Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:22 UTC
Legal As we say in Dutch, de kogel is door de kerk: Think Secret will cease all activities after reaching a settlement with Apple in a lawsuit Apple had filed against the website. In exchange for closing down Think Secret, Nick DePlume, its owner, will not have to reveal its sources to Apple. The press release on the Think Secret website reads: "Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published." My take: I have respect for the way DePlume protected his sources; very commendable. I have, however, little respect for Apple in this case (I have written, rather controversially, about it before), and it just scares the living daylights out of me that a company can exert this much power over independent websites.
Order by: Score:
As we say in X
by DevL on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:41 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

"As we say in Dutch, de kogel is door de kerk"

There's a reason why Dutch are among the best non-native speakers of English: no one understands your language! :-)

That said (with a big smile), I agree with Thom that it is very frightening that any corporation can silence a journalist. DePlume might not have an immense media corporation backing him and paying his legal fees, but that doesn't make him any less a journalist.

So shame on you Apple and shame on all you other companies going down this path!

Reply Score: 13

RE: As we say in X
by butters on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:47 UTC in reply to "As we say in X"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Apple set out to silence ThinkSecret so much as get them to reveal their anonymous sources. Since the Shield Law doesn't seem to apply to bloggers for some reason, Apple succeeded, and it was only out of their "good will" that they allowed ThinkSecret to protect their sources in exchange for falling silent.

This is all part of the much bigger issue of how the rapid evolution of the content industry affects the legal interpretation of our expectation of privacy.

On one hand, you have members of the mainstream and new media that, for obvious reasons, must protect their sources' expectations of privacy in order to continue to deliver their content. Then you have the people on which they're reporting that have to protect certain aspects of their dealings in order to do their jobs effectively. And finally everyday people who want to be able to leave their homes without operating under the assumption that the cameras are rolling and that the videos are destined for YouTube.

It's not at all clear that we really want a society where we can access perfect information on everybody and everything at all times because of its implications on our own lives. This isn't just about journalists, politicians, celebrities, and executives anymore. This is about everybody. Our jobs, our hobbies, our families, our friends, and our occasional indiscretions. Our lives.

If we are not entitled to our privacy or anonymity when it is explicitly agreed upon as a condition of some relationship, then we have a major problem. Because for every time somebody behaves in a certain way because of such an explicit agreement, billions of other decisions are made under implicit expectations of privacy.

Just how badly are we overestimating our right to privacy? It's important that we confront these issues so that society isn't operating under false assumptions. If we don't understand the full implications of our behavior, or if we have various signficantly divergent understandings of our rights, then the social fabric will unravel.

Can you keep a secret? From the goverment, from the lawyers, from the journalists, from the bloggers, from the guy on the street with the camera phone? Will you screw me over if they come after you? Fine, then I can tell you about my weekend.

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: As we say in X
by tyrione on Fri 21st Dec 2007 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE: As we say in X"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Incredibly well said. This piece deserves a spot on the front page of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and more with some caption,``Privacy, is for or against You?''

Reply Score: 2

RE: As we say in X
by Brunis on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:36 UTC in reply to "As we say in X"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Heh, yeah.. the Dutch speak english fery good! (get it?, hi thom, sorry i can't turn this one into a vista bashing fest)

Reply Score: 0

It's been said before
by evangs on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:46 UTC
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

and it needs to be said again. An interested public != public interest.

Reply Score: 7

I do not like it
by Nephelim on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:53 UTC
Nephelim
Member since:
2006-07-26

I don't know to much of legal issues, but I am afraid that just having a web site that in fact promotes a 100% propietary platform is attacked by the promoted company and compulsed to close the web. It seems stupid to me by Apple, but I am no Apple expert. This just vanish any wish I could have of getting an Apple machine. Finally, free and open source and hardware give us all far more freedom and it will be sooner or later noted by everyone.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I do not like it
by Joe User on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:30 UTC in reply to "I do not like it"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides"

Yeah, right...

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys...
by christianhgross on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:59 UTC
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

Let's see, lawsuits and a huge set of honken service packs, updates whatever you want to call it...

I say Apple is showing its signs that it is busting at the seams. This behavior might have been ok when Apple was 2-3%. But I wonder for a larger company?

You can say what you want about Microsoft, but they have shown that they can manage a near monopoly pretty effectively. They manage to tread that line between between really p****y guys, and nice guys.

I don't think Apple will be able to pull that off.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys...
by senornoodle on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:12 UTC in reply to "Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys..."
senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

Haha yeah, lawsuits and updates to an operating system are a sure sign a company is collapsing.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:34 UTC in reply to "Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I say Apple is showing its signs that it is busting at the seams. This behavior might have been ok when Apple was 2-3%. But I wonder for a larger company? "

Considering they only have around 8%, I'd say that that your assertion doesn't hold. They still in the same ballpark, market share wise. Leopard is just a little underbaked, it happens, and OS X users are just not used to it, after 6 years of steady improvements, Apple just stumbled a bit.

Nothing really to get excited about. OS X will recover. as far as this lawsuit is concerned, Apple has alway acted this way. It is a very secretive company, and has went after blogs and websites before

Edited 2007-12-20 13:37

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys...
by Wintermute on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "Hmmm, Apple Fan Boys..."
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Apple still has 2-3% of the market if you look at the whole world. The US market isn't some kind of yardstick, it has it's benefits and it has its drawbacks...

Reply Score: 2

Luckily Nick DePlume
by shaniadollinger on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:06 UTC
shaniadollinger
Member since:
2007-07-04

I wish he had more to loose than to win if he accepted an agreement. I suppose that the only condition he was able to insert into the agreement was to not reveal his sources, which is good for them I bet. God save Apple and its "Think Different, but only as I want you to do" world.

Reply Score: 5

Cash Secret
by netpython on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:32 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

....

