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.
Permalink for comment 292621
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4