Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Sep 2005 17:30 UTC, submitted by kellym
Legal The Electronic Frontier Foundation last week won the right to unseal court documents related to Apple's efforts to subpoena the sources of online journalists. The documents, previously sealed by the Court and unavailable to the journalists and their attorneys, show that Apple moved to subpoena the reporters' sources before conducting a thorough investigation within the company.
Thread beginning with comment 31483
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: No Miranda rights!
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 15th Sep 2005 07:08 UTC in reply to "No Miranda rights!"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

A court *can* compel you to produce evidence against someone else if you've got it -- or against yourself in a civil case

Exactly-- a *court* can. Not a company. Please remember that I am not living in the US; in my country a court will never take sides with a company, because Dutch law is quite different than from the US ones.

People here keep on forgetting that the US juridical system is quite different than that from the European ones. I strongly suggest the ThinkSecret guys to consider moving to Europe-- it will make them virtually immune for Apple's silencing measures.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: No Miranda rights!
by on Thu 15th Sep 2005 07:28 in reply to "RE: No Miranda rights!"
Member since:

"Exactly-- a *court* can. Not a company. Please remember that I am not living in the US; in my country a court will never take sides with a company, because Dutch law is quite different than from the US ones. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_child_f...

Umm, I think I'll stay were I am.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: No Miranda rights!
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 15th Sep 2005 07:34 in reply to "RE[2]: No Miranda rights!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_child_f.....

Umm, I think I'll stay were I am.


You do know what this is about don't you? This is creating a medical file of any troubles a kid might have, ie. police contact, contact with institutions and such, so that child care and support can centrally access all information on problem children-- now the institutions often work around eachother.

This has absolutely nothing to do with companies. There isn't even a company involved! Please don't talk about things you don't understand.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: No Miranda rights!
by evangs on Thu 15th Sep 2005 10:03 in reply to "RE: No Miranda rights!"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Exactly-- a *court* can. Not a company. Please remember that I am not living in the US; in my country a court will never take sides with a company, because Dutch law is quite different than from the US ones.


And Apple didn't go through the court?

You need to remember that Apple isn't trying to silence ThinkSecret. They are trying to catch the people who leaked information, and ThinkSecret knows who they are. The subpoena is to get ThinkSecret to disclose information about who these sources are, i.e. the people who have violated the NDA that they agreed to with Apple.

This isn't the case of a whistle blower who leaks information about a potentially dangerous toxic waste dump, or an arms deal between a leading politician and some terrorists. If it were, this would be a case of public interest and ThinkSecret would be in the right.

Instead, this is a case where the leak had nothing to do with public interest, rather an interested public. Journalists should be held accountable for the stuff they publish, and if their sources broke the law, journalists need to comply with the authorities.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No Miranda rights!
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 15th Sep 2005 10:15 in reply to "RE[3]: No Miranda rights!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't the case of a whistle blower who leaks information about a potentially dangerous toxic waste dump, or an arms deal between a leading politician and some terrorists. If it were, this would be a case of public interest and ThinkSecret would be in the right.

I agree that this isnt information of extreme public interest-- it would be silly to claim otherwise. However, where do you draw the line? Who decides what is "information for public interest" and what isn't? Will the same apply to docter/patient confidentiality?

These lines are very blurry, and as far I'm concerned, no riscs can be taken. Journalists (and docters) should be protected by law at all costs. Free press is the most important thing we have in this world, and no government or judge should be able to fiddle with the very basis of the press-- which source anonimity is part of.

Reply Parent Score: 5