Big government, you're my hero! You keep the airwaves free of interference! You protect my sensitive little ears from curse words! You protect my sensitive little eyes from Janet Jackson's boobs!
I would much rather deal with the interference resulting from any failing of the free market than try to get my freedom back from the inevitable failing of big government.
It's silly to talk about technology solving this problem from one side, protecting the anonymity of the source for an article. If the "law enforcement" goons can get to the reporter that's all they need.
They will march the reporter up before the judge and the judge will tell the reporter to reveal the source for an article. The reporter refuses and the judge says, "30 days, contempt of court."
They haul the reporter off for a 30 day stay in the local jail and bring them back before the judge who again tells them to reveal their source. Guess what happens if they refuse this time? Yip, another 30 days in the local clink. The reporter could effectively serve a life sentence for not revealing their source. Guess which side is more likely to give up first?
The only way technology could solve this problem is if it provided a way to keep the source AND the reporter totally anonymous AND no one else knows who the reporter or the source are. This scenario would provide a lot of protection for all involved, but if the newspaper doesn't know any of the parties involved with the story, they couldn't safely run the story.
Slashdot Mirror
Big government, you're my hero! You keep the airwaves free of interference! You protect my sensitive little ears from curse words! You protect my sensitive little eyes from Janet Jackson's boobs!
I would much rather deal with the interference resulting from any failing of the free market than try to get my freedom back from the inevitable failing of big government.
Ask http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contem pt/ New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
They will march the reporter up before the judge and the judge will tell the reporter to reveal the source for an article. The reporter refuses and the judge says, "30 days, contempt of court."
They haul the reporter off for a 30 day stay in the local jail and bring them back before the judge who again tells them to reveal their source. Guess what happens if they refuse this time? Yip, another 30 days in the local clink. The reporter could effectively serve a life sentence for not revealing their source. Guess which side is more likely to give up first?
The only way technology could solve this problem is if it provided a way to keep the source AND the reporter totally anonymous AND no one else knows who the reporter or the source are. This scenario would provide a lot of protection for all involved, but if the newspaper doesn't know any of the parties involved with the story, they couldn't safely run the story.