And the fact that we commit crimes which go unpunished means we shouldn't punnish others?
I don't think that is what the author was implying. The problem he mentioned is that there are too many crimes we all commit. This relates to the GPS device in that it could be put on anyone, after all we are all criminals right? It boils down to the fear that our government will become a 1984-like technology enforced totalitarian regime, with monitoring for all, and freedom for no one. When everyone is a convicted felon, or at least most people, or maybe just the poor, then they will all be monitored constantly by big brother. The concern is somewhat valid given how many people in the U.S. go to prison, compared to other countries. I think last time I looked it was 25% of young black men. If such a large percentage are criminals, maybe we should try to solve that problem either by legalizing what is now illegal or by improving their education and prospects. This just allows the problem to get worse, with fewer drawbacks for those in authority.
If you have an old macintosh laying around you can couple it with and Elgato EyeTV system. It may be a more than you are looking for though and, as I said, requires a macintosh to work with it. It uses a free online program guide as well as scheduled recordings. It works for me. Alternately you could build your own with a cheap PC, and MythTV.
There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law.
We're all breaking the law, haven't you noticed? In theory easy tracking and movement restrictions for felons, who can then function in society is a good thing. I mean, it keeps those criminals straight, right? The problem is when a large part of your country is made up of felons, then felon becomes synonymous with poor.
I break the law all the time. I swear in front of women, carry gasoline in my gasoline powered car, and pee in the woods when I have to go. Many people break the law by smoking a joint or getting drunk in public. For some reason it is largely poor black men that get arrested and convicted, although statistically they do not seem to be the largest percentage of those committing crimes. The problem is not so much that we cannot control the large number of felons out their. The problem is that their is such a large number of felons out their. This is solving a symptom, that will allow the actual problem to get worse.
An electronically monitored, rightless, outcast class of society is a Bad Thing(tm) in my book.
If we're really outraged about the use of GPS to track the same folks that would have had a radio-locater alarm bracelet before, then I ASSUME that everyone was just as upset about the pre-existing technology.
The already existing technology is very limited. You can use it to confine someone without guards, even for given time periods. It cannot, realistically be placed upon someone you expect to work a normal job and function in society. GPS devices on the other hand, can be put on a large percentage of the population. Lets arbitrarily refer to them as the "poor black slave" class for no real reason. It is a way to restrict the rights of the poorest part of our society, and allows the laws that make a huge number of them criminals to stand, since we no longer have to put them all in prisons. In fact it encourages more laws that make felons to be created, since a large part of our society (we'll arbitrarily call them the rich white land-owners) would like to restrict the movement of the poor.
Here's a counter proposal, lets not use GPS devices. Lets instead repeal all the laws that keep the poor, poor. Lets provide truly equal opportunity for education, jobs , and advancement. Lets treat drugs as a social problem, decriminalize them, and start taxing them. Lets give voting rights back to felons, and actually have enough voting machines running for them to vote on. How about that? Instead of finding new ways for felons to walk among us as unequal citizens, how about if we just had fewer felons.
Already there is precedence within the law for restriction or elimination of certain personal freedoms and rights, especially if felonies have been committed. Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote. Especially given the violent nature behind many restraining order allocations, this is a good implementation of GPS tracking technology.
There are several important points here to consider. First, a minor clarification; Felons do not have the right to vote in some states, which I believe is a very bad law. After all, if you can't vote to change the laws that put you in prison, how can change occur? Imagine if all the people who were convicted of drinking during prohibition could no longer vote to have it repealed. All laws of that sort do is remove democracy from a portion of our society, a portion that is downtrodden.
Next, restraining order laws are very weak in many places. Often a restraining order can be obtained with no proof of wrongdoing. In some of these cases removing the order can drag out in the courts for years. This has already been abused in divorce proceedings to keep a soon to be ex-spouse from getting to personal possessions owned jointly. Basically, many restraining order laws need to be fixed before we have iron-clad enforcement of them.
In a place where all the laws are just, and are constantly fit to the morals of society, I think lawbreakers should be held accountable for their actions. It is a perfectly reasonable cost-cutting measure to parole prisoners and electronically track their movements to prevent them from committing any more crimes. This is not that place.
