. My apologies for the dismissive presentation of my position: I do think it's useful to contrast the policies on these two issues).