I'm from the Netherlands. That may sound like a weird statement to start a column with-- don't worry, at the end of this week's Sunday Eve Column you'll understand why I put my nationality so bluntly up front.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
First, the part of the Netherlands constitution is no different then what the constitutions of most democratic countries have. I don't know when yours was put in place though, I'm guessing its a newer one, unlike the US constitution which took a few upgrades to get it there. I don't see the need for calling it out like it is somehow different then many other countries. I'm also sure like any other countries, its implementation doesn't always work as well as what is stated.
Secondly, and this is in no way a dis on the Netherlands, just wanting to explain something. What may sound like big news or well known in the Netherlands, will probably be a completely unknown thing to much of the world. Your country is very small and no news within it travels very far. So its very hard for people to follow your story since they have zero idea of what you are talking about. I would guess only those from the Netherlands and those regions right around it have any idea what you were talking about. It has to be a really really big event with some global consequences to go far. I have zero idea of what you were talking about for events in the Netherlands. I would guess the bulk of people here are in the same boat.
Anyways. To the later part. Yes, people do give apple to much slack on stuff. When they do something its fine, but if MS was to do it, MS is evil. That does bother me and needs to stop. And as a mac user it bothers me more to see the insane mac users go off like that how Apple is so great.
But on the subject of NDAs, its simple. Companies have them, probably most all tech companies do, I don't want to think about how many I have to obey. If you don't want to sign one, you just don't work for that company. Very simple. If someone does break one, a company has every right to take action. What you see as minor may have huge implications for the company. Also all their suppliers and so forth that are involved. It does effect stock prices and so forth. Also there is zero reason for this to be leaked.
The whole reason apple has succeeded so much in the last few years is they run a tight ship. They don't produce vapor ware, or leave people hanging. Thats how it should be, say nothing till your shipping. Also means you don't let people down. (as in people rumor that such and such device is coming, interest gets driven up, then it doesn't happen and people are for some reason mad at apple).
You not liking NDAs is not a reason for complaining a company in-forces them. Without them and the trust between people and companies created by them, industries such as the tech industry would move very slow.
Furthermore, sites like apple insiders and other rumor sites, aren't news sites. They have no right to publish stuff that was obtained through improper channels. If you are going to post something about a forth coming product to the level of a rumor, it better becoming from a press release or approved interview. Yes, we all like to read a rumor, but we have no right to know that info. But a company like apple definitely has a right to find out where it came from so they can take action. If a site was called "defenseinsider" and got leaked rumors on military hardware from people who broke NDAs, do you think the Government and contractors have no right to track down that person?
Furthermore, if you had a company, would you want your employees leaking info, especially if it could cause the competition to react early and thus torpedo your product before launch and maybe destroy your company? That may sound extreme, but companies put a ton of money into some products, and if someone is able to react before it, they could loose everything.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-09-03
Member since:2005-06-29
You not liking NDAs is not a reason for complaining a company in-forces them
It's not about me not liking NDAs. Not at all. It's about me not liking how Apple is trying to stymie free speech by forcing journalists to disclose sources. That is very dangerous, for the reasons explained in my above post.
If Apple can force journalists to disclose their sources, what is stopping Nixon II from forcing the Washington Post to disclose who Deep Throat II is? You see how dangerous thi s is?
Furthermore, sites like apple insiders and other rumor sites, aren't news sites.
Decides who? Why is AppleInsider not a newssite, but CNet is? On what grounds do you make the difference?
They have no right to publish stuff that was obtained through improper channels.
So, Washington Post should have ignored Deep Throat?
Member since:2005-11-06
Furthermore, sites like apple insiders and other rumor sites, aren't news sites.
Decides who? Why is AppleInsider not a newssite, but CNet is? On what grounds do you make the difference?
Decide for yourself:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/03/annals_of_journalism
Member since:2005-07-06
They have no right to publish stuff that was obtained through improper channels.
Just like how news sites have no right to publish information about NSA wiretapping in the United States, which was leaked improperly?
If you are going to post something about a forth coming product to the level of a rumor, it better becoming from a press release or approved interview.
Yes, I'd like to get all my news from press releases and approved interviews.