The vast majority of people who are arrested, imprisoned, and paroled are their because of the new prohibition, the one on drugs. A large portion of our society is addicted to drugs, involved in violence because of drugs and organized crime, or selling drugs in an attempt to escape poverty. Our prisons are overflowing with poor and poorly educated people. It is a huge, sucking, social wound, and this is the band-aid.
The authorities can't really lock up the lower class, and the users because their are just too many of them. Instead of fixing the laws and fixing the social problems, however, they will use this to remove the rights of the lower class, making them unequal participants in society. As you mentioned many felons no longer have the right to vote. This will effectively remove from them the right to move freely within our society. Do you think this will reduce the number of felons, or increase it?
If you forget everything you know about America and everything you have been taught, then look at our country with a fresh perspective you will see a place where the lower class is routinely arrested and their rights removed. You will see a huge racial problem. You will see fully a quarter of young black men with no right to vote and with electronic surveillance equipment permanently attached to them. You will see laws that do not reflect the will of many of the people, but do reflect the will of the wealthy upper classes. You will see little opportunity or bravery. You will see fear and oppression. Watch the television show cops for a while and imagine every black to be a christian and every cop as a roman soldier.
When laws are unjust, they must be fought against. Slavery, suffrage, prohibition, and just about every other great social reform has been the result of law breakers standing up and the people in power being unable to lock them all up. This is an alternative to locking them all up, we just take away their rights, and set them loose, knowing that we can find and arrest any of them any time. If GPS devices are used to track felons on a regular basis, I can almost guarantee it will become a tool of oppression at some point. Such is the nature of our society.
2) Do journalists have the right to protect their sources?
Actually, both of those things have plenty of precedent. First, anyone who reports is a journalist. Their is no real, legal question that Nick was acting as a journalist. Second, Journalists have no particular right to protect their sources, when subpoenaed by the courts, unless a whistle blower law comes into effect (if their is an overriding public good, safety issue, government corruption, or crime being exposed). Basically, Journalists can print anything, but they are responsible for any laws they break in so doing, and are not protected from either prosecution or answering subpoenas. The media has no legal right not to reveal sources when compelled by the courts. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. Their is no reason why journalists should be allowed to commit crimes arbitrarily or avoid any other legal responsibility.
The law which makes it illegal to divuldge the identity of US agents has a specific clause exempting journalists.
There are likely a number of laws broken, but yes I believe the law under which someone who released the names of those agents to the press is likely to be charged exempts members of the press. It does not, however, protect them from subpoenas to testify about their sources, which is why they are currently being held in contempt of court.
I knew that Ford was going to be releasing a new compact performance car in summer 2006 for $15k, codenamed "Bullshit"
He printed the technical specs of the new machine, including dimensions, hard drive, CPU, RAM, Video card, etc. etc. The specifications of an upcoming, car are textbook examples of a trade secret.
How would you propose to word a law to implement what you just described? And how would that law treat people who are simultaneously whistleblowers AND criminals?
Try doing a google search. Most states already implement just such laws. Those laws provide protection for criminals who are acting on behalf of a government agency, business, or organization, who report on the criminal activities of that organization. These are commonly referred to as whistle blower laws. I'm no lawyer, so I would not want to take a swing at the wording, but basically they encourage people to come forward, whether or not they are complicit in the act, and provide both legal protection and protection from retaliation of their employer. Often this include guarantees of anonymity.
If sources don't know for certain, I mean 100% certain, that they will be protected, they will not come forward.
I'm not sure if you meant to refer to this case or whistle blower cases in general with this comment. In any event their are laws to protect both journalists and sources in cases of government corruption, public health, or important concerns to the public. They are explicit, and usually work. (Somehow they were ruled to not apply during the space shuttle disaster investigation due to some funky politics.) The case with Apple, however, does not fall under these statutes at all because their was no danger to public health, government corruption, or vested public interest. Their was just some guy who broke his employment contract and released trade secrets to an online news site, that either did not know or care that publishing them was a violation of trade secrets law. In this case I don't think the source deserves protection from prosecution or retribution from his employer for acting in the public good. He deserves to be fired for being a blabbermouth. I don't think any potential whistle blowers will be discouraged by the lack of whistle blower protection here. It does not, and in my opinion should not, apply.