Reply Score: 3

I think the problem was...
by thavith_osn on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:35 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

From my understanding of the case, the problem was that people were violating agreements with Apple and giving out information that they agreed they would not.

I am guessing Think Secret didn't enter into those agreements, but some of their sources obviously did. Personally, I don't think Think Secret should be publishing that information (no matter how much I for one would read it). How much do we like it when someone spreads secrets we trusted them with.

Whether we agree with the way Apple keeps secrets is not the question here, it's violating agreements that Apple would have a problem with. I guess if Apple knew where the leaks were coming from and it was an inside job, then it could deal with them and not have to bother sites out there.

I believe Apple is reasonably smart as a company and would have weighed up the free publicity from sites like this versus loss of revenue due to holding off purchase based on rumors.

But hey, I could be wrong and Apple just want to shut down sites willy nilly for the complete fun of it and the bad press that follows...

Reply Score: 6

RE: I think the problem was...
by eggs on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:12 UTC in reply to "I think the problem was..."
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

Apple should have done an internal investigation since it is an internal matter.

I am tired of the apologetic apple fans, if this had been Microsoft then everyone would be piling on. If there is the faintest hint of blood in the water near Microsoft everyone is all over it, but we could find out that Steve Jobs has been sacrificing babies on an alter made of iPods and some apple fan would try to rationalize it.

Reply Score: 10

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm guessing Apple did do an internal investigation, but failed to find out who was leaking the info. It is probably a little hard to find that out I guess, esp. if the person/s didn't give the info away while working.

Shutting down sites that make their lives from spilling secrets seems to be in the interests of hardware makers of all kinds, not just Apple.

Have you noticed that both MS and Apple don't hold secrets when it comes to the OS. Leopard was seen well over a year before it was released, Vista a little longer (he he)...

But both MS and Apple keep some hardware secrets closer to their chests. If MS is working on new hardware with far better specs, we won't hear about it "from them" until it's ready to be released. Why? Because they want the current model to sell... Most companies are the same.

This is especially true of Apple who tend to come out with models that are much better and (sometimes) cheaper than the previous one. If I hear that a new MacBook will be released in January 15th, I will hold off buying one now. Of course we could argue that Apple always updates it's laptops, but there is a difference with knowing it will be Jan 15th and not knowing.

Yes, some Apple fans do try and rationalise things a little too much, but in this case, I think Apple have a case and Think Secret not so much.

But just so you know, all fans, Apple, MS and Linux all rationalise things. I'm tired to apologetic fans too from all sides, including Apple. There are things Apple does that I don't agree with, and things MS does that I like.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I think the problem was...
by Tuishimi on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:49 UTC in reply to "I think the problem was..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

You really think that anyone expected Nick to keep secret whatever they told him?!?!

Reply Score: 2

RE: I think the problem was...
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Dec 2007 12:59 UTC in reply to "I think the problem was..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Personally, I don't think Think Secret should be publishing that information (no matter how much I for one would read it). How much do we like it when someone spreads secrets we trusted them with.


So if some company was dumping toxic waste into the water where you lived you'd rather noone at the company breaking their NDA clause rather than knowing about it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I think the problem was...
by macUser on Sat 22nd Dec 2007 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE: I think the problem was..."
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

So if some company was dumping toxic waste into the water where you lived you'd rather noone at the company breaking their NDA clause rather than knowing about it?

OMG, Apple was dumping TOXIC WASTE?!!! Why Apple why? It's a good thing those moles spoke out!

Oh wait, the moles were divulging super secret product details that could tip the balance with Apple's competitors?

Oh yes, those are the same... The first threatens the public good and the second threatens a private company's bottom line. They're totally the same.

Sorry, but my wanting to know the next color of the Nano isn't part of the public good... Why aren't you whining that the Think Secret guys are keeping the terms of the settlement SECRET?!

Reply Score: 1

Pardon?
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:35 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets just say you were developing something, I over hear that development; imagine that your company's very survival is based on the success or failure of that product. That leak goes out, and all the development, the hard work, the IP could be potential lost because of that particular leak.

I'm all for speculation, I'm all for people making grandiose assumptions, dreams, reviewing products but at the same time the individuals concerned, who work on the website and in the companies, must respect the companies right to 'privacy' - if a company doesn't want things to go beyond their company's walls, respect it.

Yes, I would like to see Apple be a lot more open, I'd like to see that when they make a decision, they bring in to the discussion third party software and hardware vendors - but at the same time simply jemmying the door open under the guise of 'I have a right to know' simply isn't an honourable thing to do.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Pardon?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "Pardon?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If people from the inside is leaking information to somebody outside, and somebody outside publishes this information then ... the problem is the inside leak and not the outside publisher.

Never should the outside publisher be shut down in any way. Nor forced to publish the source (the person leaking the information, not source as in source code), unless we are talking about knowing who participated in a gangrape, terrorist action, child pornography and stuff like that.

On this one I side with Thom.

Reply Score: 14

RE[2]: Pardon?
by gustl on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I very much agree to this.

What if a member of the financial department of the government leaks korrupt undertakings of the minister of finance to the press, which triggers suspension and penalizing of the minister?

Waht if the press refuses to publish, but a blogger takes up the story?

I say, there should not be a law which allows someone to shut down a blogger, as long as an investigation can show that the blogger has been telling the truth.
Too many people had to die for freedom of speech to become a reality, that we should now take the slightest step back towards silencing critical (or curious) voices.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pardon?
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pardon?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, come on, no need to hyperbole.

There is a world of difference between exposing high level corruption and publishing leaked information.

This information is private to Apple - and lets remember this has been off the back of a long history of reporting and using private information in a public forum.

Worse, I find it funny when people try to legitimise leaking of private corporate information then run in of the back of some sort of modern day robin hood - there is a world of difference between reporting on the latest widget and real issues - if for example a company is dumping toxic chemicals.

No one is trying silence bloggers, its about bloggers respecting their privacy.

