What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
68 Comments
- cliffzdude, on 07/19/2009, -5/+48Tech Crunch knows posting the documents is unethical, but the push for profit can have the effect of lowering the "gives a *****" bar.
- charm803, on 07/19/2009, -3/+43What Tech-Crunch should have done is called up twitter and said:
"Hey, someone hacked into your system and sent us this info. We won't print them, but how about giving us an exclusive on this, this, this and that?" I bet they could have gotten a better look into the workings of twitter that way.
TechCrunch is big enough to know better, and I would think there would be some responsibility to go with it.
Getting info is not a "story." Researching and going above and beyond to report something worthy would have been a better story. - ferrija1, on 07/19/2009, -11/+50***** arrington
- dn11, on 07/19/2009, -1/+15Twitter is "not-for-profit" on an entirely involuntary and unintentional basis....
- DarkShroud, on 07/19/2009, -0/+14TechCrunch is usually ***** anyway.
- dn11, on 07/19/2009, -0/+12Everyone involved seems to be fairly dickish, hopefully all parties come out looking bad.... Equal opportunity hater here.
- dn11, on 07/19/2009, -0/+10uh, because they're a for profit organization that doesn't know how to make any money?
- Presbyterian, on 07/19/2009, -5/+15"I don't believe in confidentiality"
Your opinion is not really relevant. - inkswamp, on 07/19/2009, -2/+12Publishing those documents may not be a crime, but that doesn't make it right.
And for those few of you saying it's no big deal, let's say you and your significant other make some private videos together that get stolen, and TechCrunch gets their hands on them. Would you still be okay with those being made public? - TotalHalibut, on 07/19/2009, -4/+13In that case I imagine you'd have no problem with handing over your social security number and bank statements in the interests of 'freedom of information'.
- vulcanius, on 07/19/2009, -6/+14Anyone with a shred of common sense should know that what TechCrunch did was wrong, unethical, and quite possibly illegal, there's no question about it.
- McNash, on 07/19/2009, -1/+8Well from the article it seems like TechCrunch was a mixed bag in the civility of how they handled this:
"We immediately informed Twitter of the information we had in our possession (and forwarded it to them), and at the same time reached out to the attacker."
"We’ve waited to post exactly what happened until Twitter had time to close all of these security holes."
If it wasn't for the way TechCrunch shed the light on their situation Twitter may not have realized just quite how badly they were hit, and would've continued to ignore it publicly.
TechCrunch should've stopped there.
Just because twitter was playing the "ignorance is bliss," expression does not make TechCrunch right in posting their (Twitter's) internal strategies and conference notes. Possibly jeopardizing any future deals that Twitter may have had in the pipeline, and perhaps even losing them vast amounts of profits from those deal(s) that will now not happen.
I think that if Twitter can prove a tangible loss of profits from any deal they may have had in the pipeline as a result of this information being released then there is good ground for them to sue TechCrunch.
Then again I'm not the best person to analyze such an event. My opinion is that TechCrunch is wrong in posting what they did, since the information was obtained without the knowledge and/or consent of Twitter personnel. - JoeHague, on 07/19/2009, -3/+10Tech Crunch is starting to get a reputation/
- TotalHalibut, on 07/19/2009, -8/+14When it comes to being a class act, Techcrunch is pretty far away from that ideal. Since when did it become ok to not respect the privacy rights of not-for-profits, or anyone else for that matter?
- 16x9, on 07/19/2009, -2/+7re: "I don't believe in confidentiality..."
Fine. So feel free to tell anyone who will listen about the private and possibly sordid details of your own life and business. Most of the rest us think that private matters are ours to keep or disclose as we see fit and not to have stolen from us and broadcast to the world.
I will agree with you, however, when you wrote that Arrington is oftentimes a jackass. And in my opinion, this is one of those times. - charm803, on 07/19/2009, -4/+9Just because people do not like twitter, it does not mean you have the right to cross these kinds of lines.
I don't like Carrie Prejean, but I won't go punching her in the face just because I don't like her. - carguy84, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4"By publishing documents stolen by a hacker, Michael Arrington has proven he doesn't have the judgment necessary to run a news organization. He should have the decency to step down."
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA. TechCrunch a news organization? AHAHAH HAHAHAAA A - TotalHalibut, on 07/19/2009, -7/+11Sounds like somebody didn't get any followers.
- Hawkasaurus, on 07/19/2009, -1/+4Must be tough to write 300 documents in 140 characters
- lolwatermelon, on 07/19/2009, -3/+6TechCrunch did not punch Twitter in the face. They were leaked documents that are interesting, as they show the inner workings of Twitter. They ran them as a story. They ARE a story.
It shows that management at twitter isn't all that bright. Everything leaked reads like the average Digg comment. Short on substance. Words typed for the sake of typing them.
I deleted my twitter account because of the leak, too. I don't want to be connected to anything that uses the password "password" ANYWHERE. - wizkid32, on 07/19/2009, -0/+3Twitter is right.
- sylv3r, on 07/19/2009, -1/+4how about posting your credit card info then? I'm pretty sure that would sum up your I don't believe in confidentiality bit :D
- bar10dr, on 07/19/2009, -0/+2Anyone have a link to the twitters?
