Apple: Keeping the World Safe from the Free Press
Just to put my remarks into their proper context, I own a 40 Gb iPod, I'm ready to buy the new headless Mac when it comes out, and I think Apple makes fantasitc products and they treat the customers extremely well.
Having said, I have no choice but to sharply condemn Apple for their actions in pursuing ThinkSecret for publishing details of the headless Mac and the new office suite.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01...ink_litigious/
The part of the suit that I find especially disturbing is the fact that Apple is trying to force journalists to divuldge their sources. In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state. One of the essential components of a liberal democracy is a free press. If Apple succeeds in forcing journalists to reveal their sources, it will have chilling effect on reporters everywhere.
If Apple allowed the information to be leaked, it's their own damn fault. The recipient of a leak should not be punished for Apple's screw-up.
If journalists can be forced to reveal their sources, noone will come forward to disclose information to journalists. The public will be deprived of unbiased reporting, and we'll slip ever closer to Orwell's 1984.
Nice going, Apple. Your 1984 ad got it wrong. YOU'RE the ones acting like Big Brother.
Having said, I have no choice but to sharply condemn Apple for their actions in pursuing ThinkSecret for publishing details of the headless Mac and the new office suite.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01...ink_litigious/
The part of the suit that I find especially disturbing is the fact that Apple is trying to force journalists to divuldge their sources. In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state. One of the essential components of a liberal democracy is a free press. If Apple succeeds in forcing journalists to reveal their sources, it will have chilling effect on reporters everywhere.
If Apple allowed the information to be leaked, it's their own damn fault. The recipient of a leak should not be punished for Apple's screw-up.
If journalists can be forced to reveal their sources, noone will come forward to disclose information to journalists. The public will be deprived of unbiased reporting, and we'll slip ever closer to Orwell's 1984.
Nice going, Apple. Your 1984 ad got it wrong. YOU'RE the ones acting like Big Brother.
Comments
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Just to put my remarks into their proper context, I own a 40 Gb iPod, I'm ready to buy the new headless Mac when it comes out, and I think Apple makes fantasitc products and they treat the customers extremely well.
Having said, I have no choice but to sharply condemn Apple for their actions in pursuing ThinkSecret for publishing details of the headless Mac and the new office suite.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01...ink_litigious/
The part of the suit that I find especially disturbing is the fact that Apple is trying to force journalists to divuldge their sources. In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state. One of the essential components of a liberal democracy is a free press. If Apple succeeds in forcing journalists to reveal their sources, it will have chilling effect on reporters everywhere.
If Apple allowed the information to be leaked, it's their own damn fault. The recipient of a leak should not be punished for Apple's screw-up.
If journalists can be forced to reveal their sources, noone will come forward to disclose information to journalists. The public will be deprived of unbiased reporting, and we'll slip ever closer to Orwell's 1984.
Nice going, Apple. Your 1984 ad got it wrong. YOU'RE the ones acting like Big Brother.
apple has the right to protect their trade secrets
quit whining and do something productive
Your whole trade secrets argument is a cop out. The information came from Apple. One of their employees is responsible for the leak. ThinkSecret didn't go after the information. But, by God, if Apple screws up, let's make somebody else pay for it!
I suppose in your twisted world corporate profits take precedence over an independent press that actually has something to report other than corporate press releases. In your world, I suppose that journalists should be forced to reveal their sources to journalists. Damn the people! Shareholder value must be protected at all costs!
Originally posted by applenut
apple has the right to protect their trade secrets
quit whining and do something productive
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
The part of the suit that I find especially disturbing is the fact that Apple is trying to force journalists to divuldge their sources. In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state. One of the essential components of a liberal democracy is a free press. If Apple succeeds in forcing journalists to reveal their sources, it will have chilling effect on reporters everywhere.
If Apple is doing this, they're just riding the recent anti-journalist wave in US courts. Several journalists here are facing jail time for refusing to reveal sources, some of them for pieces that were never even published. Most of these cases have to do with the Valerie Plame affair, although no, Robert Novak is not not among those being prosecuted. It's a far bigger deal than Apple being upset about product leaks.
Not because they are right, just because they are richer.
Originally posted by Scott
Not because they are right, just because they are richer.
spoken like a true liberal!
I'm not so sure that Apple will succeed in getting the information they want; the US government wasn't able to make some journalists in the US show their sources on much more serious things than 'trade secrets' (non-existing ones at that, at least officially).
What they're trying to do is make ThinkSecret make a deal with them and pinpoint the source. By scaring the small guy they want the big guy. If ThinkSecret decides to hold its ground just like the journalists did to the US government, all they can do is fine ThinkSecret with some ridicilous amount of money and I'm not sure they can do that either.
If the government couldn't get the sources, sure as hell Apple won't. Though I appreciate them and their products; they're a bit too secretive and very paranoid when it comes to their products.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
The part of the suit that I find especially disturbing is the fact that Apple is trying to force journalists to divuldge their sources. In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state. One of the essential components of a liberal democracy is a free press. If Apple succeeds in forcing journalists to reveal their sources, it will have chilling effect on reporters everywhere.
I think you need to go outside and get some fresh air.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
In the wake of 9/11, democracy throughout the world is in a precarious state.
One can only hope that democracy will die a quick death and that freedom will be restored instead.
( Oops...did I just turn this into a AO thread? Sorry.
If I'm wrong, explain to me why I'm wrong. Don't waste my time with these useless, empty platitudes.
Originally posted by the cool gut
[B
I think you need to go outside and get some fresh air. [/B]
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
This is your lame excuse for a counter-argument?
If I'm wrong, explain to me why I'm wrong. Don't waste my time with these useless, empty platitudes.