Oh, and in regards to third parties; that doesn't legitimise it. Its up to you to confirm whether it is ok to print. Imagine if I started printing private information about you which I found through a third party - what your reaction be?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pardon?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pardon?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh, and in regards to third parties; that doesn't legitimise it. Its up to you to confirm whether it is ok to print. Imagine if I started printing private information about you which I found through a third party - what your reaction be?


I'd be pissed off, simply because that is a violation of Dutch privacy laws. However, there is no law that states that information under an NDA between party A and party B cannot be published by party C if overheard.

An NDA applies only to the parties it was signed by. And nobody else.

Edited 2007-12-20 13:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Pardon?
by macUser on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pardon?"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

I'd be pissed off, simply because that is a violation of Dutch privacy laws. However, there is no law that states that information under an NDA between party A and party B cannot be published by party C if overheard.

An NDA applies only to the parties it was signed by. And nobody else.


What a wonderful loophole... So if I'm under an NDA all I have to do is speak just a little to your left and neither of us has broken the law!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Pardon?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pardon?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What a wonderful loophole... So if I'm under an NDA all I have to do is speak just a little to your left and neither of us has broken the law!


Err, breaking an NDA is never breaking the law. It might be breach of contract, but that's it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Pardon?
by macUser on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pardon?"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

Well, it wouldn't be breach of contract either, since you were simply talking to the air left of Thom's head... ;)

In any case... You've got a site inciting employees to "breach" their contracts. They're fair game. If Think Secret were posting stories about Apple's illegal business practices, etc... it would be a different story, but they weren't...

I would feel the same if it were MS, GM, Toyota, or any other company...

The color and specs of the next iPod nano do not impact the public good.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Pardon?
by Phloptical on Sat 22nd Dec 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pardon?"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I don't know about the Netherlands, but an NDA in America is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. In fact, it would be worth more if you'd wipe your ass with it before signing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Pardon?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pardon?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'd try to figure out the source and sue the source - unless the information was leaked because I had a low security level and simply dumped confidential material in a dumpster in a public area (you'd be surprised how often this happens).

In Denmark such things have happened several times, and you cannot sue the publisher. Only the source can be sued, and only if you can figure out who did it.

It's a matter of free speech. (Magic sentence that would end the debate had we both been Danes.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Pardon?
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pardon?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd try to figure out the source and sue the source - unless the information was leaked because I had a low security level and simply dumped confidential material in a dumpster in a public area (you'd be surprised how often this happens).


Then why did ThinkSecret put themselves in a situation? why didn't they say, "I received the information from a source within Apple - it was sent to me via an anonymous emailing service' or what have you. If you're talking about getting the 'inside story' wouldn't it be best to ensure that there is no formal link between you and the source which could uncover the source?

In Denmark such things have happened several times, and you cannot sue the publisher. Only the source can be sued, and only if you can figure out who did it.


But at the same time, he has the choice - he came to an arrangement with Apple.

It's a matter of free speech. (Magic sentence that would end the debate had we both been Danes.)


Ah, but I'm not Danish, I'm part Irish, part Scottish ;) I'll keep flogging the horse ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Pardon?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pardon?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

[quote]I'll keep flogging the horse ;) [/quote]

Now that's a saying I've never understood. I don't think we have a saying comparable to that in Danish. I guess it means something like "continuing the debate". All good and stuff, except when free speech is involved. That's never for debate ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Pardon?
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pardon?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Now that's a saying I've never understood. I don't think we have a saying comparable to that in Danish. I guess it means something like "continuing the debate". All good and stuff, except when free speech is involved. That's never for debate ;)


What I find ironic is that although people here promote the virtues of 'freedom of speech' and yet, these same people see fit to censor those posts whom they disagree with via the moderation system.

Hypocrisy on this website seems to have no limits.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Pardon?
by tyrione on Fri 21st Dec 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pardon?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Governments work for their Citizens and are accountable to them.

Corporations work for their Stock Holders and are accountable to them. Staff working for the Corporation are accountable to the Stock Holders.

Leaking company classified information damages the value of a Company. It's violating their contract as an employee. They are costing the stock holders equity and thus should be found out.

Governments violating the laws that are for all citizens should be discovered. Such abuse puts the nation at risk by the abuses of power done by any government on the world stage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pardon?
by Phloptical on Sat 22nd Dec 2007 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Exactly. This is the same thing as "shooting the messenger." I.P is overrated.

And this is all because Jobs wanted to hold the Mac Mini for the first time in public. What a choad.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pardon?
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 20th Dec 2007 12:43 UTC in reply to "Pardon?"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Being that I've worked in the industry personally for my career, and I fully understand what's at stake, I can fully understand and agree with what you're saying. To copy a post above, "An interested public != public interest" and this is much akin to someone trying to say "But it's my freedom of speech/press to publish someone's social security number and all of their other financial/personal information that allows identity theft, because people want to know!" and the key thing that makes this not a legitimate "freedom of the press" issue is the equivalent of the reporter's right to swing their fist (report the item) ends before it touches the face (harms the associated party(ies) ) when nothing they're reporting is remotely related to the public's interest at large, in that there's not a crime perpetrated by the party having their privacy violated. If it were the case where someone was reporting what a whistle blower reported to them about what they knew about illegal activities (such as illegal accounting practices) then freedom of the press has currency in stating "we can cover that" since that's a lot of what freedom of the press is supposed to be: something to keep people/legal entities/illegal entities from profiting under the shield of dark places, by opening up the blinds of publicity and letting the sunshine in on the truth.

What Apple was protecting is trade secrets, which is their right to do, as far as their trade secrets don't involve illegal activities in their business practices/trade secrets. An overzealous fanbase may think otherwise, that all information about the innards of a company or that of a person (say, celebrity versus the obnoxious paparazzi) but you start down a slippery slope if you start stating that companies and certain people are exempt from having people respecting their privacy, because eventually, that violated privacy may be yours, and the privacy may relate to things you do/are that may cause you harm if made known, for one reason or another, be it financial harm or otherwise.

