Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers
puke76 writes "Remember the bloggers being sued by Apple? Well now they've attracted the attention and support of some major newspapers. There's a story over at BBC. The newspapers are arguing that journalism sources should be protected. Can we blog without legal repercussions?" From the article: "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public..."
This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!
The judge in the case rightly realized that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.
The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
Sorry, but no. Leaking trade secrets is not journalism...it's corporate espionage, and deserves to be treated as such.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Yes, but NOT the company in question!
Uh, it's not the company. It's the court that already decided that the web sites have to reveal the information.
They already do, doh! You could take some secrets of your company, go to a cybercafe, enter an anonimizing proxy and upload the data to your favorite website. All of this without getting caught.
Apple is still entitled to any and all information that relates to how the web sites came into this information. And if that means finding out that it was sent from a cafe in San Jose at 7:14 pm on Tuesday night, then that's all it is. But they're still entitled to it.
NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.
Yeah. And they do that, dumbass, by having their employees agree contractually in good faith to not leak their fucking information, and punishing them if they do!
And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code). He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.
Um, no. He didn't. He published very specific information that was only known internally to LIMITED numbers of people within Apple. There were also artist renditions and specifications involved (re: Asteroid), and they also published clear and specific information about the Mac mini. Apple picked one thing, but they're concerned about all of it. And under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even journalists are not protected.
In other words, you're completely wrong, but nice try.
I can't take credit for it.
It was the judge in this case himself who said it.
Some other worthy observations by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
In fact, if people could be bothered to read Judge Kleinberg's ruling, they'd find that at least one of the sites involved posted exact copies of presentation slides which were clearly watermarked "APPLE CONFIDENTIAL."
In other words, Apple had already made enough of a case regarding where this information had come from in order for the Judge to allow discovery to go forward.