Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

32 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208

Not so much rumormongering as it is "bad news":

Quote:

Documents (PDF) unsealed in Californian state court shows that Apple failed to comply with the state laws when they legally pressed AppleInsider and PowerPage to reveal their sources. In March of this year a judge ruled that the websites will have to cough up the names of their confidential sources in response to lawsuits filed by Apple over product leaks.

...

Apple argued, in part, that the defendants violated the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA), through the "acquisition of a trade secret of another person who knows or has reason to know that the the trade secret was acquired by improper means." However, Apple looks to have jumped the gun, and gone straight for the jugular without checking in on their own employees. According to Californian law, Apple could only subpoena the journalists in question after having conducted a thorough in-house investigation.

"The First Amendment requires that compelled disclosure from journalists be a last resort," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Apple must first investigate its own house before seeking to disturb the freedom of the press."

It appears that Apple has adopted a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to dealing with rumors sites. The company took no depositions, required no oaths from its employees, and failed to subpoena anyone related to the company or the development of the device in question.

...

Full Story: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050914-5309.html

__________________

Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr. Webster's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1687
Re: Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

ax0n wrote:

Not so much rumormongering as it is "bad news":

How is this bad news? I think it's great news. Apple overstepped its bounds, and is being called on it. Apple fanboys may not agree, but as a journalist myself, I see this as a victory for free speech.

__________________

Applefritter Admin

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

Dr. Webster wrote:
ax0n wrote:

Not so much rumormongering as it is "bad news":

How is this bad news? I think it's great news. Apple overstepped its bounds, and is being called on it. Apple fanboys may not agree, but as a journalist myself, I see this as a victory for free speech.

I disagree with you, Dr. Webster. I'm reasonably certain that you can understand why.

Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208
let me clarify...

I know this place has a "no rumormongering" policy.

So it's not rumors about Apple, it's bad news for Apple.

It's awesome news for everyone else. Apple messed up with their heavy handed witch-hunt and they needed to be called on it. I'm just glad EFF stepped up to handle the case.

__________________

Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208
Re: Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

managed resistance wrote:

I disagree with you, Dr. Webster. I'm reasonably certain that you can understand why.

Feel like filling the rest of us in? HA! You were one of the moles, weren't you!?!?

(kidding)

__________________

Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

ax0n wrote:
managed resistance wrote:

I disagree with you, Dr. Webster. I'm reasonably certain that you can understand why.

Feel like filling the rest of us in? HA! You were one of the moles, weren't you!?!?

(kidding)

Sure, I'll fill you in. Through personal experience (believe me, I'm speaking from experience... And, oh what an experience it has been.) I've learned that the media tend to associate free speech almost exclusively with freedom of the press. Journalists and media conglomerates tend to think that they are the only people entitled to exercise their right to free speech.

Possibly I'm speaking of a uniquely Canadian phenomenon, but I really doubt it.

EDIT: Ooops, I neglected to mention that the right to speak also includes the right to remain silent. Free speech or communication embodies much more than just the spoken or written word. So, in this particular case, I find that Apple was correct in protecting their own rights and that the EFF is wrong in pursuing legal "cause" to infringe upon Apple's rights.

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Re: Journalists: 1 | Apple: 0

Ah...I get it.

But we're not talking about journalists in the Big Corporate sense. We're talking about little guys, just like you with your anti-radio station website.

This is really just a procedural problem. It's not condoning the websites, it's just saying Apple didn't fulfill its obligations before going after them.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

Reverend Darkness's picture
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 502
But.... but...

Apple was not protecting their own rights. They were terrorizing a journalist. There is a big difference.

Now, if the journalist in question had broken into the Cuppertino offices and rumaged through the file cabinets and took out a micro-camera to get some pics of the secret Mac Mini microfilm, then they would have a case. But that's not what happened.

The journalist in question was given the information by Apple employees. Apple is obligated to determine whether the information was "leaked" or "stolen". In the American judicial system, there is a huge difference. And that's what this case will cover... the American judicial system. You crazy Canadians, what with your hockey (thanks), your Labatt's(thanks), and your Brian Adams (no! GOD NO! NO MORE!), you have your own issues to deal with when it comes to freedom of the press.

***Disclaimer***
I may or may not have all of the facts correct in the above post. If I missed anything, misrepresented anything, or got anything wrong, do not flame me. I am not infallible. I'm not always right.

