The HN angle on this article is the NYT accounts system wasn't prepared for the deluge of subscriptions, fell over, served 500s for hours, and now they made the article free-to-all (as far as I can tell) in response.
Get these journos some capacity planners and SREs.
I would have thought the HN angle is where do you draw the line between journalism and data leaks or identity theft? As much as large parts of the public wants to see his taxes, that doesn’t meant a newspaper can hide behind journalism to act as an intermediary to leak them.
If that’s the standard then I’m sure it’d be fine for an intern at Joe Biden’s doctors office to leak his full medical records right?
EDIT: I find it hilarious that this comment was immediately flagged and hidden from default view.
> Identity theft is the deliberate use of someone else's identity, usually as a method to gain a financial advantage or obtain credit and other benefits in the other person's name [..]
I don't think anyone can be impersonated based on tax documents, so I'm not sure why you would say that.
A valid journalistic act is putting forward information that the public can use to have a better picture about their environment. In my opinion this fits the definition pretty well.
On the other hand he called for a foreign country to hack into his opponents' email and release all of it. So, he obviously doesn't value privacy that much
In my opinion people in high visibility, high power jobs are not allowed to make tasteless jokes towards the people they have power over. It avoids such misunderstandings.
Especially on the topic of privacy, meticulously courteous didn't work, people just lied to your face. So this is at least another tactic. Doesn't seem like much though.
It wasn’t a joke because then it happened and he moved to capitalize on it. You should know that at this point so why are you pushing an inaccurate revision to history?
I disagree with you that medical data cannot be protected by stricter privacy laws. Tax returns could indeed be relevant to find conflicts of interest.
One could argue that holders of a public offices should be exempt of having their privacy protected, but I think it would lead to candidates that are better at hiding. The honest ones probably already lost interest in pursuing any office at that point.
I didn't downvote you and I think the smear campaign about Russian influence was a giant political scandal, no matter what you think about Trump. Somehow it is not because nobody seems to be interested in it.
Get these journos some capacity planners and SREs.