Bloggers Must Reveal Sources to Apple in Info Leak Legal Case

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4348425.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4348425.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Apple has won its legal fight to make three bloggers reveal who told them about unreleased products. The bid to unmask the employees leaking information was launched in December 2004 following online articles about Apple's Asteroid product. Now Apple has won the right to see e-mail records from the three bloggers to root out the culprit. A lawyer for the three bloggers said the ruling set a dangerous precedent that could harm all news reporters."</i> <br /><br />Interesting, if slightly worrying news. Hopefully the flow of juicy product rumours will still continue, regardless of what happens in the Apple appeal. It's always good to know what manufactures have up thier sleeves. Isn't it?

[TheZodiac]

Another reason why apple sucks. Sure they make cute products....but how about hiring more trusting people and now
worms".... oooooh i made a funny.

[Phillip Dyson]

I don't think you can blame Apple.
Sure I don't subscribe to the cherum-like attributes that some fanatics apply to them.

But, bottomline, a company is going to try to protect their interests.
Its actually the judge that affirmed and sanctioned their actions.

I say appeal! :devilboy:

[geosta]

The rumours that surround the release of a product are very much a double edge sword for the tech companies.

On one hand, if people know that a company is about to release a new and updated version of a product they aren't going to go out and buy the old stock (or even worse, wait until the new one is released and pick up the old stock at clearance prices). Either way, the company loses revenue and profits.

On the other hand, the only reason Dell got my money for a new PDA was that I knew that they would be releasing a the x50V soon after HP had released theirs, otherwise I wouldn't have waited and spent my cash on a 4700.

A further point, Apple really doesn't know how to endear themselves to the community that kept the company viable through the lean years do they? 'Yeah, thanks for continuing to buy our products when nobody else was. Oh, no go to prison for contempt of court for not giving up your sources.' Makes me happy I bought an iRiver! :lol:

G

[gorgoroth]

Well, after being a god send for all artist, photographers, and journalist for it's publishing application, apple is now becoming the killer of press freedom. This little hitch is worst than it seems: it means that for a US court, a journalist on the web must reveal it's source (which is against the basis of journalism freedom over the world).

Giving insight is bad if the company doesn't want them, but this court case shapes internet to what music company and general company wants: a new comercial media, where freedom of speech is not wanted. Your emails are no more a private land since one year, you cannot make something free anymore because if a company put a copyright on your idea, it becomes the legal owner, you wil soon not be able to use your legally owned music files on anything else than one computer, as it's already the case on ebooks.

I'm sorry to say to apple fans that the nice '68 image apple want's to show is just a fake. It use the same policy than Microsoft or HP when it come to business.

[acronym]

are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?

wow 8O

[daeglan]

are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?

No we are against Apple violating a basis of free press to do it.
Apple can search all they want. But we fell a Blog reporter should be given the same consideration as a newspaper reporter. Newspapers do not have to reveal their sources and neither should blog reporters. Because on the basis it could be argued if a newspaper has a web page they would have to give up their sources too.

Think of it this way. What if this blog had reported that G.W. Bush had Murdered someone and had documented proof. As it stands they would have to give up their source which now makes it possible for Bush to have them rubbed out eliminating the threat to his position. Thus making it so that people would fear revealing this important fact.

Make sense now?

[Phillip Dyson]

are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?

No we are against Apple violating a basis of free press to do it.
Apple can search all they want. But we fell a Blog reporter should be given the same consideration as a newspaper reporter. Newspapers do not have to reveal their sources and neither should blog reporters. Because on the basis it could be argued if a newspaper has a web page they would have to give up their sources too.

Think of it this way. What if this blog had reported that G.W. Bush had Murdered someone and had documented proof. As it stands they would have to give up their source which now makes it possible for Bush to have them rubbed out eliminating the threat to his position. Thus making it so that people would fear revealing this important fact.

Make sense now?

A bit of an extreme. But the premise is sound.
Cyberspace can't have it both way. On one hand, everyone cries "No Regulation". On the other hand, "We want to be treated like everyone else."

This is and the music fiasco (which has become law, loosely) is a symptom of adhoc decision making on the hand of judges. Who absent any printed legislation, have to go on their gut and common sense (or lack there of). Apparently this judge doesn't see bloggers as journalists. Another one may have. We are at the whim of a judge's perception of the matter at hand.

[foghead]

This ruling doesn't have anything to do with whether or not bloggers are journalists, freedom of the press, or anything like that.

This has to do with laws being broken - specifically laws regarding trade secrets. Reporters are not allowed to protect sources who have broken laws, and trade secrets are protected by law.

You are welcome to agree or disagree with trade secrets being protected, but this is the way the laws are currently written, and is the basis for the ruling.

[spinedoc]

Wasnt there a similar case involving one of the major auto makers in the recent past that dealt specifically with trade secrets? I had read that the attorney for the bloggers quoted this as a similar precedent that protected the journalist even if it was a trade secret issue.

[Pat Logsdon]

You are welcome to agree or disagree with trade secrets being protected, but this is the way the laws are currently written, and is the basis for the ruling.
I respectfully disagree. :) Trade secrets or no, I think the real problem is with Apple. If they can't keep a lid on their secrets, that's their problem, not the person who receives the leak.