Your assumptions are invalid. You don't know WHERE the rumors (and they were reported not as fact, but rumor) came from.
It is true that I don't know. That, however, is immaterial. The question is did Nick know, or have a reasonable suspicion to believe that is where they came from. (legally speaking)
But your assumptions lead me to suspect that you are Steve Jobs or (more likely) an Apple lawyer.
You are correct on both counts. I am Steve Jobs, and I have been taking law classes at night to prepare for my lawsuit against Apple Records.
Spreading rumors concerning Apple is now breaking the law???
You seem to have missed most of the discussion up to this point. Yes, publishing rumors that are trade secrets, that you have reason to believe are obtained through breaking a NDA is breaking the law in 45 states. Please read the some of the previous comments in the thread for more details.
Well, as for Ashcroft, he's be very surprised by impeachment hearings, wherever they were held. It unlikely that Bush would be impeached for his crimes, although he could, conceivably, face a civil suit after he has left office.
The reason things are wrong is NEVER because they break laws. The reason we have made laws against them is because they are wrong, or, in the case of bad laws, because enough lawmakers believe they are wrong.
From the context I thought it was clear that I was speaking about them being in the wrong in their lawsuit, i.e. legally culpable. The morality and/or ethics of the situation are a completely different topic. I agree with you completely that laws are too often equated with ethical behavior. It is a very important point and well worth clarifying.
Wow, you did not refute a single one of my points, including the ones you quoted. You refuted several points I did not make. The closest you come is asking the question, "That's not being a reporter, is it?" to which I answer, "yes it is."
Forget government classes, take a class on reading comprehension.
When you SUE, you're a fucking asshole and you should be wiped off the face of this planet with the bullet spray from a thousand TEC 9's.
I want to make a few simple points for you. First, I know it is hard to imagine, but sometimes their are actually good reasons to file a lawsuit. Occasionally, the law does help people who have been wronged. Second, the worst case scenario for the web site is that they have to reveal the name of their source. Their are no shutting down, no million dollar settlements, no public beatings. If someone threatens to scowl at you if you don't wear blue, are they a bully? I suppose only if you are so scared of your own shadow that scowls are going to frighten you. Finally, I hope you do have a thousand tec-9's since that is about the only way you will hit anything with those cheap, POS, inaccurate, underpowered pieces of junk.
So the fact that Novak outed Valery Plaime as a CIA operative even though it's specifically illegal to do so means that he should be prosecuted?
Legally, it is my understanding that is the case. When the people in charge of enforcing the law, however, have a vested interest in not seeing a violation prosecuted, there is little hope that anything will happen. Both Bush and Ashcroft are obviously guilty of misappropriating funds and spending them in ways specifically forbidden by law. I don't expect either will be inside a courtroom anytime soon. In the Apple case, they have money and lawyers and their is no conflict with the administrations agenda, so I expect the law may actually be enforced if it comes to that. Apple does not seem too interested in prosecution though, only in subpoenaing the name of the leak, so that they can fire his ass. I'd probably do the same.
However, this reporter did not sign an NDA and therefore cannot be bound by it.
The reporter broke the law passed in 45 states including all the ones in question that says it is illegal to publish trade secrets that you have reason to believe were obtained through the violation of an NDA. No one is claiming the reporter broke an NDA, just that they violated the trade secrets law, I just mentioned.
Lets put it this way. Is it OK for the press to publish your bank account numbers and pass phrase that a hacker gave them? Is it OK for them to publish the codes to launch nuclear missiles given to them by a foreign spy? Is it OK for them to publish slanderous and completely untrue information in order to inflate their own stock price? The answer to all of these questions is "no." The reason is because they break laws. There are several laws that restrict free speech and they apply to both members of the press (a legally undefined term) and everyone else. The reason these laws exist is because the supreme court and congress agree that other clauses of the constitution take precedence over the freedom of the press clause in a few specific instances. This does not in any way stop them from publishing this information, it just means that they will be punished by the law after doing so. Get it?
