5 ms·
It's unquestionably dishonest but I suspect it will make for an interesting court case as Gizmodo tries to claim the person who sold it is a "source" and hence
by SamAtt 16y ago
It's unquestionably dishonest but I suspect it will make for an interesting court case as Gizmodo tries to claim the person who sold it is a "source" and hence they should have a right to anonymity. I don't think it holds up but it's up for debate. There's no question that people like Mark Felt (aka Deep Throat) stole documents from the White House which is a much bigger crime than this.
- anigbrowl 16y agoRegardless of whether they protected that person, they would appear (IANAL) be liable for damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act - given their understanding of how significant the device was and where it was from - and if it's true they paid big $ for it, they'd be liable to have those damages doubled for improper methods of acquiring the thing. http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpress.com/trade-secrets-law/california-civil-code-%C2%A7%C2%A7-3426-et-seq-the-uniform-trade-secrets-act/ http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpress.com/trade-secrets-law/c...
- stevenbedrick 16y agoIIRC, journalists as a rule don't typically pay sources for information.
- tptacek 16y agoThere is no actual right to anonymity for sources, is there? That's just a convention among journalists. They go to prison when they refuse to cough up sources.
- jrockway 16y agoNot true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...