Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #bensheffner more → 
Why So Much Hand-Wringing Over TechCrunch's Decision to Publish 'Hacked' Twitter Documents?
New York, 3:52 PM
Sun Nov 29
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
| posts about #bensheffner more → |
Why So Much Hand-Wringing Over TechCrunch's Decision to Publish 'Hacked' Twitter Documents? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/17/09
I think you've hit on the key point: what really matters is newsworthiness, not primarily the way the info was obtained (again, assuming that the journalist did not play a role in the illegal activity (which TC didn't)).
In both a leak and a hack, the company's proprietary information or documents were taken from the company against the company's will. The only difference is whether the info/docs were taken by an employee (acting against the interests of the company, and possibly civil or criminal law), or by an outsider, before being given to the reporter.
It seems to me the real issue isn't how the news org. obtained the info, but whether it is newsworthy. For example, assume these weren't business plans from Twitter, but instead were docs from a meatpacker revealing the presence of deadly bacteria in its ground beef -- info that the company planned to keep secret. I think just about everyone would agree that a news org. should publish the info -- whether the docs were passed along from leaker to reporter, or forwarded by email to the reporter by a hacker who broke into the meatpacker's email system.
I agree that, at some level, printing leaked or hacked info or docs does "encourage such activity. And I don't know anyone who, as a general matter, says that people should break company policy or the law. But I also think that having a free and aggressive press is vital, and that prohibiting publication of unlawfully obtained info (assuming that the reporter played no role in the illegality) would be a very dangerous development.
07/17/09
With unsavory methods of newsgathering comes a stiffer test of newsworthiness. If a reputable news source publishes stolen information, it has to be able to justify it.
Saving lives and preventing gross injustice are justifications. Spreading private corporate information and possibly trade secrets aren't.
07/17/09
07/17/09
If the reporter himself uses illegal means, he can and should be prosecuted. I don't think anyone argues otherwise. The question is whether a reporter can print info/docs where someone else obtains it through illegal acts, in which the reporter played no role. I think he can.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
What I want to know is if TC is going to help the investigation or are they going to protect their source/criminal?
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
Many of Techcrunch's posters are aspiring web entrepeneurs themselves. They're totally having the the "this could have been me" freakout.
07/17/09
They acted like they discovered some evil Enron plot to screw people or that Biz/Ev were mistreating employees. All it was was internal shit about future plans, stuff that any company or agency talks about. There’s no there, there.
In theory, would TC step up and compensate Twitter if a lucrative deal fell through over this?
The requests for meditation rooms, kitchens, bikes, etc., make blog life interesting, but a lot of dot coms have stuff like that.
Michael Bauser has a point that one billion users is something to watch. I'd agree, but maybe there's interest there from a "wow" POV rather than a Dr. Evil angle on Twitter's part.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
Any journalist who believed in an absolute right to privacy for subjects would be a bad journalist. Professional and ethical journalists have to balance the privacy of subjects with the public interest (and sometimes, public good) in revealng that information.
Twitter is planning to be the "pulse of the Internet." One can argue that there's a public interest in knowing the secret plans of a corporation that wants to take down Google and Facebook. When one is working on a story that potentially impacts one billion people (Twitter's stated goal), the ethical concerns are different. "Stolen documents" is the secondary story here.
07/17/09
For me, the difference between the TechCrunch-Twitter kerfuffle and the Pentagon Papers is huge. Twitter is a private company and the contents of their internal documents may have mildly interesting but not news-worthy enough to balance the ethical nastiness. In other words, it's not like Twitter was involved in criminal activity. The Pentagon Papers, on the other hand, involved government misconduct. Not a fair comparison, really.
I think the idea that Twitter has a large number of users is beside the point.
07/17/09
Daniel Ellsberg was given those classified documents to analyze as part of a top-secret study -- they were in his safe. Doubtless he violated his agreement with the government, but he did not "steal" them in the sense discussed in the Twitter case. It was a crime, for which he was prosecuted, although the charges ultimately were dismissed because of governmental conduct.
But he was willing to go to prison from the start, so this was more of an act of civil disobedience.
I understand the hand-wringing. People who are not troubled by it are saying in effect that anyone with the electronic means to access your private information is entitled and may have it published with impunity simply by transmitting it to a third party.
I'm also not seeing the compelling public interest here. Ellsberg was trying to save American lives. Information about a corporation that is conducting itself in a legal manner doesn't come close.
07/17/09