this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
575 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
2313 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they were a little sneaky in not presenting all the evidence up front, but they didn't really withhold it in as bad a way as the title implies.
This is why we have "guilt by omission"
Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don't think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn't revoked "because" it withheld footage, but "after".
Anybody reasonable reading the article understands the obligation is there.
Yeah a reasonable person would decide that on the balance of probabilities here, but we're talking about the process through which a licence is revoked, which needs to be more concrete.
The actual document from the DMV lists the omission as one of the reasons.