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.
Thread beginning with comment 292416
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Pardon?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:46 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Pardon?
by macUser on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:07 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Pardon?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:10 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Pardon?
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:18 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 Parent Score: 1