By argument on the side of the entity/person in Apple's position, they have a right to know which people they're dealing with are breaking the law by violating their rights of privacy, especially since such people undoubtedly are under NDA/contract to keep such legal trade secrets/practices/material information of that entity private. Since what's being reported by the sources of Think Secret is not in the valid public interest category, by rights Think Secret should not be publishing this information at all, because if the tables were turned, and it was Apple revealing all the personal/private information on the workers/business partners involved, people would be crying foul, that that's illegal, etc. but yet, I see a lot of people not seeing the hypocrisy of this situation where they whine that Apple shouldn't get upset about their privacy. Well, what about this? If you're interested in "the public good" keep in mind the large number of people Apple employs, and all the jobs for people raising families, paying taxes from that income, etc. and consider how much harm it could cause if outsiders (namely, in this case, Apple's competitors, currently known and ones that spring up out of the background) have rightfully deduced that the insider information (another thing to keep in mind is SEC laws regarding insider information: by having this information getting out, Apple could very well be placed at risk of SEC violations if it can be traced back to them: at least the one revealing the information can be charged with such violations if they're caught) is accurate, or even close. After all, the reality is that a lot of companies do suddenly drop plans for releasing some product or service, and it often doesn't matter how much time/energy/resources they've invested in it before they do it: I've fallen victim to such corporate realities myself in terms of employment more than once.

So, Kaiwai, I modded you up, because frankly, nobody can state that you were off-topic, using inappropriate language, personal attacks, and all they can say is that they hate your viewpoint.

Oh, edited to add this last bit: I agree that Apple has entered into a perfectly reasonable agreement in this case, however much it may upset bloggers/press people/etc. in that it addresses Apple's needs to asserting their rights without involving jail time (mostly a worthless thing in this case, most people would agree) for the press/bloggers and the employees/business associates involved, and no overly long court cases. And no, there's no reasonable way with anything as complex and involved as the design/manufacture/planning of such things as a tech company sells to keep the people that know something of meaning down to a small, easily controlled group that won't reveal things by way of security: once again, in order to do that, Apple would have to be overly invasive of the rights of their workers in order to have nearly perfect internal privacy.

Edited 2007-12-20 12:48

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Pardon?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Since what's being reported by the sources of Think Secret is not in the valid public interest category, by rights Think Secret should not be publishing this information at all


Says who? Do you get to decide that? When is something public interest? How much money has to be taken from public resources? How much environmental damage must be inflicted? How many people have to die? Before it is a "matter of public interest"?

Journalists tend to cover very specific areas, and within those specific areas, a lot of things can be of "public interest" - namely, the public within that area of interest. It is very well possible that for us as a minority something may be of great interest, but for the rest of the world, it matters nothing. So, how would you rate such cases, JT?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pardon?
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pardon?"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Since what's being reported by the sources of Think Secret is not in the valid public interest category, by rights Think Secret should not be publishing this information at all

Says who? Do you get to decide that? When is something public interest? How much money has to be taken from public resources? How much environmental damage must be inflicted? How many people have to die? Before it is a "matter of public interest"?

Journalists tend to cover very specific areas, and within those specific areas, a lot of things can be of "public interest" - namely, the public within that area of interest. It is very well possible that for us as a minority something may be of great interest, but for the rest of the world, it matters nothing. So, how would you rate such cases, JT?


In answer to the first one, it's actually quite a bit of common sense: is it something that affects what people pay for in terms of infrastructure or government or something that's legitimately considered under the category of "public works and infrastructure" in that if it does affect the resources of others than themselves and their business partners, and they're not breaking any laws, then that is a fairly simple litmus test to determine if it falls under the category of "legitimate public interest" (note that I had to add that qualifier, "legitimate"). Unless (in this case, or anything like it) harm is caused by the company/person/entity that is having their private parts exposed, it simply isn't in the "legitimate public interest" and should remain private. I admit, I've not read all that Think Secret has posted about Apple, but other than some of the stock option scandals, I'm seriously doubting that there's a single thing they've reported that's in the "legitimate public interest" to report where they've gotten facts from within.

So, there's the logical and reasonable explanation: where what one person/company/entity does or is doing won't harm others and they aren't going on a campaign for some government office (which could easily be extrapolated to affecting the good of the public, so you'd better know what they're up to) then quite simply, it's none of anyone's damned business as to the underlying details. As a "what if?" case, what if you were into deviant sexual practices that turned off a meaningful portion of your reading audience from visiting your site(s) if they knew, and it was posted where those readers could read it, in plain view to the world, and you didn't want them to know that, because it may very well affect how many ad impressions as a result of page views, which may make the difference between keeping your site(s) running or becoming too much of a financial drain to sustain? If I bleeted out, "Thom_Holwerda does it with sheep, run away, run away, BAAH!" and I knew that was true, would that be correct to post on here? If not, why not? Why should you get to decide, since after all, in the interest of "free speech" and "freedom of the press" if it's true, why should you object in the slightest?

I wouldn't do that, and I don't see it being fair or remotely correct, in much the same way that "Freedom of speech" doesn't protect idiots yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire or even hints of a fire. (Yes, I'd bet money that's been tested in a court case, at least once, due to idiots that would do just that)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Pardon?
by mind!dagger on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I absolutely love when people misinterpret `Freedom of Speech`. It's not `absolute` in nature.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights.

It prohibits the `federal` legislature from making laws `respecting an establishment of religion`, the `Establishment Clause` or that prohibit free exercise of religion, the `Free Exercise Clause`. It also limits the federal system from passing laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The courts have interpreted these freedoms more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the U.S. Constitution reserves all law-making, `legislative` authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Wish our current people in power would read the document they have sworn to protect.

Our Supreme Court has held that the `Due Process` clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment `incorporates` the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.

