Slashdot Mirror
Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com)
Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts."
This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"
Not only that, email isn't "a private record."
The company I work for made it very clear that we should not treat email as anything private, that anything we say in email should be considered being on the public record.
Not because they were afraid of being hacked, but because emails, as "written documents," can be subjected to subpoenas.
If you're using your work email account to "gossip" you're doing it wrong. Since all the emails leaked so far have been used by Clinton campaign staffers for Clinton's campaign, they're all fair to report on.
Any programmer with python can EASILY VERIFY THEY ARE REAL. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
You've lost track of the story, which is about campaign emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton's campaign manager. This isn't about State Department emails sent and received during Clinton's time as Secretary. The emails in question were not part of the public record, and not subject to FOIA.
I actually think it goes beyond that.
Sure, 2FA or never sending something in an email you don't want the other guys lawyer holding up in court... or getting hacked and put on on Wikileaks is certainly one way... though some would say this strays into victim blaming ala a common response to #TheFappening (ie "if they didn't want their nude photos on the internet, they shouldn't have taken them or saved them to such insecure locations!")
But consider the latest James O'Keefe videos, which appear to show rather well placed democrat operatives talking about their knowledge of wide-scale voter fraud, as well as seeming to admit to helping to orchestrate violence at the rival's rally's.
Ignoring for the moment the emails... why is it that right-leaning groups are able to get left-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things?
Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things?
Oh sure, you might have the occasional untoward comment (take the Trump tape), but oh so rarely to the same extent, and then mostly of a 'macaca' like moment.
If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?
1. Left leaners more willing to brag about their shenanigans?
2. Right leaners less willing to brag about their shenanigans?
3. Left leaners less good at tricking right leaners into spilling their secrets?
4. Right leaners more good at tricking left leaners into spilling their secrets?
5. Left leaners less good at editing of video to make the speaker look bad?
6. Right leaners more good at editing of video to make the speaker look bad?
Why is it we usually only see these things going in one direction?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
BS. No evidence the top was aware of their underhanded plans.
Table-ized A.I.