5 ms·

And yet - it is important that they be published. This is newsworthy. Every paper in America would have printed this, if their audience would find it relevant

by rjurney 17y ago

And yet - it is important that they be published. This is newsworthy. Every paper in America would have printed this, if their audience would find it relevant. Does nobody care about journalism anymore? A free and independent press is vital to a functioning democracy. Techcrunch showed enormous restraint in their publishing of this data. They acted properly. All the outrage is misplaced. Be outraged at the cracker or disgruntled employee that stole the documents, assuming that is what happened. There are no trade secrets here, there are strategy secrets. I am shocked that such a smart group of people fail to understand the basic underpinnings of our society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...

micks56 17y ago
Your definition of trade secrets is different than most court's definition. The definition used by most jurisdictions is: 1. Not generally known or ascertainable by legal methods (TechCrunch violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to get the info.) 2. Must provide competitive value (Strategy plans provide competitive value) 3. Must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (the password, while weak, probably does constitute a reasonable effort) edit: I see that you edited your post to include the New York Times case. The facts of that case are different than the one with TechCrunch. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply.
- rjurney 17y ago
  You seem to have zero respect for the press. By your standard, Tobacco cancer data should never have been leaked and printed.
  - micks56 17y ago
    1. I have tremendous respect for the press and the work they do. I am separating personal values from what the law is. But I do believe that this is a case where the law and ethics are on the same side. 2. This isn't my standard. It is the standard that courts across the country use. The majority of states (including California) adopted a less stringent version call the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Only 4 states, including my Massachusetts, whose version you see above, haven't adopted the act and instead employee their own versions. 3. Tobacco cancer data might be distinguished. First, it is a stretch to find that it has competitive value. Therefore it would not be classified under trade secret. Second, it probably isn't even covered under copyright because facts are not copyrightable, no matter how much effort was undertook to find them. But I don't really know the facts of the leaked cancer data. I would have to read them in order to determine whether it was legal for it to be leaked to the press.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St... If the President of the United States can't block secrets from being published... you think Twitter can? I would submit your knowledge of the practices of Journalism and the law in this area are lacking. Publishing secrets is the business of newspapers. It happens every day. Its their job. I am very surprised that so many people here fail to understand this. Just because you like Twitter does not mean its not appropriate to publish their extremely newsworthy secrets.
      - micks56 17y ago
        Yes, because that is exactly how the 1st Amendment works. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply. I admit that I have zero knowledge of journalism practices. But my legal knowledge is much greater; I am just over one semester away from graduating from law school. I am neutral on Twitter. They are a company that I neither like nor dislike and I do not use their product.

by rjurney 17y ago

micks56 17y ago

Your definition of trade secrets is different than most court's definition. The definition used by most jurisdictions is: 1. Not generally known or ascertainable by legal methods (TechCrunch violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to get the info.) 2. Must provide competitive value (Strategy plans provide competitive value) 3. Must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (the password, while weak, probably does constitute a reasonable effort) edit: I see that you edited your post to include the New York Times case. The facts of that case are different than the one with TechCrunch. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply.

rjurney 17y ago
You seem to have zero respect for the press. By your standard, Tobacco cancer data should never have been leaked and printed.
- micks56 17y ago
  1. I have tremendous respect for the press and the work they do. I am separating personal values from what the law is. But I do believe that this is a case where the law and ethics are on the same side. 2. This isn't my standard. It is the standard that courts across the country use. The majority of states (including California) adopted a less stringent version call the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Only 4 states, including my Massachusetts, whose version you see above, haven't adopted the act and instead employee their own versions. 3. Tobacco cancer data might be distinguished. First, it is a stretch to find that it has competitive value. Therefore it would not be classified under trade secret. Second, it probably isn't even covered under copyright because facts are not copyrightable, no matter how much effort was undertook to find them. But I don't really know the facts of the leaked cancer data. I would have to read them in order to determine whether it was legal for it to be leaked to the press.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St... If the President of the United States can't block secrets from being published... you think Twitter can? I would submit your knowledge of the practices of Journalism and the law in this area are lacking. Publishing secrets is the business of newspapers. It happens every day. Its their job. I am very surprised that so many people here fail to understand this. Just because you like Twitter does not mean its not appropriate to publish their extremely newsworthy secrets.
    - micks56 17y ago
      Yes, because that is exactly how the 1st Amendment works. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply. I admit that I have zero knowledge of journalism practices. But my legal knowledge is much greater; I am just over one semester away from graduating from law school. I am neutral on Twitter. They are a company that I neither like nor dislike and I do not use their product.