EFF Seeks to Keep Apples Hands Off Reporters Sources - Page 2
"Apple must also demonstrate that it has done an exhaustive search elsewhere for the information it seeks before targeting journalists with court orders," the release continues. "There is no evidence that Apple has done such an exhaustive search. " EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl said that the ruling is a dangerous precedent that threatens the freedom of the press. "The California courts have a long history of supporting and protecting the freedom of the press," he is quoted as saying in the EFFs release. "The Court of Appeal will now get the opportunity to correct a ruling that endangers all journalists." Read more here about Judge James Kleinbergs tentative ruling that three Mac rumor sites cannot seek protection under journalist shield laws."The Superior Courts ruling exalted statutory trade secret protection over constitutional rights, misapplied the test for when the constitutional reporters privilege may be overcome, and ignored the Stored Communications Act altogether," he is quoted as saying in the EFFs release. "There are strong protections for e-mail privacy under federal law, especially when that mail is held by an ISP. Every e-mail service provider should be concerned about correcting this dangerous precedent." Check out eWEEK.coms for the latest news, reviews and analysis about Apple in the enterprise. And for insights on Macintosh coverage around the Web, check out eWEEK.com Executive Editor Matthew Rothenbergs Weblog.
Another freedom at risk in the court ruling is e-mail privacy, according to EFF Staff Attorney and Bruce J. Ennis Fellow Kevin Bankston.