Gosh, it sure would be a shame if this article about confirmed scammer Rajat Khare covering up his scammy ways were shared repeatedly all over the internet. 🤷
Reuters has taken down -- globally -- an important hacking-for-profit investigation that included details about an Indian hacking entrepreneur -- because he got a court in that country to say so.
Submitted 10 months ago by i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://mastodon.world/@dangillmor@mastodon.social/111638401941227540
Comments
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Uranium3006@kbin.social 10 months ago
stop bowing down to fascism everybody
Corgana@startrek.website 10 months ago
My gut says that this is probably not appeasement but a subtle rebellious act. They could have edited the article or geoblocked it just in India, but instead they removed it altogether, adding to the story and ultimatley bringing even more attention to it.
Deebster@programming.dev 10 months ago
I’d like to believe this is canny use of the Streisand Effect, but in a company as big as Reuters it’s more likely to be lawyers.
flumph@programming.dev 10 months ago
Reuters has temporarily removed the article “How an Indian startup hacked the world” to comply with a preliminary court order issued on Dec. 4, 2023, in a district court in New Delhi, India.
Reuters stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision.
The article, published Nov. 16, 2023, was based on interviews with hundreds of people, thousands of documents, and research from several cybersecurity firms.
The order was issued amid a pending lawsuit brought against Reuters in November 2022. As set forth in its court filings, Reuters disputes those claims.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 10 months ago
This isn’t about appealing though. This is about jurisdiction. An Indian Court has no jurisdiction outside of India, and for that court to suggest otherwise is a significant overreach. So while they should absolutely appeal this up the wazoo, in every other country, the correct answer is to ignore it. And they should tell the Indian court that they will follow Indian law and Indian judgments inside of India but their operations in other nations are not subject to Indian law any more than their operations in India are subject to American law.
raynethackery@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Is there an archive link of the article?
crypticthree@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Alright scambaiters go to work
BlackSkinnedJew@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
There are thing what MasterCard can’t buy, for anything else exist Money.
Asudox@lemmy.world 10 months ago
xkforce@lemmy.world 10 months ago
OP… reuters has to follow the law. They dont have a choice but to take stuff like that down. Which is precisely why its dangerous. Get mad at the court that forced them to take the story down not at Reuters.
ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 10 months ago
just a minor clarification. the court did not order the article to he taken down. the court just said that the article constitutes defamation.
it was Reuter’s decision to therefore take down the article. in OP’s first link, there’s info of other media houses that have also pulled such stories.
blame the scummy lawyers protecting the scumbag and his predatory behaviour.
Vash63@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What’s the difference between the court saying it’s defamation, and thus illegal to publish and worthy of awarding damages, and ordering it taken down? Seems like splitting hairs.
harry_balzac@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Reuters could have geoblocked the article.
Corgana@startrek.website 10 months ago
I assume, stuck between a rock and a hard place, they decided that compromising with censorship was not an option, while probably hoping that the headline “Reuters removes article” would have somewhat of a striesand effect. If that was the case it seems to have worked as we’re here talking about it.
otter@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Maybe, I guess it depends on the feasibility of doing that quickly. If they need to do a lot of setup for it then there might not be time
WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 10 months ago
I'd be willing to bet it has less to do with the article not being available in India and that it is available at all. Let's be honest, geoblocking is a joke, especially for a news outlet. Therefore, if Reuters wants to do business in India, one of the world's largest markets, they have to take it down everywhere. Now, if I ran a news service that wrote an article they didn't like and since I'm not doing business in India, I would have the power to tell them to go pound sand. Assuming they didn't decide to go the route of burying me in legal fees here in America by hiring American lawyers to do so, that is.
prole@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I was thinking the same thing, but then I saw “globally”. They probably could have just taken it down in India, right?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 10 months ago
Does Reuters actually operate in India? What’s stopping them just ignoring a blatantly immoral ruling?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 10 months ago
They operate pretty literally everywhere.
But yeah, appeasing the totalitarian demands of the fascist Modi government and its pet courts is not the way to go.
ripcord@kbin.social 10 months ago
Yes, they do.