There was this one time I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong...

__________________

When I see lightning, you know it always brings me down... because it's free, and it's me who's lost and never found.

Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2004
Posts: 359
I agree with the rev

Hey,

Apple -- and especially Steve Jobs -- has a history of harassing elements of the Mac community that it deems unacceptable. They've done it time and time again and they use the expense of defending a lawsuit as the hammer rather than the merits of the case. The "purloined letters" was merely a ruse to close down an information conduit that the paranoid and utterly dishonest Jobs can't control. Funny thing about this particular case is that Apple is known to sift through employee's emails on a regular basis. So the employees have either wised up and use other means or maybe someone high up in Apple sent the info to the rumor sites to setup the basis of the lawsuit. Why look for something that you know isn't there?

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
I don't think it really makes a difference...

I don't think it really makes a difference. If you think of the leaked information as stolen property, then it is reasonable to expect that the journalist should be held accountable for taking possession of the stolen property. There should be no question as to whether or not the journalist knew the property was stolen; the journalist was aware that he/she was not receiving the property through proper channels.

Now, the argument as to whether the information was "leaked" or "stolen" is really quite irrelevant. The property in question was information. The information was owned and controlled by Apple Computer Incorporated. Therefore, it stands to reason that the property, and any rights associated with the property, whether it be for purposes of disclosure or retention, rest entirely with Apple Computer Incorporated.

The bottom line is that Apple Computer reserves the right to disclose or retain the information in whatever manner they see fit. They are under no obligation to disclose any information for which there are no legal requirements to disclose. i.e. disclosure for purposes of regulation or under court order, etcetera. In this particular case, there were no regulatory requirements or court orders with respect to the disclosure of the stolen property.

You have to remember too, that Apple did not act independently of the law. Apple sought and received direction from a court of competent jurisdiction.

I'm sorry, but I think Apple is justified in using whatever legal means necessary to protect their intellectual property. Courts agreed with Apple, so they can't be all wrong.

Not that I really know what I'm talking about, but it's not going to stop me from saying it. You know, free speech and all... Tongue

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
IIRC, the anti-rumormongering

IIRC, the anti-rumormongering rule was mostly lifted when Dr. Bob left Apple. As a high profile employee in the testing labs, he would have been the first target if anything sensitive came out on AF.

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

dankephoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1900
stolen = criminal - this ain't a criminal issue

This is basically a civil issue, between parties to a civil agreement. Someone broke their promise to Apple that they wouldn't let anyone know the secret. That person(s) can be sued by Apple in a civil court for breaking their legally binding promise.

Quote:

Apple argued, in part, that the defendants violated the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA), through the "acquisition of a trade secret of another person who knows or has reason to know that the the trade secret was acquired by improper means."

I'm not familiar with that part . . . however . . .

Anyone who has not promised Apple (ie: signed a non-disclosure agreement) is largely free to to do most anything they like with secret information, including repeat it in forums public. Of course, Apple is entitled to attempt to discover who the promise-breaker is, but in the United States we take jounalistic freedoms and protections pretty seriously. That's probably why the court decided Apple wasn't entitled to force AppleInsider to reveal their sources before Apple had exhausted all other means of discovery. And maybe even not then (we hope.)

Apple is far out of bounds in their attempts to stifle legal speech and jounalistic rights. Good to see them get their legal butts handed back to 'em, maybe that'll help keep 'em in line next time. Riiiiiiiight . . .

"managed resistance" wrote:

Not that I really know what I'm talking about, but it's not going to stop me from saying it.

What you said. ;D

dan k

__________________

|| web page gone - curse you Comcast! | Applish goodies servers offline, sorry! |
» email macdan at comcast.net

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: stolen = criminal - this ain't a criminal issue

dankephoto wrote:

This is a civil issue, between parties to a civil agreement. Someone broke their promise to Apple that they wouldn't let anyone know the secret. That person(s) can be sued by Apple in a civil court for breaking their legally binding promise.

Anyone who has not promised Apple (ie: signed a non-disclosure agreement) is free to to do most anything they like with this secret information, including repeat it in forums public. Of course, Apple is entitled to attempt to discover who the promise-breaker is, but in the United States we take jounalistic freedoms and protections pretty seriously. That's why the court decided Apple wasn't entitled to force AppleInsider to reveal their sources before Apple had exhausted all other means of discovery. And maybe even not then (we hope.)