Being a reporter does not make it legally OK for you to break laws, even ones relating to publishing information and even if that information is true. You may not agree with those laws, but even someone as anti-law and anti-big-government as myself is glad that their are a few of them. Just as a reporter can be put in jail for printing a giant sign that says "WARNING FIRE, EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY!" and putting it on the screen in a movie theater, they can be arrested for knowingly publishing illegally obtained trade secrets. The accuracy of the information, has nothing to do with it.
Journalists need the protections so that they can be trusted by sources to release information w/o revealing the persons behind that release. If Apple is able to deny this right of protection over something as silly as a new product design how are sources supposed to trust journalists over something important?
The law protects journalists and their sources when it is something important. They do not have to reveal sources if their is a overriding public interest or danger. They are not protected in any other case (like this one). This is just corporate espionage. If the article had said the government is including spy cameras in the new products, or that they cause cancer and Apple does not want you to know, then the reporter and his source would be protected by whistle blower statutes in most states.
It is a criminal offense for a public employer, such as a police commissioner, to even ask who leaked information to the media.
What about civil cases? This is not a government employee asking, this is the private party, injured by a criminal action. How is that handled in Sweden?
They could revinvent their product, perhaps striking a deal with the license holders for the next medium.
They already struck a deal with the license holders for this medium. That is why they are fighting it, because they can't see where in the license it says they can't do what they are doing, and the DVD consortium which is suing them, refuses to say. Fighting it out in court is a better option then giving up, and doing whatever they are told, regardless of their contract. It is hard to imagine anyone advocating otherwise.
...This is the culprit that Apple should seek. But they are taking the easy route and trying to bully a small time web site in the hopes that it will discourage similar reporting in the future
How is it bullying the web site to sue them for the name of their source? All they are doing is seeking the culprit. They are not even trying to get money from or an injunction against the web site operator. He made money by selling ads on his site, while breaking the law and conspiring with another person who dishonorably broke their agreements. Now if this was exposing some danger to the public, or government conspiracy, then whistle blower laws would protect them. This is nothing more than very petty corporate espionage, for profit, and Apple is not even trying for monetary compensation. All they have asked for is the name of the person who leaked the info, so they can fire them for espionage and violating their NDA. I think Apple has gone out of their way to be accommodating to the press and their fan sites here.
When that "third party" is the Press, then the 1st Ammendment applies. Regardless of the nature of the organization whose confidentiality was breeched.
Your argument is spurious. Being a member of the press offers no specific protections in the constitution. Anyone can act as a reporter, just by reporting information. Let me pose an example for you. If a reporter yells "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, are they immune to prosecution?
Reporters are not protected when breaking the law, except in a few specific cases where whistle blower statutes protect reporters and sources when their is an overriding public interest or threat. I'm sure many mac fanatics would have died had the specs not been leaked, so in this case I'm sure the reporter in question will be protected.
But the Kaleidescape isn't much of a backup solution. If you lose your original disc, the file on the Kaleidescape server is only good for watching on a Kaleidescape player.
It is true this is a serious limitation. The information is stored on a RAID array of disks and comes with support and service. The chances that the movies will be accidentally destroyed is much lower than with a DVD.
Also, a disk imported now will always have the limitations of the current format, so the motivation is still there to buy "another copy in DVD-purple-ray-extreme-DVD3 format...", or one with newer, *specialer* features.
That is partially true. This setup already gets past several of the most inconvenient features of DVDs, like having to swap them and automatically skipping the FBI warning, previews, etc. The former is the most likely next improvement in formats from the MPAA, when they move to online distribution in a new, DRMed, media format. The thing that probably has them the most worried right now, is that they realized in a few years, this will become cheap, it is already modular so new formats can be added, including music which is outside of their control. This is basically a way to make a setup that using currently technology, may be better than their next planned technology upgrade. They could lose huge amounts of money on reselling movies, if this system gained popularity, and went way down in price over the next few years.
