Commentary

Yes, It's Stealing -- By Any Name

by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, July 16, 2009

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?

commentary, legal, online publishing

28 comments about "Yes, It's Stealing -- By Any Name".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Eric Snelz from Defero, July 16, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.
There is absolutely no question what they did was wrong and it is frightening that some twisted logic allows Tech Crunch to believe they don't have a moral obligation not only not to use it, but to turn in the thief.
Reply

Michael Crosson from ChangeTheWorld.com, July 16, 2009 at 1:27 p.m.

As usual, Dave Morgan has identified everything correctly. Arrington and the person responsible for stealing the information should be prosecuted. Hiding behind the shield of journalism does not absolve a writer from illegal and/or unethical acts. Twitter has every right to take him down for this, regardless of how popular TechCrunch might be.

Ron Shevlin from Aite Group, July 16, 2009 at 1:34 p.m.

Thanks for publishing this, Dave. I think you are 100% correct.

Nina Zapala from Anson-Stoner, July 16, 2009 at 1:35 p.m.

My theory is what comes around goes around so lets all have a big laugh when the same situation arises with Tech Crunch, because we all know that someday it will.

Monica Bower from TERiX Computer Service, July 16, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.

Agreed. This is utterly repugnant. It's a shame, really, as up to now I was willing to believe that the new media was better than the old, or indeed was inherently different from the old. Guess not; too often it's still about confusing sensationalism with journalism in a slavish and self-centered pursuit of nothing more meaningful than fifteen more minutes of fame. Whether old or new media the truth is that good journalists - like Dave Morgan continues to prove himself to be - are an exceedingly rare commodity. So much for Tech Crunch - I expected so much more than I got.

Gayle Weiswasser from Discovery Communications, July 16, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.

Yes, I agree. What they did was wrong. There is no justification for Tech Crunch's behavior other than a motivation for a scoop, a story, and some page views. Sometimes you just do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do.

Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, July 16, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.

So, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, stolen from the U.S. Government, was a crime in 1969 by the New York Times? How much time in jail did Daniel Ellsberg serve? (Hint: Liberal judges)

Jackie Bassett from BT Industrials, inc, July 16, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.

If Tech Crunch doesn't publish this data, someone else undoubtedly will - does any one disagree here?

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.

Lyndsey Patterson from Concur Technologies, Inc., July 16, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.

I agree. The argument that many journalists use for publishing stolen material is that the knowledge uncovered often serves the soverign or the greater good. (Think leaked Bush-era memos). The release of this Twitter knowledge causes undue dammage to a very promising company in the hopes that the public gets some insider knowledge. Almost as bad as insider trading - imo. Not cool, and not an overall benefit to the greater good.
IF on the other hand TC had discovered illegal dealings at Twitter through this acquisition they would be obligated to PUBLISH the material or forward it to authorities AND conceal the source. Double-edged sword. The law should be clearer about when publishing stolen documents is appropriate - maybe it is and I don't know enough about the law... Dave, you're the lawyer: What does the law say about appropriate times to publish?

Grover Righter from MEZZ0, July 16, 2009 at 1:55 p.m.

I am in agreement. If you know it was stolen, you should return it to the rightful owner. This is a case where ethics, business interests and common courtesy are aligned.

Susan Roane from The RoAne Group, July 16, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.

As soon as I read SF Chronicle's front page article about Twitter's hack job, I posted it as a tweet and reminder. Dave Morgan is spot on. Stealing is stealing whether it's money, possessions, intellectual property (the bane of this author's existence) or data. Protecting a thief is unconscionable. My Chicago upbringing makes me wonder that perhaps the protection is for "higherups" rather than the lone hacker. Hmmmm.

Warren Lee from WHL Consulting, July 16, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

Thanks Dave, as usual a bang-up job. Great discussion going on here as well. I can't believe that techcrunch sacrificed its integrity in such a way. The online community just might want to take issue here and now with the apparent ethics vacuum at that publication. Sure would be interesting to here Mr. Arrington's justification.

Lorna Lyle from TMC, July 16, 2009 at 3:09 p.m.

