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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Member since:2005-07-07
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?
A doctor/patient confidentiality is there for a reason. To allow the doctor to do their jobs. If compromised, patients will be hesitant to disclose relevant information to their doctors, impeding the diagnosis. Lives will be endangered. To try and equate the subpoena issued to ThinkSecret as somehow equal (or even vaguely approaching) the same seriousness as the doctor/patient analogy, is seriously missing the point.One of them is there to save lives. The other is just ... well, for entertainment.
There are of course valid whistle blowers that do save lives, or work towards the better good of all mankind (sorry for being melodramatic but you get the picture). There are laws in place to ensure that such journalists/sources will not be jeopardized. This is clearly not the case with Think Secret.
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.