Apple is far out of bounds in their attempts to stifle legal speech. Good to see them get their legal butts handed back to 'em, maybe that'll help keep 'em in line next time. Riiiiiiiight . . .

"managed resistance" wrote:

Not that I really know what I'm talking about, but it's not going to stop me from saying it.

What you said. ;D

dan k

It does not matter if it's a civil matter or a criminal matter. The issue is damages and what, if anything, is to be done to recover from those damages, or to prevent those damages from occurring again in the future.

At stake for Apple is their ability to compete in a highly competitive marketplace. In order for Apple to compete, they must be secure in the knowledge that their trade secrets and intellectual property will remain wholly under their control.

Apple has every right to secure and protect their properties. It makes absolutely no difference as to whether the property is physical or intellectual. The ownership and control of said property does belong, and rightfully so, to Apple Computer Incorporated.

Dankephoto:

Suppose someone was leaking confidential information from your household and some unscrupulous journalist was publishing your private affairs on the Internet. Would you be as quick to lobby for the rights of the journalist? Probably not!

I think that journalists and media are very quick to take a mile from an inch. Somewhere you have to draw the line. Which is more important, the freedom of the journalist to disseminate information or the right of an individual or company to earn a living?

I think that most people would say, "Screw the journalist! This is war!"

Interestingly enough, the public interest is not served by publishing confidential information that was, perhaps, illegally obtained from a corporation. Sorry, but Apple, in my opinion, was entirely right in this matter.

Reverend Darkness's picture
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 502
Actually...

I have to agree with danke on this one:

This is a civil issue. The NDA is what's at stake here, not whether or not the journalist had the right to print the info.

Don't get me wrong... I've dealt with journalists who apparently skipped ethics class altogether... but if you start legislating what can and cannot be printed based upon a civil lawsuit, then you tie the hands of those journalists that do have ethics.

That, and you cannot hold accountable a third party. The journalist was not in violation of the NDA. Therefore the journalist cannot be held responsible for the breach of the NDA.

Or that's the way the law down here reads.

__________________

When I see lightning, you know it always brings me down... because it's free, and it's me who's lost and never found.

dankephoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1900
press is not to blame, the leaker is to blame

Quote:

It does not matter if it's a civil matter or a criminal matter. The issue is damages and what, if anything, is to be done to recover from those damages, or to prevent those damages from occurring again in the future.

Yeah, but from whom is Apple to be recompensed for the damages?

Quote:

At stake for Apple is their ability to compete in a highly competitive marketplace. In order for Apple to compete, they must be secure in the knowledge that their trade secrets and intellectual property will remain wholly under their control. Apple has every right to secure and protect their properties. It makes absolutely no difference as to whether the property is physical or intellectual. The ownership and control of said property does belong, and rightfully so, to Apple Computer Incorporated.

That's their problem, they need to keep control of things they wish to remain secret.

Quote:

Dankephoto: Suppose someone was leaking confidential information from your household and some unscrupulous journalist was publishing your private affairs on the Internet. Would you be as quick to lobby for the rights of the journalist? Probably not!

Yer not gonna believe this (based on what you've written so far, anyway) but I'd go after the leaker and hold the press blameless. You can deal with life in your own way, but I'd be most offended by the betrayal within my own house. Anything outside is beyond my control.

dan k

__________________

|| web page gone - curse you Comcast! | Applish goodies servers offline, sorry! |
» email macdan at comcast.net

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: Actually...

Reverend Darkness wrote:

I have to agree with danke on this one:

This is a civil issue. The NDA is what's at stake here, not whether or not the journalist had the right to print the info.

Don't get me wrong... I've dealt with journalists who apparently skipped ethics class altogether... but if you start legislating what can and cannot be printed based upon a civil lawsuit, then you tie the hands of those journalists that do have ethics.

That, and you cannot hold accountable a third party. The journalist was not in violation of the NDA. Therefore the journalist cannot be held responsible for the breach of the NDA.

Or that's the way the law down here reads.

Personally, I think that most journalists should have their hands tied... With handcuffs and their view of the world should be from behind bars.

Let me give you an example:

In 2001, I formed a group called Radio Watch Sarnia. Radio Watch Sarnia was my response to a local radio station that had gotten out of control and was really making a mockery of the community and the people living here.