Yes, we all like to read a rumor, but we have no right to know that info. But a company like apple definitely has a right to find out where it came from so they can take action.
Apple's rights end at the journalist's nose. They have all the rights in the world to pursue people who break their NDAs, but not up to the point on when they are infringing on someone else's right to free speech.
If a site was called "defenseinsider" and got leaked rumors on military hardware from people who broke NDAs, do you think the Government and contractors have no right to track down that person?
People leak info on military hardware all the time. The Pentagon generally doesn't go and sue media establishments because of it.
Member since:2006-04-05
Apple's rights end at the journalist's nose. They have all the rights in the world to pursue people who break their NDAs, but not up to the point on when they are infringing on someone else's right to free speech.
This is up to the courts to decide whether it's a case of freedom of speech or intermediating/facilitating the leakage of trade secrets.
The fact that you are a journalist doesn't make you immune to the laws. You can't publish trade secrets, weapon schematics or drug recipes and expect not to be prosecuted.
Member since:2006-02-27
First, the part of the Netherlands constitution is no different then what the constitutions of most democratic countries have.
Except it's the law in Netherlands and not in other countries. And that it's an expression of the beliefs of the people of that nation. And that that nations beliefs hold that level of equality and democracy as a given. So other than being different in most real ways it is exactly the same. Like orange juice is the same as water, only different.
Secondly, and this is in no way a dis on the Netherlands, just wanting to explain something. What may sound like big news or well known in the Netherlands, will probably be a completely unknown thing to much of the world.
Except I knew what he was talking about. I do not live in Netherlands. I have never been to Netherlands. I live in the US. I simply pay attention to the news.
Furthermore, if you had a company, would you want your employees leaking info, especially if it could cause the competition to react early and thus torpedo your product before launch and maybe destroy your company?
He has a company. You are visiting it right now.
If a site was called "defenseinsider" and got leaked rumors on military hardware from people who broke NDAs, do you think the Government and contractors have no right to track down that person?
They have the right to track that person down. That they have that right is not in question. The question is do they have the right to compel a reporter to provide them that information? Having an NDA does not confer special rights beyond the two people who enter into that contract.
Would you want to live in a country where every company that has the money to pay lots of lawyers can be sure they can silence their detractors? Do I have the right to expect newspapers to be able to publish information that is not contained in carefully worded press releases? Should all information only come from the official sources? Do you trust the official sources to always tell you everything you need to know?
Member since:2005-06-29
Except it's the law in Netherlands and not in other countries.
Exactly, it might be the same as the similar paragraph in the US constitution, but it is completely different at the same time. The US constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The American paragraph speaks for the government; while the Dutch variant speaks of the whole society; not only the government, but also individuals.
They seem the same, but are completely different at the same time.
Member since:2005-07-06
Kindof on a tangent, but if the US government stayed what it was supposed to be: "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", then it would be saying the same thing...
Things have gotten bad when people can say "the government" as if it was someone other than a group that we were all supposed to be a part of.
Member since:2005-07-12
Kepe in mind, however, that the US government was created in such a way as to keep it somewhat separate from the people, mainly to prevent the kind of "tyranny of the majority" that could so easily occur in a true democracy.
That's also one of the reasons why there are so many checks and balances in place in Washington. The fact that so much inertia exists is a royal pain at times, but it also prevents kneejerk reactions on the part of the government in most cases.
Obviously Iraq is an exception. :-(
Member since:2005-08-18
"Secondly, and this is in no way a dis on the Netherlands, just wanting to explain something. What may sound like big news or well known in the Netherlands, will probably be a completely unknown thing to much of the world."
It's a quite well-known event actually, at least in Europe.
Edited 2006-04-10 10:14
Member since:2006-04-13
He may have lost it, but you never had it.
1. That part of their constitution IS unique. There is no such antidiscrimination language in the US Constitution. Attempts at getting such language passed (such as the Equal Rights Amendment) have failed. If it were spelled out that clearly in the US Constitution, women and blacks wouldn't have had to fight for voting rights nearly as hard, and the whole debate over gay marriage would be over.
2. Just because you're a sheltered American who's never heard of the assassinations in the Netherlands, don't assume it's not world news. I'm an American, and I saw reports of these on CNN and heard updates on NPR and the BBC.