A counter-argument first requires and argument to counter. Your drivel doesn't quite qualify.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
spoken like a true liberal!
Oh that's gotta hurt Scott.
---
Dude... no company ever allows information to be leaked.. hence thats why its called a leak. - Someone STOLE information that was supposed to be kept secret by their NDA, and it was not supposed to be public information.... Now don't tell me that apple can somehow prevent a leak; because they need to tell people about what their making and what their plans are if there going to make anything... if those people are dishonest; its not apple's fault.
So being that it is NOT public information; Apple can and always does sue the people that post it. Just because you get some information, doesn't mean you can post it.
Just because its called "free press" doesnt mean its free to do whatever... kinda like "free speach" its not free to do whatever; you can't yell fire in a building where there is no fire... your gonna do time. And the press can hardly post anything they want and get away with it; if in a court case someone posts information that is supposed to stay secret (aka: Not to be leaked); there going to have some serious problems... the main thing thats free about the press, is they can speak their opinion; but it never gave them any rights to posting leaked stuff.
In this case anyway, Apple only named ThinkSecret to get to their sources. TS will probably be unharmed financially, but probably threatened with financial ruin (through a one-sided legal battle) unless they turn over their sources names.
To talk stupidly or childishly.
Either you seem to think that all civil libertarians are stupid and childish, or you don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language to understand what the word drivel means. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it's the latter.
Originally posted by the cool gut
A counter-argument first requires and argument to counter. Your drivel doesn't quite qualify.
Libel. Slander. Trade secrets. There *are* limitations on free speech and press, and they're good ones, despite what you may think.
Civil libertarian doesn't mean 'anything goes', except to the most radical and extreme, which is the fringe element. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not completely out there in that, but you'll have to provide more evidence before I'm sure.
Every right is balanced by responsibility in a reasonable culture.
This is in sharp contrast to the Apple zealots in this forum (which I hope are only a small minority) who would defend Apple of pretty much anything and engage in these sorts of knee jerk reactions against anyone who would dare criticize the company. Criticizing Apple does not make one a traitor.
If you haven't done so already, I suggest you visit this link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/0...hink_litigious/
I'm not saying that it's right for Apple's trade secrets to get leaked to the press. Obviously, some employee of Apple's violated his or her contract in leaking the information to the press and has committed a highly unethical and immoral act. I'm not questioning the severity of the crime that was committed by the source of the leak. I also agree that Apple should apply the full weight of the law in prosecuting the source of these leaks
Rather, I'm questioning the precedent that will be set by forcing journalists to reveal their sources. The recipient of a leak should not be punished for a crime committed. It's entirely possible that ThinkSecret initiated the leak. However, that's not the issue.
The key to a functioning free press is the ability of journalists to protect their sources. If journalists can no longer protect their sources, then no sources will step forward since there is a substantial risk that they'll be exposed. In other words, say goodbye to:
1) Corporate whisleblowers (ie Enron)
2) Government employees reporting on improper government activities (ex Deep Throat and Watergate)
3) Any news reports concerning Microsoft having their servers hacked into (which Microsoft would love to keep 100% secret)
4) Price fixing by the RIAA
etc...
Remember, I'm referring to a slippery slope. If Apple is successful in forcing those journalists to reveal their sources, the top of the slippery slope will be reached. The scenarios I outlined above represent the bottom of the slippery slope. IMO, once the top of the slipper slope has been reached, the bottom will soon follow.
In response to a counter-argument that I anticipated, I don't think it will be possible to "draw the line" at the case of the Apple leak and stop the slippery slope. In the post-9/11 environment, I don't believe that will be possible or politically feasible.
Originally posted by andrebsd
Dude... no company ever allows information to be leaked.. hence thats why its called a leak. - Someone STOLE information that was supposed to be kept secret by their NDA, and it was not supposed to be public information.... Now don't tell me that apple can somehow prevent a leak; because they need to tell people about what their making and what their plans are if there going to make anything... if those people are dishonest; its not apple's fault.
So being that it is NOT public information; Apple can and always does sue the people that post it. Just because you get some information, doesn't mean you can post it.
Just because its called "free press" doesnt mean its free to do whatever... kinda like "free speach" its not free to do whatever; you can't yell fire in a building where there is no fire... your gonna do time. And the press can hardly post anything they want and get away with it; if in a court case someone posts information that is supposed to stay secret (aka: Not to be leaked); there going to have some serious problems... the main thing thats free about the press, is they can speak their opinion; but it never gave them any rights to posting leaked stuff. [/B]
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
To talk stupidly or childishly.
Yeah, I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
As it has been discussed before, Nick dePlume is NOT a member of the press, he is not a journalist. People who break their NDA's submit trade secrets to him, which he posts on his site. That is not journalism by any definition of the word (I'm sure your going to look it up anyway)
Nick dePlume isn't fucking Magnum P.I. He isn't doing investigative work on a company which is doing anything illegal.
Comparing this to a _reall_ journalist digging up dirt on the tobacco industy or Enron is studid & childish.
Sorry to be blunt, but your arguement is ridiculous to say the least.
YOU're childish for calling my argument childish.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yeah, I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
As it has been discussed before, Nick dePlume is NOT a member of the press, he is not a journalist. People who break their NDA's submit trade secrets to him, which he posts on his site. That is not journalism by any definition of the word (I'm sure your going to look it up anyway)
Nick dePlume isn't fucking Magnum P.I. He isn't doing investigative work on a company which is doing anything illegal.
Comparing this to a _reall_ journalist digging up dirt on the tobacco industy or Enron is studid & childish.
Sorry to be blunt, but your arguement is ridiculous to say the least.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
YOU're childish for calling my argument childish.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Oh good, we've devolved into the PeeWee Herman School of Debate.