Anyway, in response to my having formed Radio Watch Sarnia, I was placed under unlawful surveillance and denied all civil rights -- including the right to a fair and impartial trial and the right to equality and equal protection under the law. Actually, the very fact that this radio station was able to do this, is proof that this particular radio station is out of control.

I ended Radio Watch Sarnia in September 2001 and nobody can prove otherwise. Yet, Blackburn Radio Incorporated still has me under surveillance to this very day. Where do you draw the line?

Am I at fault for say that enough is enough? Am I at fault for demanding that Blackburn cease their surveillance of myself and my premises? Absolutely not! Am I at fault for seeking compensation for having endured this unrelenting surveillance and denied civil rights? Absolutely not!

Does Blackburn Radio Incorporated have more right to free speech than I do? Absolutely not!!!

September 23, 2005, is just around the corner, and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that Blackburn Radio Incorporated is going to survive the battle that is brewing.

But ya know, the greatest insult is when Blackburn Radio Incorporated makes up bullcrap to justify their surveillance and crimes:

Examples:

They say that I just want attention. Unfortunately, I acted anonymously and there was no way on God's green Earth that I was going to get attention.

They say that I just wanted a girl. Unfortunately, I am a thirty-three year old gay male that has never been interested in girls during my entire life.

They say that it's about the economy, stupid. Unfortunately, one little radio station in a small town in southern Ontario has virtually no impact on the economy.

They say that it's about national security. Unfortunately, one little radio station in a small town in southern Ontario has virtually no impact on national security.

They say a lot of things, and they count on people like you to be stupid enough to believe it. Ya know, they'll even call it a criminal investigation... Funny! The criminals are doing the investigation? Just who the heck is running this asylum? Tongue

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Well, I'm sure this is the fi

Well, I'm sure this is the first anyone here's heard about that...Wink

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: Well, I'm sure this is the fi

eeun wrote:

Well, I'm sure this is the first anyone here's heard about that...Wink

Ya know, a lot of people think that I'm joking or that I'm fabricating this. Some people think that I'm off my rocker and that I'm speaking total nonsense. Unfortunately, it's all absolutely true. You don't have to take my word for it, read the public record!

Locally, the Sarnia Police Service has recently stepped up efforts to nab a person or persons that have been commiting sexual assaults/home invasions. Why are the police having such a hard time catching the perpetrators of these crimes? Why is no one coming forward with information that will lead to the arrest of these people?

I have a theory. I can't speak for the validity of the theory, but I can offer the theory for dissection by those who are "more educated" than myself.

Personally, I think that Blackburn Radio has created an atmosphere where it is "cool" to commit crime and cover it up. I don't think that the Sarnia Police are ever going to catch the people that are doing the home invasions and sexual assaults. As a matter of fact, I think that the assaults and home invasions are going to increase in frequency.

That's just what happens when law enforcement forgets that their responsibility is to enforce the law and not to cover up the crimes. Personally, I think that many of Sarnia's citizens are losing respect for the local law enforcement. And why shouldn't they? Look at the big picture: They issue warning after warning about people that don't commit crimes, and the people that do commit crimes... Well, the Sarnia Police don't even know where to begin their search.

Sarnia's future looks bright? Yeah, perhaps if you're a big fan of lawlessness and you're an attractive female looking to be raped. If you're an intelligent person that enjoys being under unlawful surveillance, Sarnia could be the dream destination for you as well.

It takes all kinds to make the world go around... Unfortunately, in this town, the Earth stops if you don't pledge allegiance to Blackburn Radio Incorporated. How terribly sad!!!

And ya know what's really sad? I strongly suspect that the Sarnia Police are trying to pin these home invasions on me; they've already come to my home to collect a DNA sample. I guess they probably have their panties in a knot now that they know the DNA doesn't match.

The Sarnia Police Service are going downhill fast. People in Bright's Grove are upset over marauding youth that are wreaking havoc in the neighbourhoods. I would hazard to guess that the female population is none too impressed with the local law enforcements inability to nab the rapists... I can tell you that I'm not at all impressed with the utter incompetence of the Sarnia Police Service.

I'm somewhat torn in my opinion of the Sarnia Police Service. I'm not sure if they're making mistake after mistake in an effort to finally get caught and end this corrupt coverup, or they're just genuinely incompetent. I could certainly understand that the Sarnia Police Service is not the most intelligent lot in Blackburn's little bag of corruption, but then the people of Blackburn Radio Incorporated are not the rocket scientists they pretend to be either.

