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?"
Violating an NDA isn't breaking a law. Because of this, the rest of your arguments are invalid.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I haven't read much into this, but if the summary is right and Apple is trying to protect a trade secret, I was under the impression that it is the companies responsibility to protect this secret and that once it becomes open, there is nothing they can really do to stop it from spreading. For instance, you can't really copyright the ingredients to a cookie, so you keep the recepie secret. If this secret is leaked, or someone figures it out, there is nothing they can really do because it is not copyrighted or under protection.
SIGFAULT
"...or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?" This supposed "right" is always heralded about by journalists and their closest friends. There is no such thing as a right of a journalist. Going to journalism school does not grant someone a certain level of rights that a normal citizen has. If I was to spread leaflets around town, accusing my city mayor of eating Soylent Green made in his basement without evidence, I'm committing a crime. Likewise, a journalist who defaces someone's character and then claims "the right of private sources" is also committing a crime.
No, but you can be sued for breaking one. It isn't as though the information being revealed showed Apple violated some law, which in spite of a NDA, authorities may want to know. If that were the case, of course the first amendment would apply.
In this case, although I'd hope that Apple would realize that they benefit from this type of interest ('reporting) in the platform, Apple is fully within thier rights. But I will say, with such rumor sites to see what's coming down the pipe, I might have left the Mac platform to the wind.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
I do not believe in petty lawsuits over cigarettes that kill or McDonald's coffee that was too hot when spilt into the lap while driving. What I do believe in is accountability for one's action and that is where the issue truly lies.
Journalists live and die by the "tips" they get.
The question is the "harm" they can cause by releasing the information.
If a journalist gets a tip that the police are looking for a suspect, releases said tip, and the suspect evades capture by getting the heads up, then the Journalist has, wittingly or not, obstructed justice.
In this instance, wittingly or not, the journalist has revealed trade secrets.
Another example? How about embedded reporters disclosing their whereabouts while in a military operation overseas (hypotethically, of course this would never happen). They endanger the lives of service men and women as well as the operation, but don't even need a source - they (or their GPS) are the source.
Being a "journalist" doesn't give one free reign to break laws.
My vote is that those who disclose confidential (NDA protected) information to a Journalist are breaking the law (civil law vs. criminal law - can be fined but not incarcerated) and the Journalist can choose to use that information if they are willing to also stand before a civil court for their actions.
If they did not know the information was priviledged, then they can just turn over the source, and have that source answer for their actions.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Pajamahadeen "working" for some obscure web site?
White House plant in the Press Corps?
Unemployed Columbia J-School graduate?
MSNBC Web Jockey given too much control over content?
Me, You, here, "blogging" our opinions on an extremely popular web site?
Senile "anchor" person who looked sexy twenty years ago and hasn't written a news story in his/her life?
A perky Fox News Info-Babe?
An ex-SNL comedy writer hosting a radio show on an avowedly anti-right wing network?
The producer/writer for the ex-comedy writer's show?
Jon Stewart? Jon Stewart's producer?
Jayson Blair?
The guys who covered up for Jayson Blair?
Rush Limbaugh (currently billing himself as "America's Anchorman")?
The diligent, dutiful Editor-in-Chief of the local High School Newspaper?
Some guy from Al-Jazeera whose cousin is in Gitmo?
Armed Forces Radio?
It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything. Define "journalist" for me and I'll tell ya whether his sources should be protected, laughed at, or locked up...
So do you, or do you not, fundamentally agree with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
Also, what constitutes a "journalist"? Anyone who has a web site? How is that defined? And yes, this is a serious question.
So this information was probably leaked in breach of an NDA... my question is to any lawyers out there, is it illegal for a newspaper (or whatever) to print information that has knowingly been obtained from someone in breach of an NDA?
I know I personally have a problem with being manipulated by corporations. Because of that, and their often manipulative Marketing Machine, I frankly just don't care whether or not their precious product release information was released early or not. As the article you quoted even includes (and I agree with), "Sites like [ThinkSecret.com] are beneficial because they inspire interest in the products." It's free f'king advertising! Unless it's got some literal "Trade Secret" such as "this is how we made the processors 20% faster", it's not a trade secret, it's just information that they didn't want us to have at this present time.
Apple already lost me a long time ago because they were not more forthcoming and open concerning their hardware. You buy their products, you buy their accessories, parts, etc, and noone else's. They can be secretive all they like, but that obsession with secrets is, in my opinion, a big reason why Apple's products got shut out of the market so many years ago. Who wants a computer that, when it detects a problem, displays a sad icon and won't let you do anything until you call it's 'parents'? (Yes, I realize it doesn't do this anymore, but this was how Macs used to report errors)
How can you trust someone that works at your company that won't even keep a secret over something as trivial as a product design, to keep a bigger secret?
If you can't trust someone on the little secrets, how can you trust them on the big secrets? How do you find out who is trustworthy if you can't even find out who is breaking your trust?
