undefined | Better HN

0 pointschrisco2551y ago0 comments

If the transcript involves evidence against a random psychopath who committed murder against beloved public figures (with no connection whatsoever to the government), I don't understand why anyone involved with such an investigation would be upset about the release of such transcripts immediately, much less 15 years or 65 years in the future.

0 comments

yardstick1y ago

And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released?

If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing etc, and some of those people were completely uninvolved but maybe having affairs, or doing something immoral (whatever that is), then shouldn’t they be afforded privacy? Eg Imagine one would be mortified to have what sex toy was in their pocket at the time documented in public transcript.

nepthar1y ago

I think a simple redacted name would address that concern

Someone1y ago

For people taking part in the parade, I doubt that. Extreme example is Jackie Kennedy. “I was sitting next to the president” identifies her pretty well.

There were people in the crowd who can easily be identified, too. For example, Zapruder’s testimony would have to leave out that he shot a movie and was life on television that day, and quite a few other details to anonymize it.

yardstick1y ago

I’d mostly agree with that. After sufficient years have passed. Name isn’t the only way to identify someone.

afavour1y ago

In our conspiracy theory riddled world?

The first thing that comes to mind is Sandy Hook. Those poor parents being harassed by people accusing them of being “false flag” actors and all that nonsense. If you were a key witness in the JFK assassination you can bet nutjobs hell bent on some conspiracy theory or another are going to track you down and harass you.

Not to mention the way more vanilla stuff: people whose testimony incriminated friends, family members etc etc

t-31y ago

They can still redact the released documents before releasing them. Many of those already released have been very heavily redacted.

potato37328421y ago

If the documents truly are mundane and simply fill in gaps and dox a few old people then it would probably greatly reduce conspiracy theory stuff to reduce them because the gaps in the narrative is where those theories grow from.

account421y ago

> In our conspiracy riddled world?

FTFY

zombiwoof1y ago

They will name informants and under cover folks and even how the secret service worked and works

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

yardstick1y ago

And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released?

nepthar1y ago

I think a simple redacted name would address that concern

Someone1y ago

For people taking part in the parade, I doubt that. Extreme example is Jackie Kennedy. “I was sitting next to the president” identifies her pretty well.

yardstick1y ago

I’d mostly agree with that. After sufficient years have passed. Name isn’t the only way to identify someone.

afavour1y ago

In our conspiracy theory riddled world?

Not to mention the way more vanilla stuff: people whose testimony incriminated friends, family members etc etc

t-31y ago

They can still redact the released documents before releasing them. Many of those already released have been very heavily redacted.

potato37328421y ago

account421y ago

> In our conspiracy riddled world?

FTFY

zombiwoof1y ago

They will name informants and under cover folks and even how the secret service worked and works

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse