The Santa Clara Court of Appeals yesterday issued an "Order to Show Cause" asking Apple to tell the court why a the electronic records of PowerPage. "An interested public is not the same as the public interest," Kleinberg wrote.
Comments
for some reason macnn likes the saying about the phrase 'interested public' not having the same meaning as 'public interest'. A free press is considered, by most reasonable people, as being a public interest issue...I guess if you are on one side of the issue, you try to redefine the discussion. It's kind of a typical debate style these days, if somewhat annoying.
I thinks its Apples right to get that information. It is not any different than if someone posted the secret recipe for Coke, Pepsi or some other company. Thats not free speech, thats un-american
It may be against the law (yet to be seen), but this issue has nothing to do with patriotism, MacJeeper.
The un-American label is used much too readily these days. Makes me wonder what the Red Scare days were like....
--End of Thread Jack.
It's reasonable that Apple should be allowed to retrieve the names of their traitor-employees. However, if EFF wants to make a spectacle of this, it will be very easy to do so and Apple could wind up doing more harm than good.
This isn't like giving into the demands of terrorists...it's a shady-grey-area free speech issue that a lot of people might not understand who is really justified.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Too bad, Apple can't just bury this at this point but now they are forced with defending their principals. I hope they can do a good job of spin control because this could get ugly.
I'm certain Apple is trying to send a bold message to publishers and their own employees but geez, how hard would it be to cover your tracks if you were trying illegally disseminate information?
I doubt the employees used their Apple email address or something other than an relatively anonymous Yahoo account. Apple will then have to go to the Webmailer company, the ISP, and so on.
It would be cool if they could actually catch the employee who leaked it. I'd be impressed and a little scared if they did.
So stealing some else's intellectual property and wide disseminating it is in keeping with American principles? Frankly, there are a lot of things that are plainly un-American in the US which are not called that simply because some people don't want to rock the boat too much. Stealing and being in possession of stolen property, which the operators of these websites knew they were, plainly goes against every principle upon which the USA and just about every other democracy on Earth was founded.
The world is a lot more black and white than gray but some just don't want to accept it because they might have to take some personal responsibility for a change. There was no legitimate public interest in the publishing of this information. Apple weren't making products that killed babies and trying to cover it up or something. These guys were just trying to profit at Apple's expense and that's morally reprehensible. I've been a big supporter of the EFF for a long time, but I'm ashamed of their conduct in this case.
Freedom of speech is not freedom FROM responsibility (nor is it the right to say anything you want any time you want about anyone you want).
"or some reason macnn likes the saying about the phrase 'interested public' not having the same meaning as 'public interest'. "
Yeah, and funny how the Judge likes it too, since HE is the one that said it, and he's completely right in saying it.
"Public Interest" means "for the public good". Just because "Interested public" has the same words in a different order doesn't mean "for the public good".
Revealing a secret plot/contraversy that harms someone/the public in a negative way is in the public interest (the public good)
Revealing secret information about a company that doesn't affect/harm the public in a negative way, but does affect that company in a negative way, does not serve the public interest (the public good), only the interested public (ie. NOT the same thing), which is, again, not affected by having this information revealed.
But then, I don't expect the Apple zealots to have to competence to make the distinction.
I did not say it was American, I said it was unrelated.
This means it is neither American or un-American.
The morality of the issue is separate, and I happen to think that laws were broken in this case, so I believe it to be illegal. Deyond that I believe it to be immoral to disseminate information that was gained illegally, just as it would be if I sold you a TV I knew was stolen.
But I don't believe that either of these things inherently makes then "un-American". Do these acts make him a traitor to the country? Is he helping to undermine the goverment? You might get him on undermining your way of life, but even that is a real stretch.
All I am tryingto say is save the un-American label for the things that are apply.
If anyone wants to contine this conversation, I'd be happy to take your messages privately to allow the discussion to return to the court case.
Posted by MacJeepers, "I thinks its Apples right to get that information. It is not any different than if someone posted the secret recipe for Coke, Pepsi or some other company. Thats not free speech, thats un-american."
If you can't see the difference between the hallmark example of a trade secret, the Coke recipe, and the article on Powerpage stating apple is devolping a music device to be released at some point in the future under the code name of asteroid, then you arguement is meritless.
Regarding this whole patriotic nonsense, I will stand by the Bill of Rights first amendment,
Amendment I
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.
Now that is what The USA is about.
One of the main writers of the US Constitution is quoted as follows,
James Madison, 1798
"The First Amendment was intended to supersede the common-law on speech and press. Freedom guaranteed by the amendment was absolute as far as the federal government was concerned because it could not be abridged by any United States Authority."
I'll accept this as my guidance for what is patriotic and what is not.
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker
iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...
Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover
One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...
Logitech UE Air Speaker
If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2000
Just a Motion
An "Order to Show Cause" is just a different way to make a Motion. The court isn't doing it so much as the opposing side is. Normally you make a motion with a Notice of Motion, an Order to Show Cause is a way to do it with different time limits. The moving party gets the court to sign the order, then it is served. Not a big deal.
Now as to the merits of the motion, that may be relevant to something.