3. I don't think the guy said he doesn't like NDAs. The issue is that journalists haven't signed one. Apple needs to enforce its own NDAs and not persecute those who are just reporting information.
Apple has the right to track down the people who leaked the info, but journalists have the ethical right to protect their sources.
Member since:
2006-04-01
"A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also called a confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), confidentiality agreement or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties which outlines confidentiality materials the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict from generalized use."
In other words, it's a legally binding contract in which both parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement to the public.
If someone in the company is leaking information, Apple wants to know about it. Unfortunately, no one in the company is going to 'fess up'. This means that they have to go to the place that got the information so they can take appropriate action on the individual or individuals that participated in the leaking of said confidential information.
I don't believe that they are fighting free speech because when you sign an NDA you are waiving free speech rights. Even if you aren't waiving your free speech rights (I'm no lawyer) you are never free from responsibility.
If I call someone a bad word, there is no law stating that since I have free speech they can't try to harm me. I am not free from responsibility of my actions.
Apple can go after like, the wall street journal if the wall street journal were to report rumors about upcoming apple products. I don't remember any big corporations reporting articles that say like "From SOMEONE INSIDE APPLE, We have information stating that they will come out with a new PDA!" (No, I don't have any information). Please, if the wall street journal or the NY Times, or Fox news, or ABC, or CNN reported rumors that apple was going to do something, please forward me a link because I don't really remember any.
Did I miss something?
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't believe that they are fighting free speech because when you sign an NDA you are waiving free speech rights. Even if you aren't waiving your free speech rights (I'm no lawyer) you are never free from responsibility.
The person signing the NDA waives free speech rights. The reporter who gains the information most assuredly does not. The fact that this makes it more complicated for Apple to protect its NDA means nothing. If you can't protect your company secrets within the framework of your society's principles, then please do everyone a favor and drop dead.
Member since:2005-07-06
The person signing the NDA waives free speech rights.
no they are not, they are waiving their right to disclose confidential information. Sure they can disclose it, but they signed a contract and can be sued for doing so.
If an Apple employee was passing on information to the New York Times, do you think that Apple would not take action to find out who was leaking company information?
They may sue the NYT to find out WHO their source is on this information, sure they didn't sign it, but that doesn't absolve the person who broke their NDA.
Oh! But we have free speech! Except when you've signed an agreement saying you wont release information and then you do. You're free to do it, but you'll get sued. Yes... that is in the context of our society's "principles". Its called a legally binding contract. If you break that then you are not following your society's principles of law and order.
Member since:2005-06-29
"Did I miss something?"
You most certainly did. If you live in a country like the US or the Netherlands where free speech is guaranteed by the constitution of that country, you CANNOT "give up" that right, nor can it be taken from you. At any time that you decide to open your mouth and talk, you are most certainly free to do so. The problem is, when you signed that NDA you opened yourself up to the liability of what you said. An analogy would be that while you are free to curse and swear in public according to the constitution, there are decency laws in most cities and communities that will fine you for doing so. You have the right to say it, but you better be ready to face the consequences of what you say.
The real issue is that Apple seems to be interested in finding out who broke the NDAs so they can take the appropriate action. In trying to acheive this goal (which is Apple's right) they are trampling on the journalists' free speech (which is NOT Apple's right). In short, they are going about it the wrong way. Also, to my knowledge NDAs are not protected by any criminal law. As such, they legally can only go after the leakers and the journalists in civil court; no law has been broken here. Please note that I am not a lawyer so if I am wrong about that please correct me.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Legitimacy is a tricky issue this day and age.
A lot of people require a degree in order to backup your claims of legitimacy - be it a journalism degree, a library, business, computer science, biology - whatever degree. This I think is fundamentally wrong. There are many people who I know who study on their own, they like to learn new things and apply them - they know as much or sometimes more as the people who got their degrees!
Now the question of websites - there are in my opinion journalism (or tabloid depending on how you see it) websites that report legitimate news. I think that Apple (and other companies or individuals) have EVERY right to go after people who break those NDAs, and they should utilize any means necessary. This of course is flexible rule.
