I had read this, but I just checked the Think Secret site and found the contact page. It's not as explicit as I had thought it would be, but the case that it's completely innocent is much weaker than the case that could be made that Nick is actively seeking trade secrets and confidential information. If he's not seeking insider information, why all the emphasis on anonymity and reassurances that he will protect his sources.
If Nick was publishing information about Apple knowingly selling a defective product that was a danger to the public, and he gained this from an insider wanting to unveil evil corporate behavior, that would be one thing. This is another.
It's a civil matter, not a criminal one (at this point, anyway), but other than that, you've gotten the gist of the matter. Just substitute the proper civil legal terms for some of criminal legal terms. Good analysis.
I've given up on reading, let alone answering all the legal ignorance I'm seeing on this story at slashdot, but I was pleased to see that you and a few others get it. I'm for whistle blower laws, but they don't apply here.
Even if the protection of sources is good policy for the public interest (I tend to think so), I don't think it should apply to cases such as these, where the link to public interest in less than tenuous. Do you not agree that public interest has to do with protecting the public interest, rather than "stuff the public might fijnd interesting"?
I find it disturbing, though not at all surprising, that many slashdotters accept the latter as their definition of "public interest".
Perhaps the line between the two can be hard to discern at times. This case is not one of them. JMHO
If you don't believe that there is any validity to trade secrets and confidential information, just say so. Then put your money where your mouth is, and post your social security number, your credit card info, and your medical history.
But where is the whistle blowing in this case? It's completely absent. Apple wasn't illegally dumping toxic waste, cooking the books, or engaging in anything illegal.
The Shield laws were designed to protect the public interest. I'm afraid that many people are confused about what "public interest" means. It doesn't mean information that the public would find interesting. It means for the benefit and protection of the public. If a company is secretly dumping chemicals in a vacant lot behind a school, it's in the public interest that someone in that company leak the information, and that the news media reports it. It's in the public interest that the whistle blower and the journalist be able to do this without fear of reprisal. In such a case, the balance between the common good and an individual or company's rights are tipped towards the common good.
You make good points, but you're confused on some issues. In this particular case, Apple is suing the unknown leakers, who are named as "Does" (as in John Doe or Jane Doe). As part of the case, they are subpoena-ing two sites that published the leaked material to find the identities of the leakers. Apple is also subpoena-ing the ISP of one of the sites, hoping that server logs will give them clues to the leaker(s).
In a related case, Apple is suing the publisher of Think Secret (the kid), because he actively solicits for insider information on his website. Thus he is actively contributing to the leaks.
Your confusion is entirely understandable, due to the sloppy and confusing story that Zonk failed to check or edit properly. I've given up hope that slashdot will ever display competency.
Just to further clarify, this isn't even the Think Secret case, although it's closely related. The Bit Torrent thing, as you say, is completely different.
It's apocryphal. No mention of anything like that at Folklore.org. I'm sure one could say that the spirit of Woz infused some of the team members* of the Mac team, but that's about it.
This ruling wasn't on the Think Secret lawsuit, which is a separate but related case. In this case, Apple wants to subpoena two Mac news sites, and the ISP of one of the sites for information to help them track down who leaked the information.
In the Think Secret matter, Apple is suing the actual publisher because the believe that he contributed to the theft of trade secrets because he actively solicits such leaks on his website. Whether Power Page or Apple Insider have similar solicitations, I don't know, but they're not getting sued, they're getting subpoenaed.
[rant]It's becoming typical of slashdot editors to skip over important details and post articles that contain sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.[/rant]
Whether this is leak was harmful to Apple is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Remember, it's not just the consumer that now has access to this information, but Apple's competitors. I think Apple can fairly make the claim that this is very harmful to their business, though it would be up to a court to decide that matter.
As to Apple going after the publisher or reporter of the story, the freedom of the press issues, and the California shield law, keep in mind that such laws are based on balancing the public interest and the public right to know against private interests, privacy, and trade secrets. Shield laws were to designed to protect whistleblowers. If Apple had been committing accounting fraud, or some such scandalous behavior, and an employee leaked the information to one of these sites, then the California shield law could appropriately be applied.
One last detail. It is possible that the leaker(s) is not an Apple employee, but a consultant or contractor, or an employee of a contractor. I don't know if this matters much to the case at hand, since outsiders granted such information almost always have to sign an NDA as well.
BTW, I'm not picking on you, you just seemed a little unclear on the subject, like many other slashdotters posting here. I chose to reply to your post because you seem reasonable and coherent and I'm a long time (since 1975 at least) Led Zep fan.
Texas is the asshole of the country. Just look at what's comes out of texas recently.
