Slashdot Mirror
EFF Joins Fight Against Apple Lawsuit
sutterpants writes "The BBC is carrying a story on the legal battle between Apple and free press advocates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has joined in the fight to protect journalists from revealing their sources. Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?"
Bloody Sunday
The first thing I thought of when I heard the Apple story is how trivial it is in comparison to the above link. These people were risking jailtime to protect their sources. There has to be a right to anonimity. Just look at what happened to Dr. David Kelly for another example.
The main problems come from when journalists hide behind this as an excuse to print whatever they want.
Holy smokes, check the moderation. It didn't take long for representatives of the Apple Corporation to hop on this one!
However, the fact that some guys wrote something down a few centuries before today's information technology was even dreamt of definitely makes what they wrote then the best principles for today's society to follow.
The blind faith with which some Americans worship their constitution is scary.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I cannot believe you were modded up twice over a repeat question. Redundant.
Don't worry. They've been back and forth between "Flamebait"/"Troll" and "Insightful"/"Interesting" several times now.
The Act you keep referring to is nothing more than proof that corporations own the government and that the people are no longer protected from anything. Because of this, it's irrelevant and needs to be ignored by anyone and everyone, including those who were coerced by donations to create it.
Now I understand where you're coming from. That's the answer I was looking for. Thanks. You believe that a law such as this is unjust and was essentially the result of corporate bribery, and as such, should be ignored. Implicitly, this means you think it's ok, in a society that presumably has rule of law, for people to personally decide which laws are ok to follow and which laws aren't. I'm not passing judgment here, just summarizing what must be your conclusions.
The lost of trust is not worth the bad precedent that Apple is trying to whine its way into.
First of all, note that I've never, in any of my posts on this subject, said what I thought Apple was doing was a good idea, or even right. I've also left room - several times in my original post, actually - for the idea that the legal action against Apple's subpoena(s) could be considered protest against an unjust law. I was just trying to present the notion that a law could have been broken at all. Whether you think the law is RIGHT or WRONG was beside the point of that argument; it was more along the lines of "a law may have been broken, and an entity [Apple] might attempt to use that fact in its favor to obtain an outcome that is favorable for itself". If it's ok for individuals to personally ignore laws, no matter on what grounds, then certainly it is ok for others to make a determination to operate within the bounds of the law? (Unless, of course, you think that anything that is generally pro-corporation is automatically "wrong" and should be ignored.)
Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources
...and I'm not talking about the fruit.
I would like to express my view on this question.
Journalists meet my definition of "person", albeit just barely.
Apple does NOT.
Apple doesn't even meet the definion of "living"
You can debate semantics of how corporations and such are "people" simply becuase they are composed of many entities that DO meet the definition of "person" but the company, Apple, is NOT a person.
As a result, I conclude that Apple not only doesn't deserve rights, it doesn't deserve anything at all. This does not meet up with many existing laws, I believe these laws should be abolished.
The conclusion is simple, the journalist not only carries more weight, he/she carries all the weight.
Are you out of your feaking mind?
No, you are out of your fucking mind. She wasn't scalded, she WAS BURNED TO THE BONE. That any food or beverage that is meant to be consumed immediatly can cause you severe burn injuries is inexcusable.
Who's fault is it that this lady spilled coffee on herself? Hers. Who's fault is it that the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns? McDonalds. Period. End of story. Deal with it.
What if that person killed (god forbid) was your mother
Well if you're going to bring up this line of bullshit, what if the person who killed his mother was your son? Would you throw the switch?
It's not bullshit
Yes, it is. It's a "so how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?" question.
Yes I would. If anyone ever laid a hand on my mother god help them
So if your son killed your mother you'd throw the switch just as gleefully? Nice work.