1. If Apple (or any company) has leaked info that shows evidence of ENRON or WorldCom type implications (i.e. ILLEGAL activities) - then of course the company cannot go after those NDA breakers UNLESS it is proven that no harm was committed by the people indited for illegal activities - in which case the NDA breakers are now law0abiding citizens but they are in actuality people who commit lible.
2. Apple (or any company) SHOULD be able to after anyone that signs an NDA and divulges company secrets that impeed their ability to compete. This sort of action should be equivalent to industrial espionage and punished accordingly.
Just my 2c in the issue
Member since:2005-07-06
2. Apple (or any company) SHOULD be able to after anyone that signs an NDA and divulges company secrets that impeed their ability to compete. This sort of action should be equivalent to industrial espionage and punished accordingly.
I agree, but should they be able to force a website to reveal their source because they suspect it's someone who broke an NDA ? In my opinion that's a bridge too far. You go after the guy you had a contract with NOT the publisher of information.
Company secrets seems to have become too broad a term too, meaning whatever info is convenient for a company to withhold at a certain time, which is another thing I dislike about this case.
I really like Apple, but this one appeal I wouldn't mind them loosing.
Member since:2006-04-09
See, there's little investigative process which must occur prior to discovering who leaked the information at Apple. No one at Apple is going to confess for fear of losing their job (and rightfully so - to losing their job, and being fearful I guess) so you go to the most obvious source of the leak - the website which reported the leaked information. Free speech is not without its limits. Reporters do not have the right to protect sources who, for instance, confess to committing a crime. The journalst can promise all they want to the source but the courts will compel them to reveal the source without violating anyone's First Amendment rights (in the U.S. at least). These websites go further than simply reporting leaked information though. They entice employees and partners to break their NDAs with the promise of anonymity, something they can't promise, and which makes the reporting even more illegal and harder to defend from a moral standpoint.
Edited 2006-04-09 20:07
Member since:2006-03-15
Googling on << grillz jamar Feds >> finds another recent "slippery slope" issue. If you say rob a bank, convert the cash into gold, and stick the gold bar in your pocket, it seems rightful to return the gold back to the bank, eh ? But if you bond the gold to your TEETH, it's "homesteaded", to then seize the gold allows folks to cry "Nazi", which of course is end-of-subject due to this fountainhead of emotional knee-jerk. Slippery slopes, hmm !
Member since:2006-04-05
I agree, but should they be able to force a website to reveal their source because they suspect it's someone who broke an NDA ? In my opinion that's a bridge too far. You go after the guy you had a contract with NOT the publisher of information.
HEY, Apple ain't pulling a Mafia there and coercing anyone to reveal their sources. Apple can't do that. Courts can. If courts understand that those websites are hurting Apple's business and that they must reveal their sources so Apple can enforce a contract (the NDA), than it's the legal system working, not Apple, forcing anyone to do anything.
And I'm pretty sure the 1st amendment won't cover this kind of thing, which is the very reason why traditional media did not publish that kind of rumour, and they usually investigate whether their sources would be able to obtain information without broking NDAs.
The only exception to this rule is when the company in question is harming those who use their products; if that's the case one can blow the whistles 'till the cows go home.
If it weren't so trade secrets would be no more and way too many tech companies would go belly-up.
Member since:
2005-07-06
In the Netherlands, those guys were killed by fanatics because of what they say.
In the US, Apple is trying to stop certain web sites that report their secrets?
Is this the same thing?
No.
Why?
a) Apple is not _killing_ the authors of said web sites.
b) The web sites are not expressing opinions about Apple, just revealing secret stuff.
c) Apple is trying to do this legally (although the legality can in deed be questioned)
Basically - what I think you meant to write is: "Web sites should be considered as press, and have all of the same rights (and obligations?)".
On that point, I'd be willing to agree with you.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Web sites should be considered as press, and have all of the same rights (and obligations?)."
That's ridiculous. Seriously. That is ridiculous.
Not everyone IS created equal. I am a software engineer and I do not believe myself to be a journalist. I haven't the skill nor the common sense to remain 100% unbiased (not that journalists do these days). But why should BLOGs be considered journalism? They cannot even be considered private because the author has thrown them out onto the WWW for EVERYONE to see and read? They could write ANYTHING. People act oddly on the internet, they feel invulnerable or something, I don't know what it is...
