Yes, attempting to reheat an older story because there's some motivation to try to keep it alive is different from drawing attention to current news. It can give the false impression whatever's being reported is more prevalent or important than it is.
I read the original story a week ago and initially assumed this is a new story following up on it. It isn't.
Not everyone sees everything that you do and implying that 7 days ago isn't current news is a little silly. If you know that this was already posted to HN and you're upset about that, you could have mentioned it. Or done something productive like link to the original post like I've seen other do, that way people get to read original discussion.
Your original comment didn't even properly explain why you were upset.
A lot of information is collected automatically as part of normal operation often called ‘diagnostics’ or ‘telemetry’ and once that data is sent to a foreign country where the manufacturer is based there is absolutely no conceivable way to tell if that country’s government has made a copy for itself or not.
10 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] threadI read the original story a week ago and initially assumed this is a new story following up on it. It isn't.
Your original comment didn't even properly explain why you were upset.