But is the right to speak absolute? No. These laws are in respect of civil liberties one has when dealing with governments be they federal, state or local. Person to government and government to person. It does not cover slander, libel or other defamatory speech.

The American prohibition on defamatory speech or publications, `slander and libel` traces its origins to established English law. A corporation, a person under the law, can make a legal action. Intent plays a huge part in what a justice or court will look at.

If the publisher, be it print or electronic, publishes a statement with `actual malice`, then damages can be awarded to the person who is being harmed. I have a strong feeling there is more here than is being published. Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law.

The French revolutionary document, the `Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen`, suggests that `every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom.`

Would someone clarify if these rights have slander and libel clauses or even stipulations on damages when a person or corporate secrets are involved?

In any case, this is an excellent story to watch and discuss.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Pardon?
by tyrione on Fri 21st Dec 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pardon?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Where would both the French Revolution and the American Revolution be without Sir Thomas Paine and his wise vision?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pardon?
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

And no, there's no reasonable way with anything as complex and involved as the design/manufacture/planning of such things as a tech company sells to keep the people that know something of meaning down to a small, easily controlled group that won't reveal things by way of security: once again, in order to do that, Apple would have to be overly invasive of the rights of their workers in order to have nearly perfect internal privacy.


Someone should start an Apple rumours site using the same strategy. They setup some sort of deliberately-anonymous submission form and put up a disclaimer to the effect of "Don't send us anything that's covered by NDAs" (knowing full well that people would anyway). Then, when the inevitable happens, the site owners can just throw up their hands and say "Well golly, we *told* them they're not allowed to submit NDA-protected material."

Reply Score: 2

be very glad that MS is the monopolist
by unclefester on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:02 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

People criticize MS as being evil. I'm eternally grateful that MS rather than Apple became the monopolist. We would be paying $2000 for a 100Mhz machine. Also we would be locked into Apples weird and wacky proprietary hardware and software. Think back to NuBus, ADB ports and Mac only monitors. Hell you even needed translation software to exchange files between Macs and PCs.

Now Apple simply puts cheap generic PC hardware in a pretty case and appropriates Open Source Software. Pass the Kool Aid please.

Reply Score: 23

PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

You'll get modded down, but before you do I'd like to register my agreement with everything you've said.

Reply Score: 2

meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

People criticize MS as being evil. I'm eternally grateful that MS rather than Apple became the monopolist. We would be paying $2000 for a 100Mhz machine. Also we would be locked into Apples weird and wacky proprietary hardware and software. Think back to NuBus, ADB ports and Mac only monitors. Hell you even needed translation software to exchange files between Macs and PCs.


But at least the software would work ;)


It's fantastic how some 10 years of mismanagement can damage a company. Remember it all started when Sculley forced the original Mac to cost US$2500 instead of the projected US$1500, and the ousting of Steve Jobs in the following year.

The later NeXT computers used pretty industry-standard components as soon as such standards had been created. Really, complaining about NuBus and ADB, which were invented back when neither PCI nor USB had been even invented is ridiculous. And NuBus was a Texas Instruments technology, not Apple's.

Reply Score: 3

hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

I wish sun would be the monopolist rather.
Sun solaris is true Unix, super extremely scalable and super fast and many time more stable than windows/linux. OSX is very good but not as fast as solaris, and its not meant to be a server OS.

But....the story goes that windows got it.

If you don't want 2000$ for a 100Mhz, then thank AMD and keep buying their products, they are the reason for this low price and if you want to thank another player than linux distros that made the value you have to pay 0$. Anyway despite all of this I still like apple products and wish I can afford to buy them, because they are so well integrated (hardware/software) leading to best laptop experience in the world.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

People criticize MS as being evil. I'm eternally grateful that MS rather than Apple became the monopolist. We would be paying $2000 for a 100Mhz machine. Also we would be locked into Apples weird and wacky proprietary hardware and software. Think back to NuBus, ADB ports and Mac only monitors. Hell you even needed translation software to exchange files between Macs and PCs.


Dear god, if I hear another 'thank Microsoft for PC's' mythology again, I swear, I'll scream - honestly. This has become the biggest perpetual lie on the internet since Rush spun what Gore said in regards to the creation of the internet.

If the PC didn't take off, something else would haven taken its place - and it wouldn't have been Apple. Its a myth, a lie, a ball of old wives tales to some how claim that we should all be bending over scrapping and worshipping Billy Boy for something that was being in the right place at the right time.

For all we know, it could have been SPARCstations, it could have been Amigas, Atari, Amstrad, or any number of others. And yes, Apple now uses generic PC hardware, but at the same time, people don't purchase hardware, they don't purchase an operating system - they purchase a computer system; the sum of hardware and software. If the hardware and software as a combined force don't perform, it doesn't matter how 'highly specced' the machine is, its useless to the end user.

Its like the incredibly fast car being sold to the grandma who finds that she can't put her golf bag in the back; it doesn't matter how fast the car is, or how impressive is, if she can't get her golf bag in, its a waste of money.

Reply Score: 6

Apple would be far worse than Microsoft
by gustl on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:14 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

if they had Microsoft's market share.

Fortunately by locking in their customers and locking down their development early on in the game, they never reached the critical mass. Besides, they never succumbed to the extortionist tactics Microsoft likes so much (you don't offer IBM DOS, or else ...)

In those days the "IBM compatible PC" + Microsoft DOS pirated seemd to offer much more freedom and much less lock-in than Apple offered.

Apple has an offer for consumers, and that is where they will stay.

Reply Score: 4

Sigh...
by 1c3d0g on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:03 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

You see, this is why I'll never support such an arrogant company. They are the worst, WORSE than Microsoft even. Their elitist attitude only drives people away, except for the poor saps who fall for the trap and honestly think they're part of the "in" crowd. Let me tell you: you're not a part of anything! Apple's already got your money you overpaid for their junk and they're laughing all the way to the bank. This is the cold, hard truth.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Sigh...
by Manik on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:06 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

I have yet to meet a Mac user boasting he is part of the "in" crowd, but the number of PC users vehemently proclaiming they (Mac users) aren't is incredible. I wonder what it means…

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sigh...
by Chicken Blood on Thu 20th Dec 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

I have yet to meet a Mac user boasting he is part of the "in" crowd, but the number of PC users vehemently proclaiming they (Mac users) aren't is incredible. I wonder what it means�


It means everyone should get out more.