On the issue of equality, there is also a law in the Netherlands that you cannot spank your potentially badly misbehaving child because (and this used to be on the actual, official website for the Netherlands - haven't checked lately - I found it while at an Oracle Portal class, they use Oracle's products) they are EQUAL TO ADULTS. Well, wrong. Physiologically speaking they are not "complete"... the brain CONTINUES TO GROW (ridges continue to form) until the late teens and in some cases the early 20's actually. Emotionally they are in turmoil as their bodies deal with constant growth and hormonal changes, and they haven't nearly the same knowledge and sense and established "id" (completely formed mental process of self and the realization of its relationship to the rest of the world around it).
So I have a hard time with any hyper-liberalized beliefs (whether born out of honest desire to "do right by everyone" or not) whether they be about human relationships, psychology or the definition of and application of law of said hyper-liberal source.
I am not an uncompassionate person, honestly, but there also has to be lines in civilization. Not everyone will always be pleased with the lines, they will always suck for someone, but we are not ready for "utopian society." We just cannot handle it. We need regulation, we need control, we NEED order.
Member since:2005-07-06
Not everyone IS created equal.
Unfortunately, most of the libral democratic constitutions in the world do not hold this view. If you don't like it, you're welcome to move to China, or Iran, Vietnam, or North Korea. There are lots of places that don't have such troublesome clauses in their fundemental documents...
Member since:2005-07-06
It seems like the point just whooshed you right by.
He wasn't talking about fundamental human freedoms. He was talking about what you are and aren't allowed to do. Software engineers aren't allowed to perform surgery, taxi drivers aren't allowed to fly planes, and journalists aren't allowed to spill the beans on internal, classified corporate information.
Get it now? Not everyone is equal in terms of what they're allowed to do. It has nothing to do with human rights.
Member since:2005-07-11
Member since:2005-06-29
"Unfortunately, most of the libral democratic constitutions in the world do not hold this view."
Unfortunately?
Picture this: You and some world recognized celebrity you absolutely hate (one you know is a phoney, perhaps a convicted law breaker who buy's the public's affection with money and has nothing of value to contribute to the world) are both waiting in line for a heart transplant which you both need within the next 24 hours to live. Imagine you got their first, you're waiting for your surgery when that celebrity comes in and demands to have your place. (S)He gets your place, and you die; all because you weren't equal in the eyes of a biased and shallow public.
I for one would rather be equal than considered less than anyone who by luck manages to exploit society into giving them a high position they may or (more likely) may not deserve.
Member since:
2006-04-09
Member since:2005-12-14
Well, that's because our prices went up seriously after the introduction of the euro. Most of the things got like 100-150% more expensive after the euro. Also i personally experienced lots of cases are known where the guilder sign (fl) was just replaced with the euro sign. OT though.
Member since:2005-07-07
"Oh, and the Dutch are also known to exclaim statements like "What? FIVE EUROS? That's almost TWELVE GUILDERS!" whenever shopping"
LOL. One mod point for you. Although it's actually not really funny at all - personally I find it hugely annoying whenever I hear people say that. It's mostly some of my collegues that keep whining about it. On bad days I roll my eyes so much that it makes my head spin.
Member since:
2006-01-28
I suggest those of you who really claim to care for free speech stop buying any Apple products. Let them know that you don't support the strong arming of journalists and bloggers, assuming that you believe that is what their doing.
In fact, since this editorial was so outspoken, I am surprised not to see Thom asking for an oughright boycott of Apple's products.
Take the final step: companies only listen when their pocketbook gets hit.
Member since:
2005-08-22
This has NOTHING to do with NDA's. The topic discussed has one main premise. The "press" has a right to protect their sources. Then the question follows, what constitutes the "press?" No one here is arguing that violating contracts, including NDA's is wrong. The issue is, should reporters be REQUIRED to reveal their sources? If so, under what circumstances? If not, why not? Freedom of speech here is a non issue as well.
