Hacker News Reader

Comment by visarga | Hacker News Reader

The title is wrong. There was no contract or agreement between the app and the journalist so there could be no betrayal.

View on HN

I don't think you need a contract to fit the usage of "betrayal" here.

Well, before betrayal can take place there must be an implicit or explicit obligation or loyalty.

That isn't the only definition.

What about the obligation to not put people at risk of death through ignorance? If the app itself is used as a suppression too that was not previously available and one can accidentally expose someone to literal death, then yes the app has an obligation to not do that as human beings. Pretty sure not exposing people to harm is an implicit agreement with their users. Maybe I'm wrong and Indians (where the software is made) don't think like most of the rest of human society, but I'm pretty sure they do and don't want people they converse with being put on government watch lists for simply being entered into a database without their consent or knowledge.

There is no user agreement, let alone a contract, between Facebook and me.

I use none of their services and properties.

So are you arguing that it's right that they spy on me regardless? Like they do on any other human being who is not in a business relationship, whatsoever, with this company?

When no contract exists, no permission has been given.

The journalist has not agreed with the company, but the company is still revealing information that they connected to her through a third party.

Yet, the contract only exists between the company and third-party, and not the journalist.

There is a failure here. The company has assumed that the third-party has a right, when they likely do not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com