Reply Score: 2

Another perspective
by Mark Williamson on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:05 UTC
Mark Williamson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've often thought that quite apart from the questions of public interest, or the moral considerations of spreading the secrets of others around, there are some good reasons why this sort of thing should be protected.

Obviously we want to read about the future Apple products because they're awesome and it's cool to know what's coming down the pipe. But there's a procedural issue here: Apple clearly have issues keeping their future stuff secret - there are leaks and they're consistently failing to plug them, instead they're just shooting the messenger. But keeping future products secret seems to be part of their business model, so they're persuing this fairly aggressively.

If keeping products secret is part of their business model then they either need to keep them properly secret, or change their business model. Punishing people who are not beholden to Apple is irrelevant.

And this is all relevant to a certain class of readers of sites like Think Secret: actual and prospective Apple shareholders. If Apple are failing to implement their business strategy properly then purchasers of their shares ought to know about it - the only way they can do this is if the press is able to report it.

Obviously, none of us were ever cheering Think Secret for providing share tips - we just liked the juicy gossip. But I would suggest that providing information like this to the market about Apple's procedures and their success in implementing them is an appropriate thing for journalists to do and one that they should be protected in doing.

Reply Score: 4

RE:
by A.H. on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:52 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

As we say in Dutch, de kogel is door de kerk


I think "All your base are belong to us" would fit the occasion perfectly.

Reply Score: 2

vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

What happened to "Don't shoot the messenger ..." policy, ThinkSecret and other websites helped promote Apple. The only reason there are websites dedicated to Apple is the huge fan base Apple has (including myself), this does not look good on Apple. I thought Apple was all about users being treated like family, guess I'll put down my crack pipe.

Reply Score: 2

meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

What happened to "Don't shoot the messenger ..." policy, ThinkSecret and other websites helped promote Apple.


Advertisement banner on the top, two advertisement banners on the right, an advertisement "billboard" right in the middle of the page; my cynical nerve might be pinched and tingling to the extreme today, but I don't think that site was all about promoting Apple at all, without any ulterior motive whatsoever, rather than generating a pretty consistent traffic influx.

Reply Score: 5

congrats DePlume!
by JrezIN on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:58 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

way to go DePlume! congratulations for you attitude! Sorry for your, and all the community's, loss.

...and again, Apple shows up why they're doing business... and it's not because they want a bunch of geeks happier...

Reply Score: 2

Timing...
by meianoite on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:59 UTC
meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

Off-topic, but...

Publishing this article right now is pure, unadultered linkbaiting.

I know *very well* that there were half a dozen other articles on the submission queue, mine about Java 6 included, many much more interesting than this one about the settlement with ThinkSecret, before this one even made that list.

[/irritated]

Reply Score: 3

RE: Timing...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "Timing..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Publishing this article right now is pure, unadultered linkbaiting.

I know *very well* that there were half a dozen other articles on the submission queue, mine about Java 6 included, many much more interesting than this one about the settlement with ThinkSecret, before this one even made that list.


Why don't you LOOK before going all mental on my ass, sonny. Check two stories down, and THEN talk.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Timing...
by meianoite on Thu 20th Dec 2007 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Timing..."
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Why don't you LOOK before going all mental on my ass, sonny. Check two stories down, and THEN talk.


I did, Cher.

All it means is that two of those articles that were on that queue made the front page. What happened to the other four I counted before? Casualties of the circumstances? What made them less important than this article? What's keeping the other ten articles on the submission queue?

I already expressed my guessing on this subject. Prove me wrong, publish those 14 submissions!

Edit: 15 submissions now. BTW, you could well have published all those initial 6 submissions and then run the one on Think Secret. OTOH, justifying leaving 10 other submissions on the backburner would be just as hard as justifying the current 15.

Edited 2007-12-20 16:27

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Timing...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Timing..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What's keeping the other ten articles on the submission queue?


MY LIFE?

In case you haven't noticed, contrary to you, possibly, I have a LIFE to run, a job to go to, a social life to manage, a university study to complete, parents to help, a home to maintain and keep clean, an ass and a couch to sit on, tea to drink, a cat to pet, a car to maintain, a party at my place saturday eve to organise, ..., ....

I don't sit behind my computer all day long just to please YOU, I do it to PLEASE MYSELF.

I'm sorry for the snappage, other people, but I can't help it. This morning, I emptied the submissions queue by removing those I don't want to publish, and by publishing the remainder (two in this case). After clearing the queue, I did a quick round along my favourite few websites, including the Dutch Mac website I visit daily, where I encountered this story. I posted it because not only is it a follow up to an earlier story I wrote, but also because people are clearly interested in this stuff.

There is no conspiracy here, you annoying little Apple fanboy, just what I always do: clear the queue, post whatever's worthy, and then do a round to see what other stuff you readers missed/did not submit. I've had it up to HERE with your nonsense, meianeriogn, just go get a goddamn life instead of annoying me with your pointless little "oh-my-god-Thom-is-anti-apple-and-eats-babies" nancying around. Conspiracy idiot. Go spot black helicopters or get abducted by aliens or something.

Glad I got that off my chest. Sorry to everybody else.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Timing...
by galvanash on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Timing..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I don't always agree with your views on technology and such, but on this one I whole-heartedly commend you. Trying to placate net brats is an exercise in futility.

