Over the past few weeks, those who pay attention to Apple and Mac
news (especially rumors and speculation regarding upcoming
announcements) will have learned of Apple's
settlement with the Think
Secret website and its owner, Nick Ciarelli. Lots of kerfuffle has
been made about whether this is good or bad for Apple, the press, and
the Apple fan community - most have concluded that it is generally
bad.
I'm here today to proclaim that it is actually a very good thing -
and also that it's no big deal. After watching the train wreck of
opinions (probably best typified in the caricature that was analyst Rob Enderle's
big gaffe, followed by his attempt to explain
himself and save face), I can hold my tongue no longer! Please -
stop the madness!
Here are five reasons why we can, and should, comfortably move on
from this nonevent:
Apple Wins
Think Secret was largely the fruit of Mr. Ciarelli's use of an
inside contact (or multiple contacts) within Apple. As Apple is
generally one of the most secretive tech companies around, it is a safe
bet - if not a guaranteed sure-thing - that any and all informants were
in violation of a legally binding Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Thus,
Apple was able, through this settlement, to silence (for now) one or
more lawbreakers in their company, a big win.
Apple Loses
Those who believe that this settlement is a purely self-serving move
by Apple, with no benefit beyond 1 Infinite Loop, are mistaken on two
counts. To begin with, Apple did not learn the names of the sources
through this settlement, so the lawbreakers are silenced for now, but
they cannot yet receive what is really due them: to be fired and sued
for unlawful disclosure.
Second, however, is the unquantifiable factor that Apple gains from
rumors and speculation in the buzz surrounding product releases. No
doubt Apple felt about this in a similar way that they did when they
spoke out against unlocking and "jailbreaking" iPhones: They needed to
honor their legal commitments, but the hype and sales that result from
these possibilities hurts also.
Nick Ciarelli Wins
Mr. Ciarelli, a student at Harvard University, has gone on
record stating that he is very satisfied with the settlement.
Speculation about the details of the settlement has nearly reached the
level of speculation about a subcompact Mac notebook, but one thing is
certain: Mr. Ciarelli is officially off the hook for any shady
practices he may have engaged in while publishing the site, while not
having to reveal his sources.
And remember: It was not Apple's decision alone to close down Think
Secret; the very nature of a settlement is where both parties reach an
agreement. Mr. Ciarelli chose to shutter the website, just as some
journalists have chosen to reveal their sources, and others have
retracted stories. It was his decision too.
Journalism Is Not at Stake
The fact that Ciarelli was able to protect his sources is a boon for
journalism, where the protection of anonymity for sources has long been
a herald of First Amendment rights. Yet much has been made of the fact
that the site was shut down, and this is perceived as a threat to
journalism. It's not: Spreading rumors is not journalism.
Journalism is about spreading facts - specifically, legally obtained
facts. If Mr. Ciarelli was simply a purveyor of rumors, no claim of
threat exists, as he was not a journalist. If, however, he was
publishing facts that were obtained illegally (through lawbreaking
insiders), he was also not engaging in ethical journalism. Taking
journalism classes and writing for the school newspaper does not define
Mr. Ciarelli as a journalist, nor does it automatically categorize all
writing that he publishes as a journalistic endeavor.
Not all blogs are journalistic, even if the fuzzy and gray
boundaries of journalism have expanded to include some. Journalists of
the world: Get over it. You cannot cite Think Secret as a
precedent-setting publication that will allow you to use illegally
obtained information and not be prosecuted for breaking the law.
Apple Is Not a Public Entity
Some of the most irresponsible "journalism" I've seen in the
coverage of this nonevent is the comparison of Think Secret to those
who would publish governmental secrets that should be a matter of
public record. This is wrong on several levels.
To begin with, Apple is a publicly traded company, not a publicly
owned company or public service. I don't have a right to information
about Apple in the same way that the Freedom of Information Act allows
me access to information about governmental documents. Stock holders
have a right to the information that their stock prospectuses
stipulate; non-shareholders have no right to any information not
required to be made public by the Securities Exchange Commission. This
does not include corporate secrets.
Furthermore, why do we assume that anything governmental should be
public, just because the government is a public service? Personally, I
like the fact that the names of undercover agents, etc. are kept
secret; I'm certain that there are reams of information that is equally
justifiable in its secrecy. Please, discard this unhelpful
equivocation.
Let's move on. This is not the end of speculation, rumor, or even
leaked facts about Apple. And it is certainly not the end of
journalism. 