Slashdot Mirror
And the fact that we commit crimes which go unpunished means we shouldn't punnish others?
I don't think that is what the author was implying. The problem he mentioned is that there are too many crimes we all commit. This relates to the GPS device in that it could be put on anyone, after all we are all criminals right? It boils down to the fear that our government will become a 1984-like technology enforced totalitarian regime, with monitoring for all, and freedom for no one. When everyone is a convicted felon, or at least most people, or maybe just the poor, then they will all be monitored constantly by big brother. The concern is somewhat valid given how many people in the U.S. go to prison, compared to other countries. I think last time I looked it was 25% of young black men. If such a large percentage are criminals, maybe we should try to solve that problem either by legalizing what is now illegal or by improving their education and prospects. This just allows the problem to get worse, with fewer drawbacks for those in authority.
If you have an old macintosh laying around you can couple it with and Elgato EyeTV system. It may be a more than you are looking for though and, as I said, requires a macintosh to work with it. It uses a free online program guide as well as scheduled recordings. It works for me. Alternately you could build your own with a cheap PC, and MythTV.
There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law.
We're all breaking the law, haven't you noticed? In theory easy tracking and movement restrictions for felons, who can then function in society is a good thing. I mean, it keeps those criminals straight, right? The problem is when a large part of your country is made up of felons, then felon becomes synonymous with poor.
I break the law all the time. I swear in front of women, carry gasoline in my gasoline powered car, and pee in the woods when I have to go. Many people break the law by smoking a joint or getting drunk in public. For some reason it is largely poor black men that get arrested and convicted, although statistically they do not seem to be the largest percentage of those committing crimes. The problem is not so much that we cannot control the large number of felons out their. The problem is that their is such a large number of felons out their. This is solving a symptom, that will allow the actual problem to get worse.
An electronically monitored, rightless, outcast class of society is a Bad Thing(tm) in my book.
If we're really outraged about the use of GPS to track the same folks that would have had a radio-locater alarm bracelet before, then I ASSUME that everyone was just as upset about the pre-existing technology.
The already existing technology is very limited. You can use it to confine someone without guards, even for given time periods. It cannot, realistically be placed upon someone you expect to work a normal job and function in society. GPS devices on the other hand, can be put on a large percentage of the population. Lets arbitrarily refer to them as the "poor black slave" class for no real reason. It is a way to restrict the rights of the poorest part of our society, and allows the laws that make a huge number of them criminals to stand, since we no longer have to put them all in prisons. In fact it encourages more laws that make felons to be created, since a large part of our society (we'll arbitrarily call them the rich white land-owners) would like to restrict the movement of the poor.
Here's a counter proposal, lets not use GPS devices. Lets instead repeal all the laws that keep the poor, poor. Lets provide truly equal opportunity for education, jobs , and advancement. Lets treat drugs as a social problem, decriminalize them, and start taxing them. Lets give voting rights back to felons, and actually have enough voting machines running for them to vote on. How about that? Instead of finding new ways for felons to walk among us as unequal citizens, how about if we just had fewer felons.
Already there is precedence within the law for restriction or elimination of certain personal freedoms and rights, especially if felonies have been committed. Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote. Especially given the violent nature behind many restraining order allocations, this is a good implementation of GPS tracking technology.
There are several important points here to consider. First, a minor clarification; Felons do not have the right to vote in some states, which I believe is a very bad law. After all, if you can't vote to change the laws that put you in prison, how can change occur? Imagine if all the people who were convicted of drinking during prohibition could no longer vote to have it repealed. All laws of that sort do is remove democracy from a portion of our society, a portion that is downtrodden.
Next, restraining order laws are very weak in many places. Often a restraining order can be obtained with no proof of wrongdoing. In some of these cases removing the order can drag out in the courts for years. This has already been abused in divorce proceedings to keep a soon to be ex-spouse from getting to personal possessions owned jointly. Basically, many restraining order laws need to be fixed before we have iron-clad enforcement of them.