Yeah, this is going to be a cakewalk. I really don't expect any politician to stand in my way. Why would they? Surely, they can recognize the stupidity of the cause that Blackburn has lured them into.

I like to think that there's good reason for Blackburn having been relegated to virtual insignificance, and that reason is their utter stupidity. Blackburn is just a company that is run by imbeciles!

By the way: I'm not joking! Anybody that wants to conduct their own investigation, send me an email. I'd be more than happy to sign waivers giving you access to public records and documents. You'll quickly realize how stupid Blackburn and the Sarnia Police are. The corruption and crime is very obvious.

Watch for my stuff on the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. They have been most contemptible in handling my complaint against the Sarnia Police Service. I'll release everything to the public with my scathing expose on corruption at the Commission office. You won't believe that these morons actually thought that they'd get away with this crap. You just won't believe how truly stupid they are.

Dr. Webster's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1687
Re: But.... but...

Reverend Darkness wrote:

Apple was not protecting their own rights. They were terrorizing a journalist. There is a big difference.

Now, if the journalist in question had broken into the Cuppertino offices and rumaged through the file cabinets and took out a micro-camera to get some pics of the secret Mac Mini microfilm, then they would have a case. But that's not what happened.

The journalist in question was given the information by Apple employees. Apple is obligated to determine whether the information was "leaked" or "stolen". In the American judicial system, there is a huge difference. And that's what this case will cover... the American judicial system. You crazy Canadians, what with your hockey (thanks), your Labatt's(thanks), and your Brian Adams (no! GOD NO! NO MORE!), you have your own issues to deal with when it comes to freedom of the press.

***Disclaimer***
I may or may not have all of the facts correct in the above post. If I missed anything, misrepresented anything, or got anything wrong, do not flame me. I am not infallible. I'm not always right.

There was this one time I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong...

You pretty much nailed it on the head. Apple blaimed the press for their own failings.

Freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom of the press...basically, if you can say it and not get prosecuted, you can print it. But then again, that's just the U.S.'s take on it -- YMMV with other countries.

__________________

Applefritter Admin

Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2005
Posts: 595
Re: But.... but...

Dr. Webster wrote:
Reverend Darkness wrote:

Apple was not protecting their own rights. They were terrorizing a journalist. There is a big difference.

Now, if the journalist in question had broken into the Cuppertino offices and rumaged through the file cabinets and took out a micro-camera to get some pics of the secret Mac Mini microfilm, then they would have a case. But that's not what happened.

The journalist in question was given the information by Apple employees. Apple is obligated to determine whether the information was "leaked" or "stolen". In the American judicial system, there is a huge difference. And that's what this case will cover... the American judicial system. You crazy Canadians, what with your hockey (thanks), your Labatt's(thanks), and your Brian Adams (no! GOD NO! NO MORE!), you have your own issues to deal with when it comes to freedom of the press.

***Disclaimer***
I may or may not have all of the facts correct in the above post. If I missed anything, misrepresented anything, or got anything wrong, do not flame me. I am not infallible. I'm not always right.

There was this one time I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong...

You pretty much nailed it on the head. Apple blaimed the press for their own failings.

Freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom of the press...basically, if you can say it and not get prosecuted, you can print it. But then again, that's just the U.S.'s take on it -- YMMV with other countries.

Apple blamed the press for their own failings? Why are you people so gullible? How did the United States become a nation where the media can do no wrong? Don't they teach anything in American schools?

I gotta tell ya, as a young lad I used to think that it would be better to be an American as opposed to the Canadian that I am. However, as I've grown older and arguably wiser, I'm glad that I am a Canadian and would not want to relocate to the United States for all the tea in China.

Then again, I used to respect the press too... Not anymore, obviously. Now I see them for what they truly are: A powerful special interest group that eliminates anything and everything that gets in their way. I have no respect for media anymore. I doubt that I ever will.

I used to think that the media were looking out for the little guy... protecting Mr. & Mrs. John & Jane Doe from crooked polictians and criminal corporations. You know, the folks that defended your right to know. Man, reality is something completely different. The reality is that the media are, for the most part, nothing but scum that distort the facts, and present stories in a manner that best suits their own personal agendas.