Apple is going to these journalists (who are encouraging people to break the NDS) because it is about the only way to find out who is leaking the information and breaking the NDA. A private investigation won't reveal anything simply due to the number of ways people could send in the information. The only way is to get the journalists to reveal it. Although, there is getting to be a mighty thin line between what some of these journalists are doing and "industrial espionage".
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Well... IANAL, but if you knew someone broke the law and were asked to reveal who that person breaking the law was, aren't you guilty of Aiding and Abetting?
As far as your arguments about "write" and just laws, that doesn't apply here at all other than for you to fuel your "outrage". NDA falls under contractual law. An employee of Apple broke that contract. The web site knows who that is but doesn't want to tell. There is nothing unconstitutional or unfair here, unless you want to say that contractual law is suddenly invalid, in which case every other contract ever written is suddenly invalid.
This is interesting. In Sweden, the right to talk to journalists without fear of being revealed (meddelarskydd) is a part of the Constitution.
It is a criminal offense for a public employer, such as a police commissioner, to even ask who leaked information to the media.
This would be a total non-issue here. Trying to make a civil lawsuit go against a country's constitution... well, you get the point.
So I ask again:
how long are you U.S. folks just going to obediently turn around, bend over, and ask for more?
The rights issue involved is the right to privacy vs. the right to free speech. Privacy isn't explicitly written into the Constitution... preventing any laws related to inhibiting press is.
If the web site wins, how can anyone be punished for revealing any private information? Want your credit card number, email address, medical history, naked body available for public consumption? Holding that press is supreme over everything means putting everyone's everything for public consumption.
So do you, or do you not, fundamentally agree with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
People should have to agree or disagree as it's another frivolous act that was created by unknowing individuals under financial pressure by corporations.
Also, what constitutes a "journalist"? Anyone who has a web site? How is that defined? And yes, this is a serious question.
You really are a dumbass.
Freedom of the press should give one the right to publish, not to avoid giving evidence that you or I would be required to give.
Perhaps a legal expert could tell us what view U.S. courts hold.
Agreement with Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
Is given. The point you delibrately missed in your ignorance in focusing on the law, rather than its badly targetted use! The journalist being allowed to not reveal their source is more important. By forcing journalists to reveal their sources in this instance sets a nasty precedent for all kinds of other abuse.
first... it is the point of a law suit to PROVE that he knew. second... even if the kid has an anonymous way for people to submit information. as a journalist it is his duty to make sure he is not breaking the law. and not knowing the exact source is not an excuse for not knowingly passing trade secrets. the quality of the information and even the fact that he had an anonymous info drop is reason enough to know that some of the info received was a tread secret.
bottom line, Apple has a right to its day in court to prove this kid is liable and should be forced to reveal his sources.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I'll ask again.
What constitutes a "journalist"?
Anyone who publishes information on a web site?
They're trying to paint these people as "bloggers". What constitutes a "blog"? If I post information in a journal-like style in chronological order to a web page, does that automatically make me a "journalist", and exempt me from any legal requirements pertaining to, e.g., trade secrets?
So do you, or do you not, fundamentally agree with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which "prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements"?
I fundamentally agree with the fact that this law allows companies to hunt down and silence whistleblowers, and therefore needs to be used with the utmost care.
Also, what constitutes a "journalist"?
What constitutes a trade secret? If its something only employees of Apple know, does that make the color of the CEO's socks a trade secret?
Would some kind lawyerly type please define what a "trade secret" is? To me, this seems kind of odd in that it was simply some marketing info on a new product that someone was tipped off on, not an internal process to produce something that Apple didn't want seeing the light of day.
What's the deal? I've seen "secret" photos and whatnot of covered cars on tracks before they come out.. seems that in other cases the manufacturer just keeps a tighter lid on it.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
A larger problem is the changing definition of "journalist". A lot of people (and almost everyone on /.) would agree that journalists have a right to protect their sources in the name of journalistic independence and integrity. But who exactly is a journalist? You're average blogger? A prominent commentator?
Recently the Government Accountibility Office (GAO) has started hearings into "newspeople" who were surreptitiously paid to promote government proposals. Armstrong Williams promoting the No Child Left Behind act and Maggie Gallagher for the Health and Marriage Initiative are two prominent examples. Williams claims he's a commentator and not a journalist, while Gallagher says she is a journalist but that she did not have a conflict of interest. And what about bloggers who do their own reporting? Many do not have any journalistic training and do not know (or care to know) the rules that guide reporters.
Traditionally, the law has differentiated the 1st Amendment needs of journalists and the average person because of the importance of journalistic independence. If you're reporting on trade secrets, how to your prove you're a real journalist and not some schmuck with an axe to grind?
However, this reporter did not sign an NDA and therefore cannot be bound by it.
