To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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!
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.)
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?
But at the same time, he has the choice - he came to an arrangement with Apple.
Ah, but I'm not Danish, I'm part Irish, part Scottish
I'll keep flogging the horse





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?