This is a really well written and level headed article. If Tech Crunch were to follow your other scenario (aka take the high road) they'd gain so much more. This situation is going to set the stage for any similar situation down the road. Wondering who their PR person is and going to see how Karma plays out on this one.
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
Thankyou Kat, I'm honored. :) I think anyone else confronted with the temptation probably wouldn't go for it, considering how opinion, and as you say, karma would be pretty much stacked against them: doesn't seem as if it would be good for business to me. I don't really subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Bad PR really can work against you dramatically online.
Nick Stamoulis
· 5 months ago
When I first saw that they posted hacked information I really wasn't sure what to think but it surely was a ballsy move on their part. I'm sure the community now has very mixed feelings about this.
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
According to a poll by Alltop.com over 75 percent are against TechCrunch publishing stolen material, so I'd say the trend is overwhelmingly in favor of ethics. Quite comforting.
Randy
· 5 months ago
Cyber crimes such as hacking are illegal. This is the same as receiving stolen property in the real world. TechCrunch should be held accountable for receiving such property as if they hacked the information themselves, or be forced to cooperate fully with law enforcement and turn over the Hacker that did this or pay for the crime. This would be the same thing that would happen if someone on the street stole a TV and ran to TechCrunch's office and said hey I got this for you, have fun. If they kept it then they are responsible for the crime. Whos to say this Croll isn't soemone at TechCrunch them self? Or someone from Google or Facebook, looking to sabotage an up and coming company that is a threat to their own website. The only way to stop cybercrime's is to enforce the laws against them.
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
Hi Randy, this is precisely my point: in fact, stolen information can cause a lot more heartache than stolen posessions don't you think?
Randy
· 5 months ago
Yes I agree completely. Stolen information can be more dangerous then possessions. We have no way of proving those email's were real or a cleaver hoax to place Twitter in a bad light out of fear of their sudden popularity and growth. Its defamation of character to an extent. I'm sure there are plenty of personal private corporate emails floating around inside TechCrunch's own hard drive's and servers, on Google's intranet, and every other internet company that is popular that those businesses wouldn't want the general public to get a hold of. Im ashamed that with TechCrunch's unethical choice to publish those emails.
DanaLookadoo
· 5 months ago
Patricia, I appreciate your taking a stand and the well written synopsis. I didn't have a chance until this afternoon to deeply ponder the issue, but my immediate response was to unfollow @TechCrunch and remove them from my RSS. Harsh? Maybe!
However, ethics are governed by character choices. My "bandwidth" is low for tech news from a site that makes choices to reveal private information. As Lee Odden said, "there’s still a choice to be made," and we have a choice. I'm voicing my choice by not sending my traffic and not adding to their social proof in their Twitter following and RSS subscriptions.
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
I totally agree with you Dana, and I'm going to unfollow TechCrunch as soon as I'm done writing about this incident. It's also coming off my RSS reader. I also feel very strongly about this: we need to send THE strongest signal that it is not alright to steal people's data and publish: even if it is 'newsworthy.'
alanbleiweiss
· 5 months ago
I completely agree with you on the tone and point of the article. TechCrunch puts out lots of great stuff, however this validates the idea that much of the web has been run by geeks that are ultimately incapable of grasping the societal impact of their actions and that needs to be addressed.
People who find it acceptable or appropriate to publish stolen documents seriously violate the principle of privacy and fairness and their actions are reprehensible.
bencurnett
· 5 months ago
I agree, and I like the political example. It's interesting to consider this instance against "leaked" political or business information, as Arrington did in his blog comments earlier ala the peanut butter memo.
He's saying there's no dif, but I think the difference is clear. If information is coming from a source inside the organization, then the burden falls on the organization itself and not the distributor of information. But if the information is stolen, then it's stolen. There's really no argument.
Arrington's position is like saying the DNC was responsible for Watergate.
Finally, I think your assessment of techcrunch's position if they don't publish the info is spot on, and has every single example of successful social media use backing it up.
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
Hi Ben, Thanks for your expression of total agreement :) it's nice that you're first too. I expect some flack, but it's a pleasant surprise how many people actually seem to agree with me.
Noah
· 5 months ago
I was actually all set to send you some of that flack you expected, but I admit I wasn't too up to date on what exactly is going on. I gotta say, I think I agree with you here, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that techcrunch is losing a ton of their long time visitors as a result of this. Are they not going to do anything to encourage law enforcement in this matter?
Patricia Skinner
· 5 months ago
Hi Noah, thank you :) It is not clear at the moment how it's all goign to end up, but so far TechCrunch seem defiant that they have the right to publish this stolen info. I wonder how they'd react if their own personal and business information was up for grabs?
All Comments
This would be the same thing that would happen if someone on the street stole a TV and ran to TechCrunch's office and said hey I got this for you, have fun. If they kept it then they are responsible for the crime.
Whos to say this Croll isn't soemone at TechCrunch them self? Or someone from Google or Facebook, looking to sabotage an up and coming company that is a threat to their own website.
The only way to stop cybercrime's is to enforce the laws against them.
Its defamation of character to an extent.
I'm sure there are plenty of personal private corporate emails floating around inside TechCrunch's own hard drive's and servers, on Google's intranet, and every other internet company that is popular that those businesses wouldn't want the general public to get a hold of.
Im ashamed that with TechCrunch's unethical choice to publish those emails.
However, ethics are governed by character choices. My "bandwidth" is low for tech news from a site that makes choices to reveal private information. As Lee Odden said, "there’s still a choice to be made," and we have a choice. I'm voicing my choice by not sending my traffic and not adding to their social proof in their Twitter following and RSS subscriptions.
People who find it acceptable or appropriate to publish stolen documents seriously violate the principle of privacy and fairness and their actions are reprehensible.
He's saying there's no dif, but I think the difference is clear. If information is coming from a source inside the organization, then the burden falls on the organization itself and not the distributor of information. But if the information is stolen, then it's stolen. There's really no argument.
Arrington's position is like saying the DNC was responsible for Watergate.
Finally, I think your assessment of techcrunch's position if they don't publish the info is spot on, and has every single example of successful social media use backing it up.
Thanks for your expression of total agreement :) it's nice that you're first too. I expect some flack, but it's a pleasant surprise how many people actually seem to agree with me.