Hacking into email and apps accounts and removing documents is stealing. Publishing those documents is just as wrong -- and only promotes more stealing.
Over the past 24 hours, it has been widely reported that a hacker broke into the email and apps account of a Twitter employee, downloaded copies of hundreds of personal and company documents and then sent those stolen documents to Michael Arrington, who blogs at TechCrunch. Arrington has decided to publish some of those documents on his blog. His decision is wrong and his action is as unethical as the hacker's action was illegal.
Before becoming an entrepreneur, I was a newspaper lawyer, so I've dealt with this issue before. In my opinion, what Arrington and TechCrunch did here is despicable (disclosure: my company Simulmedia shares an investor with Twitter, Union Square Ventures, though I've had no discussions with any of them about this). Here is why I believe as I do:
The documents were stolen. There is no question about the fact that the documents here were the property of Twitter and that they were stolen. While the password protection could have been stronger, intentionally breaking into and stealing documents from an office with a weak lock is no less a crime than if a strong lock had been in place.
Publishing stolen documents is wrong. TechCrunch knew the documents were stolen; Arrington knew how they were taken. They contain significant proprietary and confidential materials. That they contain sensational information and appeal to readers' voyeristic interests does not condone their publication. These were not the Pentagon Papers. There was no substantial public or national interest served. Hiding behind the "news value" shield is disingenuous. This is about page views.
Publication promotes more stealing. Apparently, this same hacker broke into private Twitter and email accounts before. For the hacker, it is clearly all about attention. Publishing stolen documents is no better than "fencing" stolen jewelry.
With publishing comes responsibility. When you build a soapbox, you have to take responsibility for what you publish from it. It means more than just following the letter of the law. It means accepting some sort of moral and ethical responsibility as well. I don't know whether TechCrunch has broken any laws here yet -- though publishing the credit card numbers the hacker stole would certainly accomplish that -- but promoting the commission of a crime and promoting more of it, shouldn't make TechCrunch principals feel good.
Showing some restraint is no defense. Arrington has written that he will be selective in what he will publish, trying to avoid embarrassing personal information. Apparently, he has been "negotiating" with Twitter. Sounds to me like a kidnapper negotiating over ransom. Showing some restraint and not publishing everything doesn't excuse the lack of restraint in doing it in the first place. I clearly have a strong opinion on this. How about you? What do you think?
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSS
RSS FEEDS
By trading off morality and ethics for sensationalized news and ratings, Tech Crunch made a decision on what kind of viewers they want to retain and amass, and the kind of investors they want to attract. Time will reveal the full impact this episode has on their branding.
Problem is, we as Americans love our freedom of speech. We also love our privacy (though we have no right to it in the Constitution). We view these things as equally important. And we consider freedom of speech so valuable that we often defend others who speak even though we disagree with what they are saying.
But we have a harder time defending people when it comes to privacy. After all, we enjoy the paparazzi and their intrusions into the private lives of Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, and countless others. We also love the whistleblowers of our society - even if they got their information in less than sanitary fashion.
While I agree with the overall premise of your article - the stolen goods should not have been published, particularly if they were known to be stolen - we don't have a means to clearly defining where the boundaries between privacy and freedom exist. Our terms and definitions vary, our desires exceed our ability to resist the siren call of illicit and interesting data or information.
Sadly, this is a very touchy subject for many people. We love the people who steal and distribute items like the Pentagon Papers. We are less enamored of those who provide stolen insights into corporate offices......
Sad, sad, sad.
Arrington is being a hit-whore but that is the nature of media, ratings, hits, whatever. But he didn't break the law by hacking into the emails.
Would you feel the same way if, for example, it detailed criminal behavior or fiduciary irresponsibility? I think not. You might turn over incriminating documents to law enforcement, but unless there was a compelling reason, you would publish.
You and others might vehemently disagree with him for publishing it but there is no doubt that some of the documents have news value. Though it barely passes that bar.
Arrington is an old-school, bare-knuckled AdSense blogger, and his bread's butter always goes on the side with the clicks. Hate to say this, because he some very good, smart editors, who get and tell good stories but there is little to no editorial integrity to be found on Arrington's rag --- it's all about the CPMs.
Sadly, ironically, even these minor tempests in teapots feed the hungry maw by sustaining the buzz and bang-on effect of his questionable story with stolen Tweets.
Even the non-disclosure of a Times' reporter's abduction by the Taliban in Afghanistan drew fire from critics who said witholding the story gave NGOs a false sense of security.
Mike Arrington's decision to partially publish the Twitter documents is totally keeping with a traditional approach to writing about what reporters come to know will be of interest to their readers. Based alone on how much has been speculated about whether Twitter will ever figure out how to make money, the documents likely have something to add to the debate. So print 'em.
If TechCrunch had a hand in the hack, they are guilty of a crime. If they are the beneficiary of the criminal's largesse, they can count themselves among all the other grateful-but-not-culpable reporters, like Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams who used Grand Jury testimony as the basis for their lauded book on steroids in baseball.
As I read some of the criticism I hear the echoes of Captain Louis Renault: "There's gambling going on in here."
My two cents.
This incident is one of the downsides of the Internet enabling anyone to "stand on a soapbox." It's like becoming a surgeon without going to medical school and taking the Hippocratic oath. Don't know how many people will get hurt....
I am more concerned that he honestly believes he can "sanitize" the data. It's been reported that the release will include 'business strategies" and product plans and forecasts.
We forget that even pieces of confidential data are still just that, confidential. Social engineers will have a field day with this.
Let's spin this impending nightmare for those companies involved into something useful - building awareness of what information we share on all of these social networking sites.
What on earth is this level of information doing on the internet at all?
Think! What would happen to my brand if this got into the wrong hands.