This line comes from Michael Arrington of TechCrunch as the justification for publishing stolen documents from the files of Twitter. I learned of the story in today’s LA Times article by James Rainey which talks of the incident and pooh-pooh’s the public anger over the TechCruch aiding and abetting of the hacker and the break-in. I was surprised Rainey took such a view. I had been thinking he was one of the smart guys. He apparently thinks he’s defending the old "Public’s Right To Know".
Immensely Interesting From A News Perspective?...this sounds like something an OJ attorney might come up with to justify what is otherwise thought of as a crime. The public certainly has a right to know when "public interest" is threatened. But is that what happened with the Twitter docs? It sounds like TechCrunch merely published some portion of Twitter’s ongoing business plan. Thieves are always after The Coronal’s blend of 43 herbs and spices, or Microsoft’s source code, or Coke’s secret recipe. But it’s not right to steal unless of course you are Robin Hood and are just getting back what was stolen from the public. I don’t think this Twitter thing qualify’s as that. So why does Rainy and The Times support it?
Could it be that—as established position-wary members of EIC (The Entertainment Industrial Complex)—The LA Times feel that Twitter must be stopped or slowed to protect their slice of the media audience? That, in effect, Twitter is the new, evil, "Sherriff of Nottingham"? Or is it that Rainey has merely lapsed for a moment into "bumpkinism"?
After publicly mocking one of Twitter’s "thought children"—a proposal for a tweet-based reality TV show, he goes on to say that if Twitter can’t take better care of its business secrets then "we" probably don’t want them to become big players in the sphere of media. Who is "we"? The public or those dialed-in to date in this fading era of EIC insiders?
He also insinuates that failure to use that winning lock on the chastity belt somehow makes the rapist less guilty. I’ve heard that before and it never plays. Rainey’s whole article doesn’t play.
Anyway, I’ve got Rainey bent over the chair now reading that sign that says "Why Am I Here?" (the answer, you got caught!). Back in Junior High—when they still gave "swats" as we used to call them—a woodshop teacher showed me how he drilled a specific pattern of holes in the "instrument of instruction".
The idea was to properly conduct the oncoming body of air as the paddle moved forward in its mission. "Just wait until you hear the whirring sound it makes" he said with a big smile. The vice-principle explained to me that he really liked a good, long backstroke prior to the actual swing of the paddle. "If you have a big backstroke and use both hands, it’s possible to actually knock the kid’s head through the wall right where that little sign is". He didn’t smile when he said that.
Partly because of such training, I didn’t become a small-time crook like my old dad was. But my dad was an honest small-time crook who told us straight up, "I’m a thief and I don’t try and pretend I’m not". I found over time that he was one of the few who could admit it, and make no cheap, well-thought out reasons to delude himself and others. He stole from the Army and a from rich woman whose husband had bought her a business to keep her occupied. The woman was smart enough to know what my dad was but as he charmed her on her office sofa, she let it go. She even paid what amounted to two-years of salary for him to have a hip-replacement.
It would have been easy for me to think of him as a "Robin Hood kind of thief". But I was too smart for that. Thieves never charm me. Ethics, the finer distinctions in these matters, do charm me. But back to the image of James Rainey bent over that chair. (I wonder if he’ll hear the whirring sound?). WHACK!!!
...and that was with only one hand and my off-hand at that.
In summery: Be therefore warned O Hackers, Thieves, Enablers, and other assorted punks. There are a lot of people out to get you!
WEJ