Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Apple Bloggin for the Noggin

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004

    Apple Bloggin for the Noggin


    the ruling states that a Web site that published confidential Apple documents could not protect its sources from an Apple inquiry. In this case, the criminal activity of leaking private corporate data trumped reporters' traditional right to protect their confidential sources, the judge said.
    I suppose this makes a fair amount of sense, but people are going to be pissed because they either hate Apple, hate large corperations, or just like causing trouble... While as a journalist you do have a responsability to those people so I suppose that you will have to suck it up, keep reporting confidential stuff, and probably get fined or sent to jail for it. It really depends on what it's worth to you.

    "It's a thoughtful but seriously wrong decision," Scheer said. "Under this logic, if the Wall Street Journal ran a story about these documents, it could be prosecuted criminally. That's an absurd result."
    Is it now? What if someone was doing that to your company, wouldn't you be pissed?

    The sites themselves are not being sued directly in this case. But Apple has issued a subpoena to PowerPage's Internet service provider, Nfox, asking for e-mail and other records that might be relevant to the case. A separate subpoena has been approved by the court that would force AppleInsider to give up any of its own documents that might relate to the identity of the person who leaked the information.
    Following in the FBI's footsteps, this time without a gag order. I expect any internet provider to put up one helluva fight to keep them (or the FBI) from gaining access to my accounts, etc... After all, is it not my email? You can read my email if I can read yours Steve Job.

    In his decision Friday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg avoided the question of whether the enthusiast sites qualified for the same legal protections as traditional journalists, saying that Apple's right to protect its secrets trumped any legal protections afforded reporters under state or federal law.
    Apparently avoiding a main point makes it easier to make decisions, good job douchebag...

    But Scheer said the ruling could cripple business reporting, which often relies on confidential sources inside companies.

    "Newspapers and television and radio stations could avoid problems by not doing any of the serious reporting that would involve internal records, and only printing the things that corporations wish you to read," Scheer said. "If they did that, we would have a much less meaningful press.
    I have to agree with him on this. What if we all took M$ point blank? China and North Korea would over run is in a matter of minutes. We'd have no power and be nuking ourselves!!! Maybe not that drastic, but you never know.

    PM8228, still kicking the ****.

  2. #2
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    I wonder what former Enron stockholders would think of the judge's decision?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts