|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you find value in what The MUG Center delivers, please consider making a donation so we can continue to deliver it.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
The MUG Center Blog: Schizophrenic Thinking on Apple's Rumor Site Legal Actions
Writings, ramblings, proclamations and prognostications from the front lines of the Apple community.
Probably like you, I've spent a fair amount of time over the past week or so reading both the coverage and commentary on Apple's legal pursuits of the "rumor" web sites. The facts speak for themselves. The opinions, however, range from the inane to the insane. Look hard enough and you'll find Apple characterized as a censorship advocate on one hand and a champion of the right to privacy on the other.
Those arguing the former position strike me as a bit schizophrenic. Here's why.
"You did what with my email address?"
"Privacy" is a hot topic right now, on and off the web. If you work in any branch of the financial services or health care industries you no doubt have had to become familiar with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Even if you don't, you have received privacy notices from your bank, credit card company, broker, insurance agent and anyone else who handles "private" information. The right to privacy has become a cause celeb, imposing significant burdens on both the handlers and owners of that information.
Another example is spam. Spam is one of the few things that everyone agrees is a major problem (except perhaps the spammers themselves), and the cries for something to be done are loud and long. Woe be unto you should you engage in anything that might expose anyone to something they don't want to bother with, either by unintentionally failing to use bcc in addressing a large number of people on an email message or by posting something that someone feels is off-topic in a mailing list. The latter often generates more traffic than an on-topic post.
Given all this, you would be hard pressed to find a credible argument that the protection of your private, confidential information is a bad thing.
It is in this environment that there is an argument over whether Apple's confidential, non-public information should be allowed to be posted to the web by anyone who can get their hands on it, and that those who leak the information should be penalized?
Defining the boundaries
Yes, yes, I know. Freedom of the press. In a world where "journalism" is being redefined on a daily basis and where it seems that anything you read on paper is already yesterday's news, the spirit of "freedom of the press" needs to be protected more than ever. It is the implementation that requires refinement and redefinition.
Earlier this month, a self-defined "blogger" applied for and was granted White House press credentials. Does that make him a journalist? Does that make *you* a journalist if you're posting your opinions to your .Mac account? Does it make *me* a journalist for operating the TMC blog? Does it entitle every web site publisher out there to the protection that "legitimate" journalists should indeed enjoy as part of a free, democratic society? If so, where is the training in responsibility that goes with that protection?
The answers are far from clear; what is obvious is that everything has changed and continues to change.
The Damage Done
In the days approaching most Macworld Expo Steve-notes, Apple's stock price climbs, but then retreats after the new products are announced. Can it be that the markets are always disappointed with what came out? Or have the expections have been whipped to a frenzied and fevered pitch by those who leak information to benefit their web site hits? As an Apple stockholder (feel free to consider this a full disclosure statement), it angers for obvious reasons. As an Apple enthusiast it infuriates me even more because no matter how fantastic a product Steve pulls the wraps from, it won't live up to the expectations of those who been primed by the leaked or inaccurate information.
Last week Apple fans everywhere were incensed to see an MP3 player by Luxpro that looks suspisiously like the iPod shuffle. Before that it was the Mac mini. The list goes on and on: the new iMac, the iPod, the original iMac, etc. Having Apple's confidential information on unannounced products on the street only assists those who consistently "borrow" Apple's ideas.
Common Sense
Let's get to the bottom line, people. If I obtained information on your credit history, including how much money you owe to whom or the details of your personal health history, would you want to see it listed here or on any other web site? If you have an idea for a product that you are working on, how would you feel if that information popped up on the web for all to see...and steal. What if your funding disappeared because of it?
Apple isn't the bad guy here. They are not going after some bonehead who publishes opinions they don't like on his new web site, www.secondguessapple.com. (That's not a real web site, but it probably will be within the week.) They are taking steps to get to the people who are violating non-disclosure agreements and feed the sites who are willing to traffic in such information to generate hits, and protect their interests so they can continue to make the products we all lust after. We should applaud the effort.
Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know at [email protected].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
