I'm strongly of the opinion that they shouldn't post them... Just seems like bad karma at the least or a potential legal problem at the worst.
If we only posted things that companies gave us permission to post
this would be a press release site and none of you would be here.
News is stuff someone doesn’t want you to write.
The rest is advertising.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/in-our-inbox-hundreds-o...
Whether a news outlet should carry that last set of info to your ears or not is up for debate; but to see his role as binary - advertising/PR newswire vs. broadcaster of leaked private information... well, how sad.
He's not alone of course. Tabloids have been operating on basically just that model for eons. With the occasional fabrication when they can't get enough leaks to fill the inches.
That's something that's hugely missing from the "tech reporting" (ha) of today. Almost no one considers the things that came before.
For example, I saw no one else comparing Google Wave to OpenDoc... or even remarking on the old command-line tool, talk/ytalk. Both of which are extremely relevant to Wave as a product.
Shame.
Most of the front-page articles on HN are not news, they are recycled anti-business school puff pieces. And yet, this is Hacker News.
If Google releases a product that looks suspiciously like Apple's failed OpenDoc initiative from, oh, 12 years ago, that's news. If they're focusing on a communication medium style that totally existed before, but which was largely abandoned because it was incredibly annoying, that's news, too. Those who don't learn, doomed repeat, etc., etc.
On one hand you can look at it as a straight theft. If a person steals a bunch of computers and then sells them to a computer shop for 25% of the retail price the shop owner is guilty of a crime (selling stolen goods) even if he had no part in the initial theft. In that case I’d say it’s immoral on Techcrunch’s part. Because while the digital copies of files don’t have monetary value like physical computers they have intellectual property value that could do significant damage to Twitter and in doing so cause the company to lose large sums of money.
ON THE OTHER HAND, most of the great scandals both in Government and in Corporate America have been revealed by whistle blowers who essentially stole documents and passed them on to reporters. So there’s a precedent where stealing documents can actually be a very moral thing.
In the end I think it boils down to what the documents reveal. In the case of whistle blowers they're still stealing something but we forgive the theft because it’s done to protect society from a greater harm. The good out weighs the bad. So if these documents reveal some kind of malfeasants on Twitter’s part I could see publishing them as being justified. If not I think you’re probably right and this is an immoral act on Techcrunch’s part.
Techcrunch would have mentioned it if they found anything that was more than vaguely interesting, so I feel confident saying that they don't have anything big enough to justify this violation of privacy. Techcrunch is dirtying it's name for private information that is not even newsworthy.
Isn't that a consequence of free speech?
What I was saying is that it’s justified if the benefit is to society. This is based on two principles that are pretty much accepted across the board as far as ethical systems go. One, you are part of society and there’s nothing immoral about defending yourself against harm. Two, societal benefits are in the macro so even if a company is only causing a little harm per person the amount of harm prevented adds up.
So in my eyes and in the eyes of most ethical systems publishing these documents wouldn't be justified even if Techcrunch gains more than Twitter loses. Unless there's information in those documents that would benefit society as a whole (or if Twitter was causing great harm to someone else and it would be stopped by revealing the documents)
However society is not a single entity, but rather a collection of individuals that can be affected by an event in different and often opposing ways. To some it may be beneficial, but to others not so. Sure the group that benefits may be in the majority, but to ignore the minority group and declare that to "society" the outcome was good is to ignore the different views and interests that make up a society.
Accordingly, you can only really use "it's good for society" if there's a clear benefit. Exposing a chemical company that dumps waste into a town's water supply is a clear benefit. As is making false financial statements in order to inflate your stock to the point where millions will eventually lose their savings. These are clear cases where a whistle blowers in justified.
But yes, as far as what's a clear case there is some judgment involved. As my old ethics teacher used to say Morality isn't a math equation it's an essay question.
I'm sure they'll keep all the juicy stuff hidden. Since they are working with twitter on what they will/won't release. Although its kinda stupid, considering the stuff will show up on other websites
There's a line somewhere. Twitter's financial position somehow seems different than Watergate. I'm kinda curious where you think the line is. It's not a universal "journalists should never publish confidential information", because in many cases, it's very important for the public to know.
They were spoon-fed all their information by the acting head of the FBI -- the free press didn't oust Nixon, the powers that be did.
Don't forget that the anonymous sources are steering the story, and that their agenda is often more interesting than the actual information.
With that said, I still can't help but be curious. It'll be interesting to see how all of this plays out, and if some of the documents do end up released to the public, I'll probably cave and check up on the juicy tech gossip.
Well, no. Companies are also accountable to their customers and to society. If they were dumping large amounts of toxics into rivers, that's something society has a stake in and where the company is accountable to it.
If Twitter were to sell access to protected updates, that's something their users need to know. If they were doing so illegally, that's something that society must know.
It all depends on the information that will be revealed whether or not it's ethical. I'm inclined to not give an "unethical" verdict too quickly. TC is at least caring about individual persons that may be damaged by the revealing of some information.
Govt comparisons fail -- this is Twitter. Dumping toxic waste comparisons fail -- this is Twitter.
Likelihood that Twitter is organized enough to sell access to private messages, or any actual saleable product? Extremely low.
The guy (”Hacker Croll”) who claims to have accessed
hundreds of confidential corporate and personal documents of
Twitter and Twitter employees, is releasing those documents
publicly
It's unfortunate that TechCrunch has been blinded with greed and famewhoring enough to not see this.