The information this person has may be under NDA, so the leaker can sue Apple for breach of their NDA with the reporter.
Violating an NDA (a legally binding document) is breaking a form of a law...a law that specifically applies to those who agree to the NDA. Because of that his arguments are valid.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Why is that so obvious to you?
Why do you accept reports from journalists with anonymous sources as acceptable? Who's to say they didn't just make it up? How do you hold them accountable for what they write?
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press give you the right to say or print whatever you want, but they don't give you freedom from taking responsibilty for what you say and write. If a journalist can't get independant corroboration for a tip they recieve then they should reveal the source when they publish or assume that the tip was inaccurate. We shouldn't continue to hold journalists in such high regard when they don't provide any proof for what they claim.
Remember that journalism is a business too. Most journalists are out to make a profit just as much or more than they are out to serve the community.
To take the matter one step further, you should care about trade secret rights because they're a powerful tool for small companies to break into markets dominated by large players. If it weren't for trade secret protection, numerous startups would fail because a large existing company would be able to bring good ideas to market faster than the smaller inventors. Just because large companies can use the protections too doesn't make them bad. If you ever hope to start a business outside of the service field or ever hope to work for a sucessful startup, particularly a technology startup, this journalist's actions and the EFF's side of this case are hurting you. Wouldn't it suck if an idea that you had and pland to build was leaked to a reporter, that reporter published your idea and some big company made millions off your idea because they were able to move more quickly than you? Whouldn't you want to be able to find out who leaked your idea so you could recover damages?
And who or what defines what "the Press" is? Anybody who can create a website? 'Nic dePlume' is only now 19 years old; he started the site when he was 13. What exactly are his credentials? And at what point did it change from a 'rumor' site to a 'news' site?
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
You aren't required to press charges. However, if the police ask you for information on the crime, you'd be held in contempt for refusing to answer if the charges don't incriminate you.
I'm no fan of the rumour sites, but I find there to be enormous potential for a very troubling precedent here.
The court has to consider two things.
1) What is a "journalist"?
2) Do journalists have the right to protect their sources?
If the publisher of Think Secret is defined as "not a journalist", a whole lot of other Web-based media are going to find themselves in a whole lot of hot water for similar stuff. The Druge Report, Salon, etc. -- there's no print media there, so on the surface I don't see a whole lot of difference between these sites and Think Secret.
If journalists don't have the right to protect their sources, controversial and very important stories in the media will completely dry up, because the sources won't wish to be put in a position where they could be revealed.
IMO -- and IANAL -- if the anonymous e-mail to Think Secret is truly anonymous, and Nick was smart enough not to keep server logs around, Apple stands to gain absolutely nothing from this suit, because if he did things properly, Nick has absolutely no idea who his source is. It doesn't matter how many lawyers Apple has, it doesn't matter what Apple threatens to do to him. If he doesn't know, he can't tell them!
I sincerely hope this is the case, though I seriously doubt it. In all likelihood, Nick knows exactly who his source is, and he wants to protect that source to preserve his future revenue stream. IMO, that's despicable and cheap.
But it's the same thing every other form of media does, and media consumers absolutely lap it up. Newspapers make money by selling ads in their paper. TV shows make money by selling commercial airtime. These more traditional media outlets have published or broadcast "scoops" that I guarantee upset people who wanted the release to be staged a certain way. This happens in the auto industry all the time. But the auto industry isn't run by megalomaniacs of the same calibre as Uncle Steve. The point is, just because a media outlet exists as part of a for-profit enterprise doesn't make any tips it receives about unreleased products "corporate espionage". AFAIK, "corporate espionage" requires malicious intent. I rather doubt any of Apple's competitors gained anything by having one week's advance notice that the Mac mini and iPod Shuffle were coming out. Hell, most of Apple's competitors have spent the last month and a half talking about how utterly useless and passé these two products are, rather than cracking the whip on their engineering departments to get copycat products to market ASAP.
So I hope Apple loses the suit, not because I like Think Secret (I firmly believe that the rumour sites hurt Apple), but because I believe in the sanctity of the media's right not to reveal their sources.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
In regards to that, I personally wouldn't. It's the internet, land of the troll, misinformer, et al. 90% of what you'll find and hear is crap, so why should this kid have any reason to believe otherwise? I sure as hell wouldn't in his shoes. Yes, it ultimately appears that somewhere along the lines he's gotten a good bit of info from someone who broke their NDA. Should he be reasonably expected to know that? IMO, no. He never asked for any personal info, he wanted it all anonymous. He probably expected to wind up as the biggest joke site around, with all sorts of off the wall crap.
As to whether everyone there would be under an NDA, I highly doubt that. NDAs in most tech companies are limited to those who actually work with compartmented data on a day to day basis; the front desk secretary isn't going to be expected to hear about what's going on in one of the "secret" R&D labs in the 3rd subbasement, which isn't normally accessible from the main lobby elevator.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"