In a place where all the laws are just, and are constantly fit to the morals of society, I think lawbreakers should be held accountable for their actions. It is a perfectly reasonable cost-cutting measure to parole prisoners and electronically track their movements to prevent them from committing any more crimes. This is not that place.
The vast majority of people who are arrested, imprisoned, and paroled are their because of the new prohibition, the one on drugs. A large portion of our society is addicted to drugs, involved in violence because of drugs and organized crime, or selling drugs in an attempt to escape poverty. Our prisons are overflowing with poor and poorly educated people. It is a huge, sucking, social wound, and this is the band-aid.
The authorities can't really lock up the lower class, and the users because their are just too many of them. Instead of fixing the laws and fixing the social problems, however, they will use this to remove the rights of the lower class, making them unequal participants in society. As you mentioned many felons no longer have the right to vote. This will effectively remove from them the right to move freely within our society. Do you think this will reduce the number of felons, or increase it?
If you forget everything you know about America and everything you have been taught, then look at our country with a fresh perspective you will see a place where the lower class is routinely arrested and their rights removed. You will see a huge racial problem. You will see fully a quarter of young black men with no right to vote and with electronic surveillance equipment permanently attached to them. You will see laws that do not reflect the will of many of the people, but do reflect the will of the wealthy upper classes. You will see little opportunity or bravery. You will see fear and oppression. Watch the television show cops for a while and imagine every black to be a christian and every cop as a roman soldier.
When laws are unjust, they must be fought against. Slavery, suffrage, prohibition, and just about every other great social reform has been the result of law breakers standing up and the people in power being unable to lock them all up. This is an alternative to locking them all up, we just take away their rights, and set them loose, knowing that we can find and arrest any of them any time. If GPS devices are used to track felons on a regular basis, I can almost guarantee it will become a tool of oppression at some point. Such is the nature of our society.
The court has to consider two things.
1) What is a "journalist"?
2) Do journalists have the right to protect their sources?
Actually, both of those things have plenty of precedent. First, anyone who reports is a journalist. Their is no real, legal question that Nick was acting as a journalist. Second, Journalists have no particular right to protect their sources, when subpoenaed by the courts, unless a whistle blower law comes into effect (if their is an overriding public good, safety issue, government corruption, or crime being exposed). Basically, Journalists can print anything, but they are responsible for any laws they break in so doing, and are not protected from either prosecution or answering subpoenas. The media has no legal right not to reveal sources when compelled by the courts. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. Their is no reason why journalists should be allowed to commit crimes arbitrarily or avoid any other legal responsibility.
The law which makes it illegal to divuldge the identity of US agents has a specific clause exempting journalists.
There are likely a number of laws broken, but yes I believe the law under which someone who released the names of those agents to the press is likely to be charged exempts members of the press. It does not, however, protect them from subpoenas to testify about their sources, which is why they are currently being held in contempt of court.
I knew that Ford was going to be releasing a new compact performance car in summer 2006 for $15k, codenamed "Bullshit"
He printed the technical specs of the new machine, including dimensions, hard drive, CPU, RAM, Video card, etc. etc. The specifications of an upcoming, car are textbook examples of a trade secret.
How would you propose to word a law to implement what you just described? And how would that law treat people who are simultaneously whistleblowers AND criminals?
Try doing a google search. Most states already implement just such laws. Those laws provide protection for criminals who are acting on behalf of a government agency, business, or organization, who report on the criminal activities of that organization. These are commonly referred to as whistle blower laws. I'm no lawyer, so I would not want to take a swing at the wording, but basically they encourage people to come forward, whether or not they are complicit in the act, and provide both legal protection and protection from retaliation of their employer. Often this include guarantees of anonymity.
If sources don't know for certain, I mean 100% certain, that they will be protected, they will not come forward.
I'm not sure if you meant to refer to this case or whistle blower cases in general with this comment. In any event their are laws to protect both journalists and sources in cases of government corruption, public health, or important concerns to the public. They are explicit, and usually work. (Somehow they were ruled to not apply during the space shuttle disaster investigation due to some funky politics.) The case with Apple, however, does not fall under these statutes at all because their was no danger to public health, government corruption, or vested public interest. Their was just some guy who broke his employment contract and released trade secrets to an online news site, that either did not know or care that publishing them was a violation of trade secrets law. In this case I don't think the source deserves protection from prosecution or retribution from his employer for acting in the public good. He deserves to be fired for being a blabbermouth. I don't think any potential whistle blowers will be discouraged by the lack of whistle blower protection here. It does not, and in my opinion should not, apply.
