Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Reporter Refuses To Testify Against Crackers
The first paragraph of the Media Notes column in today's Washington Post says, "Reporter Adam Penenburg is quitting Forbes magazine to protect Slut Puppy and Master Pimp." This pair is accused of having defaced the New York Times Web site. Penenburg wrote about them, and now Federal prosecutors want him to testify against them or at least affirm the truth of what he wrote, which Penenburg feels could open him up to further questions. It's a murky situation. What would you do if you were in it? What do you think Slashdot should do if faced with that kind of choice?
(read before moderating) I think Slashdot would testify. Why? Because I think they've already caved to Microsoft.
That's a big accusation, where did I get it from? Well, if you'll recall we never heard anything more about the Slashdot vs MS thing. Surely MS would have responded by now. But even more damning is this: About a week ago I was reading at -1. There's some troll at that level who keeps cut 'n' pasting various texts (porn stories, howto's, etc). In one story I found he had posted an entire MSDN "Q article". When I refreshed the page, that post was GONE.
So Slashdot is removing (MS only?) copyrighted materials. Fine, that's their right, after all reproduction of copyrighted material is against the law. My point is not that they shouldn't have done it (although I don't like it). My point is that Slashdot HAS bowed to "the man" before and would therefore probably do it again.
And, either way, I think we'd ALL appreciate an update on the MS story....
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Congratulations to the reported for having the integrity to protect his source. The media may be a festering pile of scabs, but there are a few respectable and honorable persons left in the business.
I'd be curious to see Slashdot interview him.
---
seumas.com
I remember a case from a while back where a reporter was actually jailed for obstruction of justice because he was protecting a confidential source. While this story is now making headlines and generating positive publicity for Penenburg, he is able to be principled. Let's see what happens when he is threatened with jail time, though.
I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether Slashdot should go to the same length to protect sources (presumably ACs) who indulge in criminal behavior. Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
I've worked at a number of major market newspapers and the policy has been the same at all of them.
We won't do anything without a subpoena. We will fight all subpoenas even if the request is harmless just to be consistent.
Once in court, we will only testify to things we put in print. We will not, under any circumstances, turn over reporter's notes or unpublished photographs. Folks I know have gone to jail for contempt.
Journalists protecting sources have repeatedly been protected by the court system and that is how it should be. If subjects knew that everything they said could be turned over to the police, no one would talk to reporters. Thus, the courts have found that in order to have a free press, it is necessary for journalists to have the same sort of confidentiality protection that doctors and priests have.
At a time when journalists are taking hits for their ethics, I'm glad to see Penenburg putting his job on the line for the Right Thing.
InitZero
The first thing to do, then, is to check the appropriate state Shield Laws to see what protection they may apply. (As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.) Even if the law does not provide protection, is is a fairly long and well-established tradition among journalists to protect their sources. Part of this is a moral obligation, part is the practical consideration that if a reporter burns one source, word will get out, and that reporter will find it increasingly difficult to work with other sources who want confidentiality.
If the law does not provide protection, it is a tough choice for the reporter or publisher to make; but the reality is that the percentage of incidents when a reporter or publisher actually is jailed or otherwise punished is quite small, though more than -0-.
It's not as simple as you portray.
It's very easy to make a logical case for strong, even totalitarian government. In theory it can deliver many things that are often considered worthwhile goals, like efficient organization, reduced crime, and long-range planning.
Unfortunately, other worthwhile goals like individual freedom and diversity are sacrificed when you go down that road, and more often than not it's a road that you cannot easily leave.
That's why you're misguided in supporting the status quo in its headlong rush towards total population control. Those easy wins against crime which you so appreciate do not come free, and in due course, you will regret choosing to cut down those messy rain forests to make way for efficient modern living and industrialization, to make an analogy.
Individual lofty goals may seen incongruous and ineffective against power politics, but they're the only things that stand between our current relative freedoms and the state-corporate totalitarianism that's just over the next hill. I'm just glad that there are still people around with the personal integrity to continue the fight for lofty intangibles like freedom of the press, despite the odds against.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The so-called "internet reporters" are physical people, not some sentient piece of software. As physical poeple, this makes them physical reporters, therefor the law should apply equally, qed. Or are we now assigning different laws to people of different professions, or who use different tools for the same profession?
Good question.
I'm not saying the law *should* be different for Internet reporters, I don't think that it should be. What I am saying - with experience, I am a lawyer who has represented a number of journalists in this type of matter - is that the courts and legislatures are both wary and chary about expanding the scope of shield laws to anything not specifically covered. So if the shield law in a specific state, whether a statute or a judicially developed doctrine, does not already cover the Internet media, it will take some convincing to get it to apply.
Sooner or later, the laws will catch up, but as in most things, the law here lags behind what most of us recognize as the current reality.
How do you know that this principle is not doing good? Without this guy's report, will anyone on the street ever understand the mind and motivations of the crackers/script kiddies? Without this info, governments are free to spread FUD like:
- Hackers are everywhere and are out to kill computers.
- Script Kiddies are all powerful. Fear them. Let the government handle it - we'll go after them and disable them.
- They are ignenious and they hate/envy your MS Office. They will deliberately pick holes in your MS computer. It's their fault, and not MS for making insecure OSes.
Go substitute Hacker for Witch and you will get the Salem witch trials all over again.The reporters are doing a good service by spreading information, and sticking up for them. That he is willing to sacrifice his job and livelihood lends credence to his integrity, and should not be disparaged.
You sir are sitting in your castle writing crap. Where is your credibility?