:|
Apple Computer yesterday gained the support of the Intel Corporation and Genentech in its effort to make online publishers disclose their sources of confidential information about new Apple products.
http://www.nytimes.com/
Pot Laws Pain Some Elders
Senior citizens who use medical marijuana to treat their ailments wonder why the federal government wants to just say no to them.
http://www.latimes.com/
Paying on the Highway to Get Out of First Gear
http://nytimes.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
Pot Laws Pain Some Elders
Senior citizens who use medical marijuana to treat their ailments wonder why the federal government wants to just say no to them.
http://www.latimes.com/
Paying on the Highway to Get Out of First Gear
http://nytimes.com/
posted by bryan at 7:33 AM
6 Comments:
Apple: now with more Nazism
Right up your alley, bryguy
im a nazi?
i think "journalists" are about as credible as lawyers.
a company should be able to protect its trade secrets. hiding behind supposed freedom of speech i believe is a stretch, as is running a mac rumors site and calling yourself a journalist.
I wouldn't call you a nazi.
More of a "national socialist".
As far as companies asserting their rights as citizens of the United States, WTF?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to have trade secrets, but they should be responsible for keeping them. If they get out they should look to punish the person who let them out, not the person who, does indeed, assert their freedom of speech. Corporate rights are out of whack in this country. We are truly living by the "Golden Rule", he who has the gold makes the rules.
im not a national socialist.
"If they get out they should look to punish the person who let them out, not the person who, does indeed, assert their freedom of speech."
apple is currently in the process of demanding the names of the individuals that while working for apple, realeased that information. theyre not even going after the owner of the website.
evil corporations should be able to prosecute those who illegally release their trade secrets. these rights are protected in the constitution.
i fully agree with the comment below:
"What happened here wasn't any kind of protected journalism," said Steven Hirsch, a lawyer for Genentech. "It was the posting of raw, unmediated stolen property to a Web site. Companies need to be able to take reasonable and limited steps to find out who is stealing their trade secrets and essentially destroying their value by having them posted to the Web."
"I mean say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." -Walter Sobchak
While Apple isn't necessarily "going after" the websites per se, they are subpoenaing them to list the John Does (Apple employees) who leaked the information.
From EFF, the group defending the blogs:
"James Madison understood that "a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both." Legal protections for media sources and unpublished information are critical means for journalists of all stripes to acquire information and communicate it to the public. Imagine if "Deep Throat," the informant critical to Woodward and Bernstein's investigation of the 1972 Watergate burglary, knew that his identity could be obtained through legal process. His career, and perhaps his life, would have been in serious jeopardy, and a cautious individual would have kept silent.
Fearful of the devastating effect compelled disclosure could have on the free flow of information -- the lifeblood of a functioning democracy -- the judiciary has understood the vital connection between the confidentiality of sources and the freedom of the press, establishing a privilege under the First Amendment. Some states have gone further, establishing reporter's shields in their statutes, or, as here in California, enshrining the shield in the state constitution.
Because today's online journalists frequently depend on confidential sources to gather material, their ability to promise confidentiality is essential to maintaining the strength of independent media. As the courts have confirmed, what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content. Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism -- regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the Internet.
Online journalism, whether in the form of blogs, email newsletters, or websites, is a growing part of our national discourse. The democratization of media inherent in the Internet allows any individual to reach out to a vast audience, without the constraints of traditional media. Blogs gain in importance and readership by the content and currency of their news, not their affiliations with the media of old. Indeed, we've seen numerous cases where blogs break the news first, and traditional media follow."
If Apple's subpoenas to Apple Insider, PowerPage and Think Secret are allowed to proceed and the Apple news sites EFF is representing are forced to disclose the confidences gained by their reporters, potential confidential sources will be deterred from providing information to the online media, and the public will lose a vital outlet for independent news, analysis, and commentary. We can't let that happen.
While journalist's right to protect their sources isn't literally written in the constitution, it is a first amendment based privilege that journalists rely on. What part of the constitution lists the rights of corporations? Again I am aware Apple can deal with their employees who leaked the trade secrets, but they can't use legal tactics to force websites to turn over their sources just like nobody could or should have been able to force Woodward and Bernstein to reveal who Deep Throat was (it was Pat Buchanan BTW).
Blogs and websites find the niche group of people that are interested in the content they provide.
I'm not even done but this post is too darn long. Whatever.
i love how the enshrined journalists continually twist and twist this argument and both of you go for it. apple and other companies such as intel that are backing them have stated that they have no problem whatsoever with the rights given to ensure freedom of the press. ie your deep throat example. what they do have a problem with is the dissemination of their trade secrets. information such as this i hardly think is 'news' vital to our democracy. i do think it is vital to our market economy however that a business be able to innovate and guard this sensitive information.
your long quote states the following:
"As the courts have confirmed, what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content. Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism -- regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the Internet."
they say themselves that what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content. then why oh why are they continually making this into some sob story of david and goliath, of how apple is picking on the poor little blog... that they wouldnt have gone after a larger media source. :P
apple could care less that is a blog. the fact of the matter is that no major media source would be stupid enough to publish some companies trade secrets and play it off as legitimate news that should be protected under the constitution. not only are they trying to totally erase any line of what should or shouldnt be considered legitimate news worthy of constitutional protection, they are infringing upon the constitutional rights of a company to protect their trade secrets.
Post a Comment
<< Home