Telepocalypse

Friends like this

I previously wrote about how campaign organisations that want better connectivity should “respect the layers”. That means they should campaign for connectiviy, or for “application” issues like free speech, DRM, copyright, etc.; but nor both.

Illustrating the point again is the EFF’s current outrage over Apple’s well-publicised persuit of bloggers who were given tip-offs about future Apple product releases. The core of the case is whether bloggers should have the protection of anyonymous sources that traditional journalists routinely enjoy.

I personally think the outcry here is misplaced. Freedom of speech is often in tension with other freedoms and responsibilities. In this case, it is with contract law, since the sources of the information had clearly signed NDA agreements with Apple. To not grant Apple their case means any NDA contract is rendered ineffectual as long as the information is laundered through a third party. I fail to see how it is in the public interest to eviserate contract law in order to protect the immoral release of information that has no public interest significance. (Viz the judges’s comment that public interest != interested public.)

Regardless of this, reasonable people could vigorously disagree over the matter, yet simultaneously be in favour of progressive policies at the connectivity level. By covering such a broad range of issues, the EFF is alienating some of its potential support base. The intellectual property issues are easily tarred with commie anti-property propaganda, however unfairly. But the connectivity issue is as more about establishing free-market competition as any socialisation agenda.

Tomorrow it’s the long heave over from Edinburgh to Washington DC for Freedom to Connect. Ironically the EFF is a major sponsor, so I’ll see if I can find an answer to these apparent contradictions. Since there’s a webcast, I won’t be doing blow-by-blow blogging, but watch this space for the usual summary and analysis.