Edited 2006-04-09 19:41
Member since:
2005-06-29
to go after people who break those NDAs
Of course! They should! But read my article carefully-- I'm not trying to defend those breaking NDAs. I'm talking about the press. Apple is sueing the press to force them to disclose information-- this should not be allowed in any case, because it limits the press's ability to investigate: if the press can be forced to disclose sources-- who in their right mind would ever talk to the press concerning sensitive information about injustices, knowing their identity is no longer safe?
And the day insiders stop leaking information about possible injustice, is the day the press is DEAD, because they lost their ability to encourage discussion or reveal nasty things.
In the Netherlands, those guys were killed by fanatics because of what they say.
In the US, Apple is trying to stop certain web sites that report their secrets?
Like I said, BREAK IT DOWN TO THE CORE. At its cores, the things are EXACTLY the same. Apple is trying to silence people, while the killers tried to silence people as well.
I CLEARLY said the acts commited by the killers are NOT comparable to Apple's-- but their goals ARE.
Member since:2005-08-22
>this should not be allowed in any case, because it limits the press's ability to investigate
This is, at very best, a controversial opinion, and this is the heart of the issue. If you are just going to state it like a fact, you will never understand the other side's point.
>And the day insiders stop leaking information about possible injustice, is the day the press is DEAD, because they lost their ability to encourage discussion or reveal nasty things.
That depends upon what you mean "nasty things." Remember, NDA's don't protect illegal behavior. So if you signed a NDA to not reveal that Apple is slaughtering people by the thousands, the NDA is invalid, If you signed a NDA that Nick was a real jerk to Jessica, that may be a "nasty thing," but I don't think that means the press is dead if it's not revealed.
>Like I said, BREAK IT DOWN TO THE CORE. At its cores, the things are EXACTLY the same.
Not even close. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Killing people versus challenging the idea that the press should be able to protect their sources is NOT even the same underlying concept. IANAL.
Member since:2005-07-06
Killing people versus challenging the idea that the press should be able to protect their sources is NOT even the same underlying concept.
Killing people is usually a means to an end, not an end in itself. Why were those Dutch figures killed? It was not just for the heck of it --- they were killed because some people didn't like what they had to say. The motive behind the killing was to silence them, just as Apple's motive behind the lawsuit is to silence the press.
Member since:2006-04-05
And the day insiders stop leaking information about possible injustice, is the day the press is DEAD, because they lost their ability to encourage discussion or reveal nasty things.
How in Hades can disclosing information about future products ahead of their release dates be considered injustice? Unless you're talking about the manufacturer of such products, because by doing so you're putting such products in jeopardy because of fierce competition.
Your claims that anyone should be able to disclose trade secrets to the press amount to legalising industrial espionage and making the gathered information widely available to anyone, but particularly to the competition who might have not ever dreamed about some products but happen to be able to clone and market some product much faster than the inventors.
For example, Apple is not specialized in the audio hardware business, and the rumour was about a audio interface. M-Audio and MOTU are in the audio hardware business and have uncomparably more expertise than Apple in this area. What if they decided to clone Apple's product before it was even announced, and release it early to the market?
Member since:2005-06-29
Thom, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point: Apple should be allowed to sue these websites. However, the judge should take one look at the suit and throw it out.
It's important that people (or companies) be free to bring suit over whatever their grievance may be. But the courts should be zealous in protecting the small guy from bigger, richer entities that will try to use the courts to push them around or intimidate them.
Member since:2005-07-06
Thom, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point: Apple should be allowed to sue these websites. However, the judge should take one look at the suit and throw it out.
It's important that people (or companies) be free to bring suit over whatever their grievance may be. But the courts should be zealous in protecting the small guy from bigger, richer entities that will try to use the courts to push them around or intimidate them.
Well said. I would vote your comment up if I could. The murder analogy falls down when you consider that Apple has to go to court in order to silence the websites. They can't take matters into their own hands and unplug the webservers.
Thom, unfortunately, you have chosen a highly sensationalist analogy that could be considered to be on the higher end of the troll chart. While I understand where you are coming from, your article, sorry, opinion column, would have had more impact had you actually debated the matter (why is it wrong for Apple to do what it's doing) instead of describing it (you did spend most of the word count on building up the analogy).
Edited 2006-04-10 09:38
Member since:
2006-01-23
Because I do agree with the press freedom, i dont think noone should release articles with NDA'ed stuff unless the information is very, very disturbing and can badly affect the public.
