Hacker News Reader

Comment by torstenvl | Hacker News Reader

If you're going to make an inflammatory claim like that, you should articulate your basis. What ethics rule are you claiming was violated?

View on HN

The prosecutors embedded a tracking image in an email that they sent to journalists and the defense. It's not just for tracking to see if the recipients have opened the email, but it could help them identify who the email is forwarded to.

In this case, the journalists have confidential sources, they may forward that email to them, which would leak the source's IP, which could reveal the identity of the source.

A free and strong press is how we keep powerful institutions in check. It is not an inflammatory statement to say that a reprisal by a government institution that has been accused of doing something unethical is unethical. It's just common sense.

I understand why you don't like it. I asked why you think it's an ethical violation.

In case you decide to answer that question eventually, the model ethics rules are here: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

I would really be interested in knowing which one you're alleging was violated.

For the layperson, ethics is generally something we know when we see it. That's not in bad faith.

IANAL, but clause (a) looks potentially applicable.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

> or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person

I don't expect to see this prosecutor disbarred, but one can still call out the unethical behavior.

Okay, but that raises the question: what legal right do you think is being violated?

I am not aware of a legal right not to receive e-mail with remote-loading images.

They did answer the question, and did so in good faith. This comment however is fairly confusing. There's a reason that our government institutions can't perform espionage on anyone they feel like without at least passing through some check(warrant). The same seems valid here, people have a fundamental right to privacy, and this seems aimed at violating that right, not only of the first recipient, but of another person as well. Given that this is being done without some sort of additional check, or through channels that our branches of government have approved, that certainly doesn't seem ethical to me.

Simply not liking someone's argument doesn't mean they didn't answer your question or are arguing in bad faith. To automatically assume that would imply that you are the one arguing in bad faith.

Not everybody believes ethics is a set of rules set forth by some committee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com