SONY hack: Difference between theft and leak

Following this but it raises a serious question for journalists: Is there a difference between news orgs using the hacked Sony material and using material that has been purposefully leaked, such as with the NSA story? There is only going to be more of this cyber theft in the future.

 

Good question.

 

Not sure emails have been legally labeled as private conversations. Also, how much longer will "in documents obtained by" - outside of FOIA - be considered acceptable use.

 

Seems like news organizations operate under a double standard when it comes to a decision whether
to use this stuff or not.

 

There's an overriding public good, and public service, that can come from publicizing leaked government documents. The government is accountable to us whether it likes it or not.

There is little to no overriding public good that can come from publicizing the hacked Sony stuff.

 

This whole thing is a fuckin' riot.

I loved David Boies' email. YOU CAN'T PRINT THAT! NOT AUTHORIZED!

It's like the people who post Facebook status updates claiming their right to their images.

 

Has Wood/stein weighed in on this?

 

I am trying to figure out the difference between these sony emails and the nude pics stolen and released two months ago.

 

For one, based on new board rules you could post copies of Sony E-mails but not the nude pictures. For
those you would need to provide a link.

 

Here's a good one. Phone call between Adrian Peterson and Troy Vincent . On
call Vincent tells Peterson that suspension would be 2 games if he did certain things.

Does not say who did the recording and if they had other particpant's permission.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/15/adrian-peterson-troy-vincent-audiotape-released?xid=nl_siextra

I'm thinking that Peterson camp was the group who recorded .

 

Sony is a big, bad corporation.

 

It's always good to know who the racists are.