Your assumptions are invalid. You don't know WHERE the rumors (and they were reported not as fact, but rumor) came from.
It is true that I don't know. That, however, is immaterial. The question is did Nick know, or have a reasonable suspicion to believe that is where they came from. (legally speaking)
But your assumptions lead me to suspect that you are Steve Jobs or (more likely) an Apple lawyer.
You are correct on both counts. I am Steve Jobs, and I have been taking law classes at night to prepare for my lawsuit against Apple Records.
Spreading rumors concerning Apple is now breaking the law???
You seem to have missed most of the discussion up to this point. Yes, publishing rumors that are trade secrets, that you have reason to believe are obtained through breaking a NDA is breaking the law in 45 states. Please read the some of the previous comments in the thread for more details.
Impeachment trials are held in the Senate.
Well, as for Ashcroft, he's be very surprised by impeachment hearings, wherever they were held. It unlikely that Bush would be impeached for his crimes, although he could, conceivably, face a civil suit after he has left office.
The reason things are wrong is NEVER because they break laws. The reason we have made laws against them is because they are wrong, or, in the case of bad laws, because enough lawmakers believe they are wrong.
From the context I thought it was clear that I was speaking about them being in the wrong in their lawsuit, i.e. legally culpable. The morality and/or ethics of the situation are a completely different topic. I agree with you completely that laws are too often equated with ethical behavior. It is a very important point and well worth clarifying.
Wow, you did not refute a single one of my points, including the ones you quoted. You refuted several points I did not make. The closest you come is asking the question, "That's not being a reporter, is it?" to which I answer, "yes it is."
Forget government classes, take a class on reading comprehension.
When you SUE, you're a fucking asshole and you should be wiped off the face of this planet with the bullet spray from a thousand TEC 9's.
I want to make a few simple points for you. First, I know it is hard to imagine, but sometimes their are actually good reasons to file a lawsuit. Occasionally, the law does help people who have been wronged. Second, the worst case scenario for the web site is that they have to reveal the name of their source. Their are no shutting down, no million dollar settlements, no public beatings. If someone threatens to scowl at you if you don't wear blue, are they a bully? I suppose only if you are so scared of your own shadow that scowls are going to frighten you. Finally, I hope you do have a thousand tec-9's since that is about the only way you will hit anything with those cheap, POS, inaccurate, underpowered pieces of junk.
So the fact that Novak outed Valery Plaime as a CIA operative even though it's specifically illegal to do so means that he should be prosecuted?
Legally, it is my understanding that is the case. When the people in charge of enforcing the law, however, have a vested interest in not seeing a violation prosecuted, there is little hope that anything will happen. Both Bush and Ashcroft are obviously guilty of misappropriating funds and spending them in ways specifically forbidden by law. I don't expect either will be inside a courtroom anytime soon. In the Apple case, they have money and lawyers and their is no conflict with the administrations agenda, so I expect the law may actually be enforced if it comes to that. Apple does not seem too interested in prosecution though, only in subpoenaing the name of the leak, so that they can fire his ass. I'd probably do the same.
However, this reporter did not sign an NDA and therefore cannot be bound by it.
The reporter broke the law passed in 45 states including all the ones in question that says it is illegal to publish trade secrets that you have reason to believe were obtained through the violation of an NDA. No one is claiming the reporter broke an NDA, just that they violated the trade secrets law, I just mentioned.
Lets put it this way. Is it OK for the press to publish your bank account numbers and pass phrase that a hacker gave them? Is it OK for them to publish the codes to launch nuclear missiles given to them by a foreign spy? Is it OK for them to publish slanderous and completely untrue information in order to inflate their own stock price? The answer to all of these questions is "no." The reason is because they break laws. There are several laws that restrict free speech and they apply to both members of the press (a legally undefined term) and everyone else. The reason these laws exist is because the supreme court and congress agree that other clauses of the constitution take precedence over the freedom of the press clause in a few specific instances. This does not in any way stop them from publishing this information, it just means that they will be punished by the law after doing so. Get it?
