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
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.
Again I'll restate my point-- who draws the line?
Member since:2005-07-07
Uhm.... the judge?
I see what you're trying to do. But I disagree with your solution. Just because you feel that it is going to be hard to draw a line, there should be no line.
I agree that there are going to be cases where the line is difficult to draw. In those cases, it will be up to the judge to draw the line. That is why we have judges. Sure, you may not agree with the judgement they produce, but they are there for a reason.
That said, this is not the case with Think Secret. You cannot seriously argue that the leak was done for the 'greater good'.
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.