I only wanted to point out that this particular sub-thread was going off the rails (as many are, but I can't respond to all of them due to time constraints and HN's hard rate limit).

The information can't be destroyed now, so there is little point in discussions about what should or shouldn't have happened in this specific instance.

If someone breached a contract and this provides evidence to those ends, then it's simply a fact. I completely understand that facts can upset people.

If someone didn't breach a contract...well I'm not sure what the worry is in this specific instance.

In any case, it obviously sucks when information you gave in trust is leaked out and there is certainly a lesson to learn in data security here. There also seems to be a lesson to perhaps not trust companies who apparently fundamentally produce and specifically market a trust violation product. Of course, if you are in the market for such a product, formal calculation of your preference function may not be a priority.

>I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person.

This makes it sounds like vezzy-fnord is arguing for some kind of thought control regime; a regime where one may selectively engineer the exact perception to create in others. If someone can perceive something, they should be able to contemplate it.

Just as it is a couple's prerogative to seek court mediation for their breached contracts (this is the right the argument afforded the couple), it is another's prerogative to act on information that is known to them.