Comments on: Someone Sends You Stolen Confidential Documents. Would You Publish Them?

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:03:19 +0000

Its interesting that you mention that, because I just listened to the TWiT podcast, where they discussed what was released. Evidently, not only did TC release some Twitter business plans, but according to TWiT, they also released some notes from some Twitter execs, revealing what they thought (in a negative way) of some of the people they were dealing with, such as at Google. That just makes TC look like a gossip rag, in my opinion.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:53:27 +0000

It depends on different reasons if I should publish them or not. In this case I may have had published a few of them, but kept the most important documents secret.

Personally I don't read TC and will probably never do.

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:59:55 +0000

Yea, that last point gets back to the public interest issue in a way. If it shows some type of illegal conduct, then it would be in the public interest. But where it is just stuff that some tech geeks are interested in, then it wouldn't, and crosses the line.

By: nelson

nelson — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:30:42 +0000

this is funny . I recently had to write an article about this very thing .. and my BIG problem was that I had nothing to write about .

now i'm not sure about the law and what it states … but from an ethics point of view , in my opinion at least , no way . there is absolutely no reason to publish such material . nor to publish information contained in that material .

as long as those documents are NOT evidence to some sort of illegality … no . you have no right to publish them .

By: Evan

Evan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:05:00 +0000

Yea, TechCrunch has always had a bit of a slimy feel to me, even before this. That could be clouding my judgment on this issue, I admit.

By: Oscar

Oscar — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:46:22 +0000

Techcrunch says that they were working with twitter to decide which documents to release, but this tweet from the CEO of twitter states the opposite ( http://twitter.com/ev/status/2676203744 ). I stopped to read techcruch a long time ago because I think they are making money in an unethical way and I don't accept it. That's my opinion.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:04:23 +0000

The public interest line is definitely not a clear one (as we've both noted). The funny things is that I read somewhere (but haven't checked it out) that the law in the U.K. regarding publishing private materials actually is based upon the public interest standard. So it is almost like the U.K. codified the ethics, wrapping ethics and the law into one, at least on that issue. As far as how to decide what is in the public interest, It is probably like many things in the law, such as the “reasonable man” standard in negligence cases. It really comes down to a case by case basis, unfortunately, and what the fact-finder (judge/jury, as the case may be) decides it is.

By: Kosmo @ The Casual Observer

Kosmo @ The Casual Observer — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:52:29 +0000

There may also be a distinction between what is allowed by journalistic standards and what is allowed by the law. There are things that may be allowed by journalistic standards by not allowed by the law, and vice versa. Just because it's ethical doesn't mean it's legal, and just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.

I guess, as a journalist, if you think you are within the bounds of journalistic standards but outside the letter of the law, perhaps you do bend/break the law for the story, but with the understanding that you might face prosecution (and hope for a sympathetic jury)

In this case, where an organization is making no qualms about the fact that laws were broken to obtain the information, it seems that they're asking for trouble be retaining and using the information. In additional to criminal charges, there is the very real possibility of a civil lawsuit. Civil lawsuits have a lower burden on the plaintiff (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial)

By: Bobby Travis

Bobby Travis — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:31:08 +0000

Keeping with the tune/tone and riddim, one then must ask… who decides what is in the public interest and what is not? Especially for something that is used worldwide…

I do think that in public interest and of public interest are all too often blurred, though.

As for reporters, it depends on the reporter and the subject matter. Many of them get their story by any means necessary — if that means they have to… bend… the law (or outright break it) a bit to do it, then they might if they feel the story is important enough or going to bring them enough recognition. They might even pay someone else to do the dirty work, but they are still complicit. They don't call 'em newshounds for nothing.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:31:52 +0000

I don't know enough about how journalists get their info, but isn't there a distinction between insider info and hacked info? The distinction being that the insider at least had rightful access to the info in the first place (again, playing devil's advocate, as I don't know if that is always how journalists get insider info).

I talked to one of my coworkers who, prior to becoming a lawyer, was a sportswriter for one of the bigger U.S. newspapers, and had the communications degree and all that stuff. He really harped on the public interest side of things, saying we really needed to look at that. The example he gave was what if the info was stolen, but it revealed that the government had hidden secret torture camps in Kansas where we tortured citizens. On the flip side would be something like someone stealing private info of Britney Spears. There'd be nothing in the public interest with that, so only something like the U.S. tabloids (National Enquirer, etc.) would run with that.

I think there is probably some sort of matrix or graph that can be drawn here, with source of info down the side, and public interest along the bottom, with info getting plotted on there somewhere.