Here's a summary of what the judge said (courtesy of Engadget): (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000193035613/)

contrary to what’s been going around, the judge hasn’t explicitly ruled that writers for blogs and fan sites don’t deserve the same kinds of protections traditionally reserved for journalists and members of the press (though he doesn’t exactly sound too sympathetic). In fact the judge makes it plain his decision (which is in PDF form here (http://eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/20050311_apple_decision.pdf)) that he doesn’t think it matters whether anyone involved in this case is a journalist or not, since privilege doesn’t apply to in this case. He says that there is “no license conferred on anyone to violate valid criminal laws” related to the protection of trade secrets, and that even if he did choose to define PowerPage and the other sites as journalistic endeavors, he would have ruled exactly the same way.

[maximus]

I found myself more in agreement with Apple's action.

All Apple's employees have sign confidentiality agreement, and they should abide to it.

Suppose a person, who is working with your bank, choose to reveal your account information (your contact information, account balance, transaction details, account number, PIN, etc.) to public. Are you OK with it ?

The first rule that is taught in journalism school is the credo that a journalist's foremost duty is to ensure that our information is legally sourced from reliable source(s). We cannot just post something that came from someone we met on the street.

[Tari Akpodiete]

The first rule that is taught in journalism school is the credo that a journalist's foremost duty is to ensure that our information is legally sourced from reliable source(s). We cannot just post something that came from someone we met on the street.

ah yes, but that's real journalism you're talking about, and while some bloggers have been credentialed for tech fairs/conferences/shows, political conventions and to review movies, are bloggers really journalists? pretty much most of them - NO. while a few journalists do blog, by and large, most bloggers have no journalistic training. and no understanding of, or interest in learning, journalistic ethics.

i am trying to remember where i just saw a cartoon on this subject with some guy outside somewhere ranting about why he could not get in because bloggers are journalists and he is a journalist. i think it was non-sequitor. there's actually been a hilarious 'cartoon war' on this subject.

well, i don't recall and can't find that link that i was looking for regarding that specific cartoon, but here is a different one

Doug Marlette
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/marlette.asp
select 7-26-04 from the pull down list, and click Get Image

and here's some interesting recent reading on the subject

Blogging, Journalism &amp; Credibility
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu:8080/webcred/index.php?p=2t.

[Pat Logsdon]

i am trying to remember where i just saw a cartoon on this subject with some guy outside somewhere ranting about why he could not get in because bloggers are journalists and he is a journalist. i think it was non-sequitor. there's actually been a hilarious 'cartoon war' on this subject.
You're thinking of Wiley vs. PVP. (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wiley_burns_bloggers/)

[gorgoroth]

ah yes, but that's real journalism you're talking about, and while some bloggers have been credentialed for tech fairs/conferences/shows, political conventions and to review movies, are bloggers really journalists? pretty much most of them - NO. while a few journalists do blog, by and large, most bloggers have no journalistic training. and no understanding of, or interest in learning, journalistic ethics.


What is disturbing is that you can justify any behaviour like that: as long as you prove somebody is not a journalist, law will not apply. Problem about trade secret are not journalist revealing them, but people telling them. I understand a company to fill a case against people under NDA. This is right. But you cannot ask somebody to give you the name of your source. This is "delation", and it has ben used wrongly at some time of the 20'th century. You can justify it by saying bloggers are not journalist, but this is just hiding the reality: to get your info, you won't try to find it by an internal investigation, but by pressuring a group publishing it. You can decide not to call blogger journalist, the principle is still to shut down somebody publishing a valid information.

When a government doesn't want an info to be released, they will not shut down anybody publishing it (at least in country where freedom of pres exist). THis is why I find this case disturbing.[/url]

[Pat Logsdon]

You can justify it by saying bloggers are not journalist, but this is just hiding the reality: to get your info, you won't try to find it by an internal investigation, but by pressuring a group publishing it. You can decide not to call blogger journalist, the principle is still to shut down somebody publishing a valid information.
Well said. In my opinion, Apple should conduct an investigation into the departments that could have leaked the info, and give all of them a pay cut. THEIR employees are at fault, and they should be the ones to pay the penalty, not some schlub with a blog. Get your own house in order before you start trying to clean someone else's.

[Sven Johannsen]

You can justify it by saying bloggers are not journalist, but this is just hiding the reality: to get your info, you won't try to find it by an internal investigation, but by pressuring a group publishing it. You can decide not to call blogger journalist, the principle is still to shut down somebody publishing a valid information.
Well said. In my opinion, Apple should conduct an investigation into the departments that could have leaked the info, and give all of them a pay cut. THEIR employees are at fault, and they should be the ones to pay the penalty, not some schlub with a blog. Get your own house in order before you start trying to clean someone else's.

I don't agree either. Journalists have often been jailed for not revealing sources when that hinders the investigation of a crime. The information received by the journalist was stolen. Just as receiving stolen property is an offense, so should be receiving stolen information. Passing on the information for profit, whether that is monetary or self serving, or even seen as noble, is no better than selling stolen property. I don't think it's an issue of whether bloggers are journalists or not, just as the judge indicated.