undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTGJ15y ago0 comments

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. How is it that breaking the law by the first person makes it okay for the next person? Even if there is no law about the second persons actions, it's still wrong. Do you simply not see it as being wrong? The whole idea is to keep the documents private so why would it matter if the 1st or 3rd person published them? It's still wrong, each and every time down the line.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

khafra15y ago

The whole idea is to make the people who should be keeping the documents private legally responsible, with severe consequences, for taking a specific set of precautions to keep the documents private.

I dislike reasoning by analogy, but if you must have one, it's more like a 16 year old buying beer and then giving it to a 23 year old, who consumes it or gives it to other people over 21.

swombat15y ago

By the time Tommy is passed out under the table in a pool of his own vomit from the 500 beers that 500 other people, who won't be prosecuted because they're on the other side of the world, have given him, putting a mug of beer in front of him so you can take a picture and make a commentary about beer's effect on the youth is a whole lot less morally reprehensible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse