Apple Loses Bid to Unmask Bloggers' Sources

[Me.]

Apple Loses Bid to Unmask Bloggers' Sources


“A California appeals court has smacked down Apple's legal assault on bloggers and their sources, finding that the company's efforts to subpoena e-mail received by the publishers of Apple Insider and PowerPage.org runs contrary to federal law, California's reporter's shield law, and the state Constitution.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals on Friday roundly rejected (.pdf) Apple's argument that the bloggers weren't acting as journalists when they posted internal document about future Apple products. "We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalis(m).' The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here," the court wrote.

"Beyond casting aspersions on the legitimacy of petitioners’ enterprise, Apple offers no cogent reason to conclude that they fall outside the shield law’s protection." Cont…

“The ruling is a significant victory for journalists, and, I'd argue, the public. It's also good for ISPs, says EFF lawyer Kurt Opsahl, because the court found that the federal Stored Communications Act protects private e-mail from civil subpoenas.

"That is going to be very useful to internet service providers in the Valley, who now know that they don't have to provide the contents of e-mails when they receive subpoenas in civil litigation," Opsahl told me. "It is a significant victory for ISPs." Cont…


http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1489151

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

1. Good.

I think the Beatles had the real "Apple," anyhow.

[Me.]

2. Agree

I say this as a mac lover.

*shadow government*