this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
144 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
81374 readers
4575 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the point webp@mander.xyz is trying to make is that, if I were to send you digital information and then demanded from you to delete it, one would have potentially a harder time convincing people, that it's not within your rights to demand remuneration.
Especially with how US-centric and -representative the international media landscape has become.
Even though in most(?) European countries I imagine (didn't actually check) I could sue you for damages, maybe reduced due to my causing the issue, should you publish the information after I asked you delete it.
But with the power imbalance at play here the police can just roll in and arrest the guy. Allowing them to be terminally stupid in the best case, or malevolent in the worst. They could just as well claim they sent someone secret information, they refused to comply with the request for deletion, so they were arrested.
Depending on how little oversight there actually is, that either is the end of the story or, when asked for proof of this series of events, the "proof" was "accidentally deleted" during the investigation, how clumsy.
This is an translated excerpt from the article:
It does not seem like a power imbalance allows them to just roll up and arrest him. It seems like they have a legal ability to ask him to remove the files and since he did not they have a legal right to charge him/confiscate the files. I generally don't want to assume public sentiment, but I personally think it's understandable that some government documents (those pertaining to open investigations) are subject to protections that other documents might not be. For what it's worth, if someone sent me their digital information they wouldn't have to ask me to delete it because I would not have saved it in the first place and I certainly would not have asked for payment to delete it if I somehow accidentally downloaded it.