- charm803, on 07/19/2009, -4/+6"His job is to report breaking news, and that's what this was."
When reporting said "breaking news," it's not enough to just report. There is this thing called research that goes along with it. - SquareWheel, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2The only comment I've enjoyed for this article.
- m0ng00se68, on 07/19/2009, -1/+3You forgot to take your meds again this morning.
- MrOmniscient, on 07/19/2009, -3/+5Was webpronews wrong for posting the story? It did vastly increase the exposure. I didn't even know this had occurred before they posted the details, but I had to go take a look once I was aware of it.
- Animan351, on 07/19/2009, -1/+3By it being published by TC, maybe it will bring enough attention to Twitter to actually do something about their bad security. They get hacked into a lot and don't do much about it. Now maybe there will be a little public pressure to get it taken care of.
- cyssero, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2Totally true, but the idiots at TechCrunch probably thought "oh *****, leaked documents... it's unethical to post them, but someone else will anyway, so we might as well be the first!". There's no doubt the documents would have been leaked to a few publications, it was just a race to see which organisation could lower their standards the quickest. Not hard for TechCrunch at all.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1Carrie Prejean would probably disagree with the idea, but I'm sure a lot of guys would want to watch you 2 kiss & make up, if that's ever possible. Over & over... :)
- t0x2c, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Oh I completely see your point now. Because you can open fraudulent credit in my name, now hiding information is acceptable. Brb I'm going to go spy on americans and not tell the media. Oh wait, there's a difference you say? GJ
- Animan351, on 07/19/2009, -0/+1I'm glad TC posted them. Now maybe the public pressure will actually force twitter to do something about their horrible security. This isn't even near the first time they've been hacked into.
- jwanderson, on 07/19/2009, -1/+2If that really was the case, Twitter should of expected info getting stolen, but that doesn't give TC an excuse to post the info for their own gain.
- j035u5, on 07/23/2009, -0/+1why is twitter a drug dealer?
- charm803, on 07/19/2009, -3/+4@Shiftyeyedgoat
So you think just because you hate something, you should cross boundaries that seem illegal?
Remember that next time someone scratches your car-they probably just hated you. - Buckwyld, on 07/19/2009, -2/+3I would never post "secret" information from other companies on my website that had been stolen. Sure someone else could have scooped me on some information, but I like to believe I have good corporate governance all around.
- t0x2c, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1I'll give you my credit card details if you give me yours, and thus true freedom begins.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 07/19/2009, -4/+5Actually, in fact, unless TechCrunch was the culprit in taking the documents, they are only guilty of committing a journalistic faux pax, but most likely not committing a crime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/business/media/1 ...
"... the law generally allows news organizations to use material provided to them by someone who may have collected it illegally.
In 1996, a Florida couple intercepted a call among Congress members and gave a recording to Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who then gave it to newspapers, including The New York Times. The couple pleaded guilty to criminal charges but did not serve prison time; Mr. McDermott’s legal status was murkier, but he paid damages in a lawsuit over the leak. The newspapers were not penalized." - Crashwithuhk, on 07/19/2009, -1/+1Oh look at how hip and angsty you are. You're totally much cooler now for publicly announcing your hate.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 07/19/2009, -5/+5Well, then weeeee are are on twoooo different wavelengths, my friend.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 07/19/2009, -11/+11When the hell did people start defending Twitter?
Has Digg lost its unsubstantiated, yet often rational, hatred for the Twitterati? - iizh, on 07/20/2009, -1/+1Anything bad for Twitter is okay with me.
- smcnow, on 07/20/2009, -0/+0Truth 1: @biz says "we absolutely did not give permission for these documents to be shared"
Truth 2: "It’s important to note that we have been given the green light by Twitter to post this information - They aren’t happy about it, but they are able to live with it, they say (more on why they did that in our later post)"
I think that answers who is right. What's Twitter? - Legolover64, on 07/19/2009, -1/+1Mike Arrington is a horrible excuse for a journalist - obviously.
I would love to see him go down legally. - buckrogers1965, on 07/19/2009, -3/+3Journalists need to do their jobs and find out information like this about every company and every government agency and tell us the info as soon as they know it.
I hate to break it to you, but if all you do is read aloud from government and corporate press releases, you are not journalists, all you are are propagandists.
The only crime I see is in the way that most media outlets are lap dogs for their corporate masters. - modifiedbears, on 07/19/2009, -1/+1All I know is I want a Crunchpad.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10217139-1.htm ... - carguy84, on 07/19/2009, -3/+2TechCrunch isn't a news organization.
- krystalo, on 07/19/2009, -3/+1http://digg.com/tech_news/Breaking_Techcrunch_are_ ...
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 07/19/2009, -3/+1You know, now, that it is not illegal to print illegally obtained documents...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/business/media/1 ...
It's just considered in poor taste. For instance see Bob Woodward speaking with Deep-throat to implicate Nixon with the Watergate scandals of the 70s.
This may only be tangentially related, but the Supreme Court ruled that using illegally obtained evidence in a courtroom is in fact valid for court decisions: http://www.ajc.com/print/content/printedition/2009 ... - inactive, on 07/19/2009, -5/+2I didn't see you pansies complaining when MS leaked the windows source code.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is