I REALLY hate the mentality that is developing on the net as of late (or maybe its always been this way - I might just be getting older and crankier)... People are so spoiled by the something-for-nothing state of things that they start demanding they get it THEIR way - and screw everyone else. I have had thoughts of starting websites in the past but have always decided not to for no other reason than I didn't want to deal with people like this. Its sad really.

To the previous poster - if you don't like the way this website is run find one more to your liking or better yet GO MAKE ONE! This is stating the obvious but this site exists for those who like it - if your not in that group why are you here?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Timing...
by MattPie on Thu 20th Dec 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Timing..."
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

I don't always agree with your views on technology and such, but on this one I whole-heartedly commend you. Trying to placate net brats is an exercise in futility.

Hear hear! To the original poster, your submitted Java 6 article may have been intensely interesting to you, but all Java 6 means to me is the IBM HMC management tools stop working when I use it. This article is much more interesting to me, and based on the comments, most other people.

As for Apple and this case, I see it as:
- Apple sues ThinkSecret to get the identities of people who have breached a contract (NDA) with Apple.
- Think Secret refuses to divulge those sources.
- Apple and ThinkSecret come to an mutually acceptable agreement.

There are no 'laws' involved per se, since this is all civil court stuff. It doesn't seem to qualify as whistle-blower status since there isn't a law being broken (or even something evil-but-legal going on). I have a tough time believing this stuff is in the public interest, since the public interest isn't necessarily something the public is interested in, but something that affects the *welfare* of the public.

Edited 2007-12-20 19:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Timing...
by rockwell on Thu 20th Dec 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Timing..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Umm ... isn't Thom one of the editors of OSNews ... meaning ... he can pick and choose what gets published?

That's what editors do. If you don't like it, submit elsewhere. Sheesh.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Timing...
by galvanash on Thu 20th Dec 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Timing..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I modded you back up 1 - but it will probably do no good. The brats don't like being reminded of reality...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Timing...
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 21st Dec 2007 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Timing..."
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

How is it that I can't vote to mod down the parent post, because it very clearly is a personal attack with foul language?

Thom, you need to take a chill pill when it comes to debating things ;)

I'd suggest you take a vacation with no interaction at all with the computer: you'll be much happier if you do so, if you do so for a long enough period of time.

All work and no play makes Jack go postal ;)

(Oh, I could also easily state that the post in question was way off-topic as well ;) )

Sure, the parent to the parent post of this post was getting a bit snippy and stepping out of bounds, but, two Wongs don't make a Wright: genetics don't work that way ;)

That's also why the whole debate of why you maintain that what Apple did is wrong and Think Secret is right is wrong: you can't have it both ways, where a corporation that's otherwise obeying legal and moral guides as defined by the country they operate in isn't subject to the same rights as well as responsibilities of an individual, or more than one, in this case, when it comes to privacy issues. As soon as a corporation starts violating the privacy of individual citizens, there's a cry of how foul that is, and yet, when individual citizens violate the privacy of corporations, because there's clearly a body of people that desire that information, makes it valid morally and legally? Especially when the information is truly of a sensitive nature, that should others outside the corporation know it and have reasonable expectations that it's accurate (not merely a rumor that someone says "Hey, I'm betting Apple does this!") can't use it against the corporation towards their own ends?

There are laws regarding trade secrets, and those apply here, as well as other moral issues that you're conveniently glossing over, and also you're making the mistake of mixing up assertions about Dutch privacy laws, of which I'd be incredibly surprised if a Dutch court saw this situation in such a manner as to rule in favor of the individuals, because if they did, that'd rule the area under that manifestation of law enforcement as being untenable to most corporations/employers, because privacy is (at least!) a two-way street.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Timing...
by meianoite on Fri 21st Dec 2007 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Timing..."
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

MY LIFE?


Oh boy, I sense a strawman-dash-ad-hominem attack coming...

In case you haven't noticed, contrary to you, possibly, I have a LIFE to run, a job to go to, a social life to manage, a university study to complete, parents to help, a home to maintain and keep clean, an ass and a couch to sit on, tea to drink, a cat to pet, a car to maintain, a party at my place saturday eve to organise, ..., ....


And there we go! Someone praising his amazing social accomplishments, therefore implying the other party has absolutely nothing to do with his life other than choosing some nit to pick.

(Not to mention self-congratulating yourself on not only those "accomplishments", but also on throwing this tantrum we just witnessed on your personal blog. Is this an all-time low or what? Way to go, Tommy Boy!)

Of course, this overwhelming busy life wasn't an impediment to, not only publish this comment, but also to swim in a sea of self-congratulation for being incapable of acting within any level of reason after I called you on your BS -- another glaring evidence that it was indeed BS.

It has never nothing to do with calling someone out on his fantastically low journalistic standards, eh? Just the other day there was a guy here saying something along the lines of "this was really low, even for your standards, Thom".

It's clearly not me against you personally, Tommy Boy; it's your actions. But somehow, since that day when I praised Daniel Eran's prose -- very well written articles -- and you didn't lose a nanosecond attacking him for, I dunno, showing how easy it is to manipulate statistics while saying you could certainly criticise him since you excel at statistics; however, when I pointed to you that you completely misunderstood the statistical variables he was using (which was revenue per installed base) you went mute and never said a word to me again.

How's that for being mature?

And ever since you believe I'm here to piss you off to the nostrils.

How about letting go of the megalomania?

But maybe it's this time of the year, I dunno; almost exactly one year ago Aaron Seigo had this to say about you: "i'd just like to point out to Thom Holwerda that having a website does not make you informed or intelligent."

Different context, naturally -- still related to misrepresenting quotes to justify a flawed point and blowing the smallest thing way out of proportion -- and they even made amends; but seems that an year went by and Thom still haven't changed his stripes.

But then again he's an accomplished, busy, exemplary social human being; how could anyone blame him?

I don't sit behind my computer all day long just to please YOU, I do it to PLEASE MYSELF.


So - many - puns - so - many - jokes - oh - my - God - my - head - hurts - ! - ! - !