Naw, the people of Texas still want to secede from the Union. And they're going to keep sending us Bushes until we let them. Bus after Bush after Bush. When Jenna is in the White House, and one of her cousins is the Governor of your state, maybe the American people will finally give up and let Texas loose.
If you read TFA, you'll find out that he did this hack to use as an example for his forthcoming book on OS X. Amit Singh is a very original thinker with what I consider a deep and dry wit. I'm really looking forward to this book.
I was thinking more of a virtual snow globe, but you're on to something. With two of these you could have that etchasketch experience right on the desktop.
You're actually getting into pretty deep waters that might be beyond the scope of a discussion on 3 D UIs. Unfortunately, it's also beyond the scope of my current mental capacity and emotional state. (Tired, hungry, and probably slightly cranky.)
Still, what you are writing suggest to me that you are thinking along some very interesting lines about symbols and how the mind uses them. I really like the example of the Apple (and not because I'm a Steve Jobs worshipping Mac Zealot).
If you haven't already, you might be interested to read Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure, a very influential Swiss thinker in the field of linguistics. It's not a very long book, but it has been extremely influential on Modern and Post-Modern ideas.
I'm not saying you don't have valid complaints, I was just reminiscing about the bad old days, or the good old days, depending on one's POV.
Are there any third party apps or utilities that will do the things you want?
I actually like OS X pretty much the way it is, but I can understand one's frustration when it's difficult or impossible to do exactly what one wants. Take Safari. Why can't I rearrange the tabs, or drag tabs from one window to another? This might seem stupid or trivial, but I would find such a capability extremely useful. (If you know of any patch that will allow safari to do this, I'd be extremely grateful.)
OK, so it would make a lousy lunchbox. On the other hand, it would make a nice humidor for your cigars. Or a classy diaphragm holder, if you had a really big vagina.
While I want to believe that Apple is the source of all good things in the computer world, what came first? The SFF PC or the G4 Cube? Were there really no mini-ITX boards before the Cube?
Slashdot Mirror
I had read this, but I just checked the Think Secret site and found the contact page. It's not as explicit as I had thought it would be, but the case that it's completely innocent is much weaker than the case that could be made that Nick is actively seeking trade secrets and confidential information. If he's not seeking insider information, why all the emphasis on anonymity and reassurances that he will protect his sources.
If Nick was publishing information about Apple knowingly selling a defective product that was a danger to the public, and he gained this from an insider wanting to unveil evil corporate behavior, that would be one thing. This is another.
I'm pleased to see that you didn't violate any patents of formatting.
Actually, Zonk is duping a Timothy story. How funny is that? Was the Timothy story a dupe of a Taco story?
It's a more diplomatic way of saying, "Eat shit and die, anonymous motherfucker."
No, this is the original story. The one you linked to is a retro-dupe. =)
It's a civil matter, not a criminal one (at this point, anyway), but other than that, you've gotten the gist of the matter. Just substitute the proper civil legal terms for some of criminal legal terms. Good analysis.
I've given up on reading, let alone answering all the legal ignorance I'm seeing on this story at slashdot, but I was pleased to see that you and a few others get it. I'm for whistle blower laws, but they don't apply here.
Thanks, hawk.
I appreciate the clear and simple analysis.
Even if the protection of sources is good policy for the public interest (I tend to think so), I don't think it should apply to cases such as these, where the link to public interest in less than tenuous. Do you not agree that public interest has to do with protecting the public interest, rather than "stuff the public might fijnd interesting"?
I find it disturbing, though not at all surprising, that many slashdotters accept the latter as their definition of "public interest".
Perhaps the line between the two can be hard to discern at times. This case is not one of them. JMHO
If you don't believe that there is any validity to trade secrets and confidential information, just say so. Then put your money where your mouth is, and post your social security number, your credit card info, and your medical history.
But where is the whistle blowing in this case? It's completely absent. Apple wasn't illegally dumping toxic waste, cooking the books, or engaging in anything illegal.
The Shield laws were designed to protect the public interest. I'm afraid that many people are confused about what "public interest" means. It doesn't mean information that the public would find interesting. It means for the benefit and protection of the public. If a company is secretly dumping chemicals in a vacant lot behind a school, it's in the public interest that someone in that company leak the information, and that the news media reports it. It's in the public interest that the whistle blower and the journalist be able to do this without fear of reprisal. In such a case, the balance between the common good and an individual or company's rights are tipped towards the common good.
Would "Republican Operative" be a better fit?
So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
If you'd RTFA, you'd find that that is what they are doing in THIS case.
You make good points, but you're confused on some issues. In this particular case, Apple is suing the unknown leakers, who are named as "Does" (as in John Doe or Jane Doe). As part of the case, they are subpoena-ing two sites that published the leaked material to find the identities of the leakers. Apple is also subpoena-ing the ISP of one of the sites, hoping that server logs will give them clues to the leaker(s).
