[blackeyeblitzar]

> But a massive assemblage of confidential stock trading data obtained by ProPublica reveals that the practice may be continuing on a notable scale.

So is my understanding correct that ProPublica has someone’s private financial information that was illegally released to them?

I understand that there may be something illegal or unethical here, but I find it weird that organizations like ProPublica or others are given a pass for violating the privacy of others. It’s also strange that social media platforms often censor information under things like policies on hacked materials or non public information, but only selectively enforce it - perhaps depending on the political implications.

> In a statement, Dodge & Cox said that the firm had given advance approval for all of the trades identified by ProPublica, and a review of Hoeft’s trades after ProPublica asked about them found none violated the firm’s policies.

OK so these trades were submitted for review and approval ahead of time, which is pretty standard, and seems completely unlike some hidden scheme. Is this really front running or just people acting on reasonable information available to everyone about these securities?

This was a really lengthy article and in the end the actual evidence for some criminal activity is flimsy.

[piva00]

> I understand that there may be something illegal or unethical here, but I find it weird that organizations like ProPublica or others are given a pass for violating the privacy of others.

Journalism depends on getting access to private information, there's nothing new in that.

If not you could just shield against journalistic investigations by declaring all relevant information as private.

It's the job of a journalist to be responsible when using its sources, how to disclose the information, etc. but having access to it is a foundational aspect of investigative journalism...