In these cases, the "legitimate press" can usually deny disclosing it's sources (and if the matter is serious the judge will accept it even if it's NDA'ed).
Of course i disagree with making every blog a legitimate info source. Legitimate press must be led by professional journalists.
Giving blogs this status would be way over the top. Any company wanting to harm a competitor could use a blog to post sensitive info and the offencer couldn't ever be tracked down.
Of course even a blog should be allowed not to disclose a source IF the subject is serious.
Member since:
2005-08-02
It is not right to compare the murders of two people with a lawsuit over NDA and trade secrets. It is as if you are making light of their deaths or trying to make the lawsuit as serious as murder.
The only comparison I can think of between these two situations is this. If only the people who murdered in your country had attempted to air their differences in public (either in court or the media) instead of committing such a horrible crime then they would all be better off, the murdered would be better off, and perhaps your country would be a little bit more knowledgeable of what these people think and feel.
It is good to argue pro and con in these debates. It is good that people from both sides air their disagreements publicly. Apple believes a crime has been committed and is pursuing their legal right to seek justice. This is fair. Is this not how things should be done in the Netherlands? Or is vengeance the solution only?
I believe the courts should handle this issue, and I know they will. If you feel that the outcome was wrong, then if you are a US citizen you should write to your congressmen and ask for them to propose a change in the laws to prevent it from happening again. Again, wouldn't you do the same if this were happening in the Netherlands?
Edited 2006-04-09 19:57
Member since:
2006-03-15
Googling on << equalization canada >> confirms that the principle of equalization, that everyone is to be equalized to everyone else so that they count exactly the same to 9 decimal places, is indeed also enshrined in the Canadian constitution. A lot follows from the premise of equalization - does Democracy imply Equalization, are they indeed synonymous ?
Of course your costitution-pdf is in Dutch, I can't read it. I was not able to find an English translation online, is there one ?
Member since:
2005-07-06
a) Apple is not _killing_ the authors of said web sites.
It is not right to compare the murders of two people with a lawsuit over NDA and trade secrets. It is as if you are making light of their deaths or trying to make the lawsuit as serious as murder.
Yikes! I bet you all thought Jonathan Swift showed bad taste for making light of the practice of cannibalism!
People, please look up "analogy" in the dictionary!
Member since:2005-08-02
I know. But it is a terrible one in my opinion. As I said, if only the murderers would have aired their difference in public instead of committing murder, then everyone would be better off. Apple is doing the appropriate thing by going to the court to air their differences. The court will judge whither or not it was just. I fail to see any similarities between the two situations other than the deepest wish that the tragedy in the Netherlands could have been avoided if only the murderers would have acted on their grievances by going public instead of taking law into their own hands.
And on a more important note, it is extremely bad taste to bring out the deaths of two innocent people which has brought on so much misery to so many and then to compare it in whatever way you want to such a trite thing as a computer company in a lawsuit with a web site over trade secrets.
Member since:
2006-04-09
[dutch] Wat een slecht artikel. [/dutch]
The comparision between politicians and the NDA/Journalism freedom is far fetched. Secondly, an NDA is an NDA. Sign it, accept it, don't break it. It's a contract. I think signing a contract has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of journalistics.
Member since:
2005-07-15
ThinkSecret = Theo Van Gogh?
Yes, not everyone with a webpage is a journalist. 
Theo was outspoken about the horrid mistreatment of women in Islamic culture. ThinkSecret leaks NDA info. No matter how elastic your analogy is, it's deeply flawed and insulting.
Edited 2006-04-09 20:16
Member since:2005-06-29
ThinkSecret leaks NDA info.
They do not! Their sources leak information. Not TS itself.
Theo was outspoken about the horrid mistreatment of women in Islamic culture. ThinkSecret leaks NDA info. No matter how elastic your analogy is, it's deeply flawed and insulting.
You're not getting it. Apple's GOALS are the same as the killers' goals. NOT the means by which it hopes to achieve those goals.
Member since:2005-08-02
Member since:2005-06-29
Apple's "GOALS" are to find the people who violated their NDA. These do not match the goals of the murderers in the Netherlands.
