Dan Gillmor (@[email protected])
mastodon.world
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. This is a huge danger to free speech and serious journalism. https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul Reuters deserved praise for its initial investigation. It deserves the opposite now. (The New Yorker is apparently one of the few publications that hasn't bowed to the pressure. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-crime/a-confession-exposes-indias-secret-hacking-industry
  • FlumPHP@programming.devEnglish
    54·
    1 year 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.todayEnglish
      2·
      1 year 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.