In a related case, Apple is suing the publisher of Think Secret (the kid), because he actively solicits for insider information on his website. Thus he is actively contributing to the leaks.
Your confusion is entirely understandable, due to the sloppy and confusing story that Zonk failed to check or edit properly. I've given up hope that slashdot will ever display competency.
Just to further clarify, this isn't even the Think Secret case, although it's closely related. The Bit Torrent thing, as you say, is completely different.
It's apocryphal. No mention of anything like that at Folklore.org. I'm sure one could say that the spirit of Woz infused some of the team members* of the Mac team, but that's about it.
*especially Burrel
Some clarification:
This ruling wasn't on the Think Secret lawsuit, which is a separate but related case. In this case, Apple wants to subpoena two Mac news sites, and the ISP of one of the sites for information to help them track down who leaked the information.
In the Think Secret matter, Apple is suing the actual publisher because the believe that he contributed to the theft of trade secrets because he actively solicits such leaks on his website. Whether Power Page or Apple Insider have similar solicitations, I don't know, but they're not getting sued, they're getting subpoenaed.
[rant]It's becoming typical of slashdot editors to skip over important details and post articles that contain sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.[/rant]
Whether this is leak was harmful to Apple is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Remember, it's not just the consumer that now has access to this information, but Apple's competitors. I think Apple can fairly make the claim that this is very harmful to their business, though it would be up to a court to decide that matter.
As to Apple going after the publisher or reporter of the story, the freedom of the press issues, and the California shield law, keep in mind that such laws are based on balancing the public interest and the public right to know against private interests, privacy, and trade secrets. Shield laws were to designed to protect whistleblowers. If Apple had been committing accounting fraud, or some such scandalous behavior, and an employee leaked the information to one of these sites, then the California shield law could appropriately be applied.
One last detail. It is possible that the leaker(s) is not an Apple employee, but a consultant or contractor, or an employee of a contractor. I don't know if this matters much to the case at hand, since outsiders granted such information almost always have to sign an NDA as well.
BTW, I'm not picking on you, you just seemed a little unclear on the subject, like many other slashdotters posting here. I chose to reply to your post because you seem reasonable and coherent and I'm a long time (since 1975 at least) Led Zep fan.
Texas is the asshole of the country. Just look at what's comes out of texas recently.
Naw, the people of Texas still want to secede from the Union. And they're going to keep sending us Bushes until we let them. Bus after Bush after Bush. When Jenna is in the White House, and one of her cousins is the Governor of your state, maybe the American people will finally give up and let Texas loose.
If you read TFA, you'll find out that he did this hack to use as an example for his forthcoming book on OS X. Amit Singh is a very original thinker with what I consider a deep and dry wit. I'm really looking forward to this book.
I was thinking more of a virtual snow globe, but you're on to something. With two of these you could have that etchasketch experience right on the desktop.
You're actually getting into pretty deep waters that might be beyond the scope of a discussion on 3 D UIs. Unfortunately, it's also beyond the scope of my current mental capacity and emotional state. (Tired, hungry, and probably slightly cranky.)
Still, what you are writing suggest to me that you are thinking along some very interesting lines about symbols and how the mind uses them. I really like the example of the Apple (and not because I'm a Steve Jobs worshipping Mac Zealot).
If you haven't already, you might be interested to read Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure, a very influential Swiss thinker in the field of linguistics. It's not a very long book, but it has been extremely influential on Modern and Post-Modern ideas.
I'm not saying you don't have valid complaints, I was just reminiscing about the bad old days, or the good old days, depending on one's POV.
Are there any third party apps or utilities that will do the things you want?
I actually like OS X pretty much the way it is, but I can understand one's frustration when it's difficult or impossible to do exactly what one wants. Take Safari. Why can't I rearrange the tabs, or drag tabs from one window to another? This might seem stupid or trivial, but I would find such a capability extremely useful. (If you know of any patch that will allow safari to do this, I'd be extremely grateful.)
Or maybe you're just intelligent enough to use "paradigm" in it's original sense. You know, from when it was a word, not just market-squack.
I think you better stop. It's pasture bedtime.
OK, so it would make a lousy lunchbox. On the other hand, it would make a nice humidor for your cigars. Or a classy diaphragm holder, if you had a really big vagina.
While I want to believe that Apple is the source of all good things in the computer world, what came first? The SFF PC or the G4 Cube? Were there really no mini-ITX boards before the Cube?
Which is fairly surprising, considering how well known it is that the pyramid shape will preserve your data and protect it from viruses and worms.