Apple's goals are to prevent journalists from revealing information about future Apple products. In other words, they are trying to stop journalists from using their right to free speech.
And yes, this is what the murderers wanted too. They wanted to stop people from using their rights to free speech.
As I said, the MEANS are different, but the GOALS are the same.
Member since:2005-08-02
This is not a punishment for the "journalists". They are being dragged into court because they failed to release their sources, but in the end they are not the ones that will be punished. Those who supposedly violated their NDA will be punished if found guilty.
The big question is if the "journalists" have the right to withhold their sources even though they violated the law as their information was not for the "public good".
Again, Apple probably does not like bad press, or for people to figure out their secrets before they announce them. Some press figure out what apple will release through patent submissions and other legal filings. But Apple does not sue them. Apple would not have sued these web sites if they had done the same research. Instead they asked for people to willingly violate their NDA. In the end, it's not the web sites that you and everyone should be concerned about. It is the people who ignorantly violated the law when they passed information to them.
I'd be ashamed to be running those web sites. Apple has an interest to keep these things secret. Those web sites had an interest in getting those secrets out to the public not because of some idealism that "information wants to be free" but instead because they make money off of people coming to their sites and the advertising revenue it generates. I am sure they know the repercussions of their actions. Yes, they will from time to time get dragged into court, but in the end it is not they who are punished but the people who violated their NDA. And yet they continue to ask people to do so. This is a very shady thing to do.
This information is not of the magnitude of "Deep Throat" or the "Downing Street Memo" or the various leaks from whistle-blowers on environmental or health issues. This information they leaked was about iPods and iMacs, do-dads, and widgets. Again that comparison does not match up.
Member since:2006-04-05
Apple's goals are to prevent journalists from revealing information about future Apple products. In other words, they are trying to stop journalists from using their right to free speech.
And yes, this is what the murderers wanted too. They wanted to stop people from using their rights to free speech.
As I said, the MEANS are different, but the GOALS are the same.
You have *absolutely no clue* about the copyright laws, do you? Apple MUST go after people who disclose their trade secrets else they LOSE their rights to such secrets.
The fairness of such issue is up to the courts to decide. Fearless wistleblowing regarding unreleased products and trade secrets amounts to legalising industrial espionage and comercialization of illegaly obtained trade secrets information.
Which is not what the freedom of speech laws aims to protect, for Christ sake!!
Member since:2005-07-15
Member since:
2005-11-05
Corporations go after the small guy because they know they can. The small guy lacks the only two things corporations respect: power and money. It really is that simple. Everything else is just specious justification, often for the benefit of a computer-illiterate judge.
But the internet is changing everything. This is well summed up in the article by Charles Cooper of CNETNews.com who points out that blogging and the web mean that every man is his own newspaper. Blogging and the web also mean that corporations cannot stop consumers comparing prices, reviewing products and publicizing trickery and faults. Corporations that cannot adapt to this new way of doing things will fail. The world in which corporations told us what to do, and we had to listen in silence, are over. As pointed out in today's UK Observer newspaper, just read or reread the Cluetrain manifesto. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1749762,00.html
by John Naughton, one of the best IT journalists around.
Just my 2 cents, but I don't think this has much at all to do with the Netherlands per se, let alone with murder which is in another category entirely. Quite why so many folks have bought into the Apple California Cool gig baffles me anyway. Apple are a $20-billion turnover US corporation, with all that implies about steel fists in velvet gloves. If you think Apple are backward-looking bullies, then don't use their products and don't work for them.
Member since:
2006-01-26
Thom, you HAVE drawn an analogy between murder to silence and submitting a challenge to the lawful judicial body for arbitration, deliberate or not. I maintain that addressing a grievance to court is a FAR cry from murder. If the court agrees with the plaintiff, Apple, then crying foul in such a public forum has lost its legal basis and becomes an opinion.
Apple is not asking for you to hold your opinion, though could be seen as an assault; if they were what you claim then there would be a knock on you door before morning. Instead, they went to the court and asked (maintained) that the receivers of stolen information are not protected and ask the courts to decide. The accused has done the correct thing by asking the courts for appeal.
Please stop persecuting the case in a sophomoric manner from another shore. Let our laws decide our actions in our nation.