I pity you for sympathizing with these freedom quashers...

By the way: Ever wonder why Blackburn doesn't do anything in response to my posts? There's two reasons:

1) They can't! They don't have any legal recourse because everything that I say is absolutely true and they can't disprove a damn thing.

2) They use these posts to justify their crimes! I'm guessing that they could probably justify murder if I were to suggest that a certain polician were involved in the coverup.

Blackburn is pathetic!

dankephoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1900
Blackburn?!??!?

Geez, I know I shouldn't be writing this . . . sorry folks, but in the immortal words of John (the Duke) Wayne "It's gettin' to be re-goddamn-diculous!!"

m r, Blackburn Radio is invisible and irrelevant to us US denizans, and I (for one) am having a hard time seeing how it has anything to do with a story about Apple. The media involved (in the Apple case) are little guys, not some lumbering Canadian media behemoth. We are all aware you have issues with Blackburn, but please, please, lighten up a little. Not everything in the world needs to be viewed through a Blackburn-centric lens.

Sorry, and hoping this doesn't lead to another lengthy diatribe about Black-g0dd@mn-burn.

dan k

__________________

|| web page gone - curse you Comcast! | Applish goodies servers offline, sorry! |
» email macdan at comcast.net

Reverend Darkness's picture
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 502
Off on a tangent....

Managed, this thread was started about Apple, NDA's, and journalists. You have now turned it to your own agenda, which is whatever beef you have with Blackburn... and being in Texas, I can definintely tell you that we ain't never heard nuthin' 'bout them...

Your issues with that corporation have nothing to do with the LAW that states that Apple is the one responsible for making sure that their secrets don't get out. Law. If you want to change the law, you must do it from within. Very little will be changed by constantly going off on a tangent... a tentative tangent at that...

I am sorry for whatever it was that you went through, but it has nothing to do with the laws and legal precedence of the United States of America.

__________________

When I see lightning, you know it always brings me down... because it's free, and it's me who's lost and never found.

Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208
Re: IIRC, the anti-rumormongering

Jon wrote:

IIRC, the anti-rumormongering rule was mostly lifted when Dr. Bob left Apple. As a high profile employee in the testing labs, he would have been the first target if anything sensitive came out on AF.

Suuure Jon... tell that to ThinkSecret Wink

__________________

Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Posts: 233
They're watching because they know.

Let's put this in perspective. Someone in a small town complained about a radio station in a time where radio is a dying medium.

This complaint caused surveillance and the complanaint to be tracked.

Why?

Also, how is radio's decline going to cause girls to be raped?

There is probably actually a valid (yet completely coincidental) statistic there: As television replaced radio, the number of reported rapes increased...

I have an idea about the first question (why?)

Perhaps they think the person who is complaining needs to be watched because (as we all know) radio complainers are the type to do home invasions?

Ummmm

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Re: Blackburn?!??!?

dankephoto wrote:

m r, Blackburn Radio is invisible and irrelevant to us US denizans,

To be honest, it's irrelevant to Canadians, too, outside of Sarnia.

I can't speak for others, and this is really the place for a moderator to make such statements, but I'm reaching what I feel is a saturation point for certain subjects.

Managed Resistance, your posts here are great, and you've got lots to contribute - when you're not talking about a few subjects:

1) Blackburn.
You've made your point. I understand how important this crusade is to you, but for me it's just repetition, and is getting in the way of my enjoying this site.

2) You're gay.
Fine. You should be happy for who you are, and it doesn't affect my opinion of you at all, but I do not need to see it grandstanded in as many posts you can slip it into like it's some kind of award you've got hung on the wall. It's accepted. Move along.

It could be said that this should have been addressed in PMs (I've tried), but there's no CC (that's carbon copy, not color classic Wink ) in PMs, and I would like some of the mods to respond here as to how this works with AF's policies, and what's considered acceptable response from other users every time another thread is swallowed by the Blackburn Hole.

Again, MR, I like a lot of your posts here, and I've been interested as your Q950 develops, but the ranty-bits are a real distraction.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

BDub's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 706
Back on Topic

Managed Resistance has had posting privilages removed for the next week. Accusations of censorship can be posted in "AF Architects" or sent to if you'd prefer to yell at me directly.

Back on topic folks.

