3 ms·
As far as I'm concerned, that's not the distressing part. Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone invo
by onemorepassword 14y ago
As far as I'm concerned, that's not the distressing part.
Once the authorities concluded a crime was being committed by organisation X, they found someone involved with that organisation and forced them to stop.
They clearly correctly identified that person as a) being a member, and b) having the means to delete the article.
That's not a new precedent, that's perfectly normal. The only real issue is the ridiculous attempt to make the information "disappear" in the first place.
- PeterisP 14y agoIf a crime was involved, it could be understandable - but what crime is there? This is public, non-secret information hosted outside of France by a non-French organization. If a Boeing sysadming goes to France on vacation, can they ask him to delete stuff out of Boeing servers?