Right on, Dave. And Jackie, it's a shame that you assume someone else would readily publish stolen content, if Tech Crunch had not. Goes to show how widespread ethical bankruptcy is.

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....

John Berard from Credible Context, July 16, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.

Media companies (like TechCrunch, the NYTimes and Fox) make decisions every day to hold back or publish. And it is always controversial.

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.

Dave Morgan from Simulmedia, July 16, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.

John, I understand that media companies make these decisions every day. I used to help them make them. It is in that light that I come out on this as suggested by several cimmenters: the only right thing wad toreturn the stolen property to it's rightful owners; not publish them.

Dave Morgan from Simulmedia, July 16, 2009 at 4:46 p.m.

Sorry for the poor typing ... on my iPhone.

John Lofranco from CKR Interactive, July 16, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.

What they did was wrong. They took knowing that what they were doing was unethical and are now using it to negotiate. How would your company feel if this happened to you?

Thom Kennon from Free Radicals, July 16, 2009 at 5:33 p.m.

Agree this is abhorrent but not out of character at all for TC, as anyone who has ever had their comments deleted and blocked will wearily attest.

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.

Edward Barrera from Adotas, July 16, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.

David,
I wish this was about something more than half-baked plans and Twitter minutiae, but it does have some news value. The financial future of Twitter has been daily fodder by bloggers and MSM. Fanned, by the way, every time a Twitter executive talks about it, which is practically every day.

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.

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, July 16, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.

For all of the reasons you state as well as most of those responding, you bite at the core of constitutional issues while emphasizing, nothing is free. More reasons, you are the ideal employer/management/CEO.

Max Kalehoff from MAK, July 16, 2009 at 9:50 p.m.

Dave, I agree with you 100 percent. Sure, the documents would’ve showed up elsewhere, but TechCrunch injects incomparable visibility and voyeuristic satisfaction attainable by very few other news outlets, if any. Ultimately, TechCrunch garnered a lot of page views, but it did a huge disservice for the technology and business community because it lowered standards. It took the low road versus demonstrate respect for crime victims and intolerance for felons. I believe stolen documents can be fair game in reporting the news. But this is no Watergate, and I’ve yet to see any meaningful justification.

David Shor from Prove, July 17, 2009 at 1:24 a.m.

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - the day TechCrunch entered Tabloid Status.

Sad, sad, sad.

Dave Morgan from Simulmedia, July 17, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.

Edward, the existence of "news value" does not justify publishing stolen materials. I am sure that we all have information and documents in all of our personal email and web accounts that might have "news value" to some readers somewhere - like your neighbors. That something has "news value" does not overcome the crime in its acquisition or the requirement to return it to it's rightful owners; not use it and abuse it for your own profit.

Richard Monihan, July 17, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.

Yes, it is stealing and what was done is questionable, at best.
But consider if this had been someone cracking the US Government database and stealing information that showed that some diabolical scheme was at work.
We'd laud him until the sun set.

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......

Mark Moran from Dulcinea Media, July 17, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

These documents were obtained by someone who hacked an email account, likely a felony under federal law. Why is there even 30 seconds' discussion about whether it is ethical to publish information obtained in this manner? It was wrong, just as it was wrong when Gawker, HuffPo and many other blogs posted screen grabs of Sarah Palin's hacked email account. There is still some question in courts whether bloggers are "legitimate" journalists, entitled to protections usually accorded to them. And the actions of TechCrunch, Gawker, HuffPo and many others in these instances weaken their claim to legitimacy.

Mark Moran from Dulcinea Media, July 17, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.

Interestingly, another Media Post columnist did not have the same reaction to the Palin case that Dave Morgan did to the Twitter case; however, the comments to her column generally took the media to task for posting those emails.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=90985

Vi vien Lee from EnIPma LLP, July 18, 2009 at 6:03 a.m.

Thanks Dave, fully agree with you. What they did was wrong (and likely short-sighted), nothing can undo the ripple effect now that other blogs chose to follow suit.

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.

Jason Hinkin from Movoto , July 20, 2009 at 4:45 p.m.

People who hack should be fed to pigs.