Being a reporter does not make it legally OK for you to break laws, even ones relating to publishing information and even if that information is true. You may not agree with those laws, but even someone as anti-law and anti-big-government as myself is glad that their are a few of them. Just as a reporter can be put in jail for printing a giant sign that says "WARNING FIRE, EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY!" and putting it on the screen in a movie theater, they can be arrested for knowingly publishing illegally obtained trade secrets. The accuracy of the information, has nothing to do with it.
Journalists need the protections so that they can be trusted by sources to release information w/o revealing the persons behind that release. If Apple is able to deny this right of protection over something as silly as a new product design how are sources supposed to trust journalists over something important?
The law protects journalists and their sources when it is something important. They do not have to reveal sources if their is a overriding public interest or danger. They are not protected in any other case (like this one). This is just corporate espionage. If the article had said the government is including spy cameras in the new products, or that they cause cancer and Apple does not want you to know, then the reporter and his source would be protected by whistle blower statutes in most states.
It is a criminal offense for a public employer, such as a police commissioner, to even ask who leaked information to the media.
What about civil cases? This is not a government employee asking, this is the private party, injured by a criminal action. How is that handled in Sweden?
They could revinvent their product, perhaps striking a deal with the license holders for the next medium.
They already struck a deal with the license holders for this medium. That is why they are fighting it, because they can't see where in the license it says they can't do what they are doing, and the DVD consortium which is suing them, refuses to say. Fighting it out in court is a better option then giving up, and doing whatever they are told, regardless of their contract. It is hard to imagine anyone advocating otherwise.
How is it bullying the web site to sue them for the name of their source? All they are doing is seeking the culprit. They are not even trying to get money from or an injunction against the web site operator. He made money by selling ads on his site, while breaking the law and conspiring with another person who dishonorably broke their agreements. Now if this was exposing some danger to the public, or government conspiracy, then whistle blower laws would protect them. This is nothing more than very petty corporate espionage, for profit, and Apple is not even trying for monetary compensation. All they have asked for is the name of the person who leaked the info, so they can fire them for espionage and violating their NDA. I think Apple has gone out of their way to be accommodating to the press and their fan sites here.
When that "third party" is the Press, then the 1st Ammendment applies. Regardless of the nature of the organization whose confidentiality was breeched.
Your argument is spurious. Being a member of the press offers no specific protections in the constitution. Anyone can act as a reporter, just by reporting information. Let me pose an example for you. If a reporter yells "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, are they immune to prosecution?
Reporters are not protected when breaking the law, except in a few specific cases where whistle blower statutes protect reporters and sources when their is an overriding public interest or threat. I'm sure many mac fanatics would have died had the specs not been leaked, so in this case I'm sure the reporter in question will be protected.
But the Kaleidescape isn't much of a backup solution. If you lose your original disc, the file on the Kaleidescape server is only good for watching on a Kaleidescape player.
It is true this is a serious limitation. The information is stored on a RAID array of disks and comes with support and service. The chances that the movies will be accidentally destroyed is much lower than with a DVD.
Also, a disk imported now will always have the limitations of the current format, so the motivation is still there to buy "another copy in DVD-purple-ray-extreme-DVD3 format...", or one with newer, *specialer* features.
That is partially true. This setup already gets past several of the most inconvenient features of DVDs, like having to swap them and automatically skipping the FBI warning, previews, etc. The former is the most likely next improvement in formats from the MPAA, when they move to online distribution in a new, DRMed, media format. The thing that probably has them the most worried right now, is that they realized in a few years, this will become cheap, it is already modular so new formats can be added, including music which is outside of their control. This is basically a way to make a setup that using currently technology, may be better than their next planned technology upgrade. They could lose huge amounts of money on reselling movies, if this system gained popularity, and went way down in price over the next few years.