-BDub

__________________

"There is going to be a future: let's chase it until it kills us." - Spider Robinson

Offline
Joined: Feb 11 2004
Posts: 208
Censorship?

I'm an admin/moderator on a much larger forum than this. Forums are part of a private site, in this case belonging to Tom Owad, and enforced by his Delegates (like BDub et al.)

Thanks for steering it back on topic, though. Which, I suppose is the debate over Journalists and the media?

I think that serious blog sites like ThinkSecret, TUAW, etc. provide a GREAT grassroots Journalism outlet. These are guys who are for the most part writing it as they see it using their own blood, sweat, and tears. They're usually not in anyone's pocket (try saying that for Faux News or Crappy News Network) and usually their jounralism is very on-topic. In the infant state of this avant-garde news media outlet, this means that you have to go lots of places to get your news. At the same time, you're usually getting news instead of biased dreck repeated every 5 minutes.

If the argument comes up over whether or not these website writers (or Bloggers, if you will) are journalists, I hope the judge can see through the bullcrap that Apple will try to cloud the courtroom with.

__________________

Chimera: Black MacBook - Core2 Duo, 1GB Dual Channel, 120GB SATA
Hackintosh: Wallstreet Built-to-the-hilt with security and wireless software for penetration testing, OSX 10.2
Blackintosh: SE/30, two 4GB Seagate Barracudas, 32MB RAM, NetBSD (Painted/cle

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Back to it...

To add a bit more background on the ruling: Apple was found not to have performed 'due diligence' before going after the websites.
What that means - and I had to have an education on this for work - is that Apple was required to perform its own internal investigation to find leaks before going after the external sites. In Canada, that part of the law is really vague, and reads something like 'to the best of its reasonable abilities' - meaning you don't have to spend every cent and use all your manpower to find the leak, but you better come to court only after you've made a well-documented effort. It's open enough that the onus is completely on the company to prove that it did perform due diligence, and any lapse the judge finds can cause the company to lose. U.S. mileage may vary, of course.

But it's easier for Apple to go after the websites than find out who's breaking their non-disclosure.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
Well, I was just refering to

Well, I was just refering to the rule around here. I think there was some thread where TO made it official. I think there are a few Apple employees around here still, but not at the level Dr. Bob was at in Apple & as an admin around here.

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

davintosh's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 554
Re: Well, I'm sure...

eeun wrote:

Well, I'm sure this is the first anyone here's heard about that...Wink

And you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the last. Sheesh!

__________________

Obsolescence is just a lack of imagination.
Visit my blog: davintosh.com -- it may not be up to date, and it may not be exciting, but you can say you've been there.

BDub's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 706
Re: Well, I'm sure...

davintosh wrote:
eeun wrote:

Well, I'm sure this is the first anyone here's heard about that...Wink

And you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the last. Sheesh!

On topic. The situation has been handled for the moment. You will not take potshots at another user, especially under circumstances where they can't defend themselves.

__________________

"There is going to be a future: let's chase it until it kills us." - Spider Robinson

Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 851
Re: IIRC, the anti-rumormongering

Jon wrote:

IIRC, the anti-rumormongering rule was mostly lifted when Dr. Bob left Apple. As a high profile employee in the testing labs, he would have been the first target if anything sensitive came out on AF.

That is correct. I came really close to losing my job a couple times for merely posting my hacks on the web. Today AF would still prefer to avoid rumormongering mainly because of the way Apple treats rumors sites. The current legal climate is, big companies can bully small organizations like AF by throwing lawsuits around that they can't afford to defend themselves from.

__________________

Dr. Bob
Applefritter Admin

doug-doug the mighty's picture
Joined: Apr 14 2004
Posts: 1355
Re: I don't think it really makes a difference...

managed resistance wrote:

...Courts agreed with Apple, so they can't be all wrong...

These are also the same courts based out of California. The infamous "Left Coast". Funny who they seemed to overlook the established due process as described inthe article. Right or wrong, the law says they (Apple) was responsible for finding the leak internally first and foremost. They failed to do this, that places them in the wron (according to US law). Whether the journalist was right or wrong for publishing the information is secondary to the fact that Apple did not follow the rules in the order they are required to do so.

__________________

--DDTM ('Fritter Critter' since Apr 26 2004 - 18:16)

'If it ain't broke, take it apart anyways. If you can't take it apart, break it so that you can fix it.'