I'm sorry for the snappage, other people, but I can't help it. This morning, I emptied the submissions queue by removing those I don't want to publish, and by publishing the remainder (two in this case).


I would love to know what are your standards. I don't remember the exact headlines, but more than a couple did interest me -- one of an interview with Stallman comes to mind.

How about that: you don't empty the queues at your whim, and actually let the other editors take a look at them. Who knows, maybe one of them would have 5 minutes of extra time -- it can't be too hard to come with a 3-liner abstract, or as it is often done, a straight copy and paste of some meaty parts. But then again, how could anyone ever fathom how busy your personal life is?

After clearing the queue, I did a quick round along my favourite few websites, including the Dutch Mac website I visit daily, where I encountered this story. I posted it because not only is it a follow up to an earlier story I wrote, but also because people are clearly interested in this stuff.


So just we're not lost with the red herring here: I'm complaining about the timing and about tacitly ignoring the other submissions, not running this story in the first place. And I'm not even resorting to calling you an idiot because of you assuming so!

I even considered submitting it myself after seeing it very early today on TUAW, but now I'm finding it much more rewarding to see your amazing journalistic standards in action.

There is no conspiracy here, you annoying little Apple fanboy,


If you can't really resist the urge to pigeonhole me, call me a FreeBSD fanboy. At least this has some vague connection with the reality. I'm definitely not uncritical towards anything Apple does -- on the contrary, but it seems that criticism based on actual technical grounds aren't nearly as popular on this forum as complaining about the perspective used on the dock or how Abraham Lincoln might have issues reading the menu text given the wrong background image, or how the system is supposed to be immune against invasive 3rd party hacks that abuse undocumented, unpublished, unendorsed "APIs" (if we can really call them that).

just what I always do: clear the queue, post whatever's worthy,


Risking myself to sound repetitive, I'd love to know what meets your standards.

and then do a round to see what other stuff you readers missed/did not submit. I've had it up to HERE with your nonsense, meianeriogn,


It still puzzles me what makes ME push your buttons this easily, considering I'm not the lone voice calling you on your actions. Not by a wide margin.

just go get a goddamn life instead of annoying me with your pointless little "oh-my-god-Thom-is-anti-apple-and-eats-babies" nancying around. Conspiracy idiot. Go spot black helicopters or get abducted by aliens or something.


Thom, GROW UP. Perhaps what ticks you off is the fact that I actually call you out on your bullshit on a point-by-point basis, instead of sticking to generalities.

Glad I got that off my chest. Sorry to everybody else.


And what a perfect example this is: using this site as your personal blog.

The great irony here is that I liked that blog of yours from the time before you joined OSNews, Thom.

This site is poison.




And, on that note, farewell. I'm off to greener pastures.

Stats:
Number of Comments: 187 (171 voted up, 0 voted down)
Status: Trusted User
Number of Comment Votes Applied: 895 (78% positive moderations)
Moving Average: 3.89
Average Comment Score: 3.96

And one spoiled little editor whose feathers were rattled by yours truly.

Edited 2007-12-21 00:12

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Timing...
by Chicken Blood on Fri 21st Dec 2007 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Timing..."
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Another one bites the dust. Nice going Thom.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Timing...
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 20th Dec 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "Timing..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Publishing this article right now is pure, unadultered linkbaiting.

I know *very well* that there were half a dozen other articles on the submission queue, mine about Java 6 included, many much more interesting than this one about the settlement with ThinkSecret, before this one even made that list.


So he's linkbaiting... by posting articles that are less-interesting? Yeah, that sounds like an winning strategy...

Reply Score: 5

Blah
by gdanko on Thu 20th Dec 2007 16:21 UTC
gdanko
Member since:
2005-07-15

I am with Apple here. All these rumor sites are annoying!

Reply Score: 2

Apple depends on secrets
by Adurbe on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:05 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has built its buisness model on keeping secrets.

quiet... quiet.. quiet. BRAND NEW BEST IN THE WORLD SUPR THING!!!!

gets huge media hype and they get the free advertising associated with that. If 'secrets' leak out either by the time apple realeases the product it has lost its 'WOW!' value or, and possibly worst of the two, people feel let down because they DIDNT release what they thought they were going to!

For example if apple now didn't release a sub-notbook, that would be the main story after the expo, not what they DID release.

edit: for a 'being let down' example just look at vista with winfs or Leopard with ZFS

Edited 2007-12-20 17:07

Reply Score: 2

Only in America
by drcoldfoot on Thu 20th Dec 2007 21:12 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

You can kill Human Rights With The Legal System. But are You surprised at How doggishly Apple Uses the Legal System to disuade Human rights? Take for instance That Wifi Card Exploit and How Apple Used the legal System to squash Jon Ellch.

Truth BE Told,
MAC OSX sits on a Bastardized BSD Core with a Pretty UI. But I believe that security has not been at teh forefront and APple is trying to maintain that Their security crippled OS is at the pinnacle of security. That being said, This company focuses on appearance and will use teh legal system like any publicly traded company to satisfy their shareholders. Whether it be for Security, or for coming products, Apple will maintain that same protocol for dealing with the news and the like.

Reply Score: 0

is it ironic...
by macUser on Fri 21st Dec 2007 19:49 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

...that the details of the settlement are confidential? Obviously we all have a right to know!

Reply Score: 1

the apple strikes again
by JrezIN on Sun 23rd Dec 2007 14:05 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29
So Apple paid off a blogger ...
by DeKoning on Mon 24th Dec 2007 10:51 UTC
DeKoning
Member since:
2006-01-21

Pretty simple deal right? Apple offers DePlume the choice of money or a lawsuit. Apple would (probably) win the latter one because it has deeper pockets, or is willing to commit more money. Simple fact is that the blogger took every penny from this case possible: lots of advertisements on his site and a handsome pay-off to quit blogging. So for him it was business as usual, he just calls it "protecting my sources". Right ...

Reply Score: 1