Apple Sues Jon Prosser Over iOS 26 Leaks

[jlc1978]

It really doesn't matter because Prosser was in possession of stolen information. And before you say he didn't realize it was stolen, it was his responsibility to know. It is no different than if your friend loans you his bike, only to discover that the bike was stolen from someone else. Both you and your friend are guilty.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you:

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v. Vopper that the First Amendment generally protects journalists who publish information of public concern that was acquired illegally by others. In that case, the Court held that several news media defendants who broadcast an illegally recorded phone call they lawfully obtained couldn’t be held liable under federal and Pennsylvania wiretapping laws, even though they knew the call was illegally recorded.

There are nuances, but in general a reporter is protected by the First Amendment. One exception is if the reporter participated in obtaining the material or encourged someone to obtain it:

Part three notes that courts have distinguished between a solicitation to steal information and a request for information that is already stolen. The First Amendment may not protect publishing illegally obtained material when a journalist participates in the illegal conduct, even indirectly

It might, but it's not uncommon for news reporters to be for-profit and to pay their sources for information. The issue remains on whether he solicited the misappropriation and whether he has a First Amendment defense for the publishing.

It also has to be in the public interest, but that seems to be a pretty broad category:

Reporters can also use the guide to figure out whether the illegally obtained material involves a matter of public concern, which is a key factor courts consider — though they haven’t always agreed on what qualifies. Generally, the Supreme Court has ruled that speech is a matter of public concern when it relates to “any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”
Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

 

[SanderEvers]

Do you have some examples that have been shown to have been on purpose? I'd be interested.

Also, like I said before, what would be the point of giving info to Gurman about some features one day before launch? If it's about gauging reactions, wouldn't it make more sense to leak the information at a point in time when it's still possible to change course if something doesn't go over well?

(Additionally, I think "design by the hottest take"would be kinda dumb. If you ask people what they want, they'll tell you faster horses, or in computing, support for ancient standards like VGA or Centronics printer ports or 32 bit apps.)

Again I don't know his sources.

But there have been multiple times in the past that companies (not just Apple) have leaked information prior to annoucements. Gauging reactions is a possible reason, but most likely it's to build anticipation. Or it can even be used to lower the outrage if the news isn't all that good or popular.

But it can also be used to change things. Like for example with the first Sonic movie - though that was based on the reaction on an official trailer.

 

[laptech]

It has been explained already but in the US being a "fan who post things about Apple" does still qualify as being a news reporter. Anyone who gathers and/or distributes newsworthy information qualifies, regardless of whether they are professionals working for traditional news, freelancers or amateurs.

In my opinion that is so wrong because it implies that anyone with a video camera can record things and then get the legal protection that news reporters are afforded to all because they say 'I am a news reporter'.

 

[tomtad]

All this for a freaking UI reveal. It's not like he's revealing state secrets.

Apple's laying down a marker. Prosser had got the level of bribing employees for clicks, who knows what he'd leak next if he kept going

 

[Smartuser]

Again I don't know his sources.

But there have been multiple times in the past that companies (not just Apple) have leaked information prior to annoucements. Gauging reactions is a possible reason, but most likely it's to build anticipation. Or it can even be used to lower the outrage if the news isn't all that good or popular.

But it can also be used to change things. Like for example with the first Sonic movie - though that was based on the reaction on an official trailer.

In other words, you don't have a single example, let alone one that is backed up by reliable evidence. Until then it's a conspiracy theory.

That Sonic trailer wasn't deliberately leaked, it was simply released.

 

[jlc1978]

In my opinion that is so wrong because it implies that anyone with a video camera can record things and then get the legal protection that news reporters are afforded to all because they say 'I am a news reporter'.

There are a lot of laws around videoing, but if teh person regularly posts videos and commentary of items of public interest, then yes they should be considered a reporter and afforded First Amendment rights.

The internet has changed what it means to be a reporter and to try to draw fine lines about what is and isn't qualifying is a slippery slope.

Apple's laying down a marker. Prosser had got the level of bribing employees for clicks, who knows what he'd leak next if he kept going

Exactly. If what is alleged is true, he crossed a line you don't cross, ethically or legally.

In other words, you don't have a single example, let alone one that is backed up by reliable evidence. Until then it's a conspiracy theory.

While it's not out of the realm of possibility, given Apple's penchant for secrecy and their desire for WOW reveals (which have been relatively few recently, IMHO) I doubt they do. In addition, if they did use that as a tactic it might weaken their case when an unauthorized leak occurs becasue they have leaked deliberately in the past.

Apple seems to use NDAs and embargo to get information out pre-release so day 1 reviews can occur.

 

[Smartuser]

In my opinion that is so wrong because it implies that anyone with a video camera can record things and then get the legal protection that news reporters are afforded to all because they say 'I am a news reporter'.

In this entire complaint there is absolutely nothing that hinges on whether Prosser is a traditional reporter or not. That whole subject is a distraction.

 

[bsolar]

In my opinion that is so wrong because it implies that anyone with a video camera can record things and then get the legal protection that news reporters are afforded to all because they say 'I am a news reporter'.

From Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox:

The Supreme Court recently emphasized the point in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”

So yes, anyone with a video camera can record things and get the legal protection that "traditional" news reporters are afforded to because from the point of view of the Constitution there is no distinction. Said that, the protections are not absolute.

 

[laptech]

From Obsidian Finance Group, LLC et al v. Cox:



So yes, anyone with a video camera can record things and get the legal protection that "traditional" news reporters are afforded to because from the point of view of the Constitution there is no distinction. Said that, the protections are not absolute.

I am not in the US thus do not know US law hence why I am asking the questions I am asking.

Therefore, from this post and others you have posted it would seem that if Prosser can prove he obtained the information about the prototype iphone lawfully there is nothing Apple can do because Prosser's First Amendments rights to post what he did about the iphone Trumps that of Apple's right to keep trade secrets a secret.

 

[bsolar]

I am not in the US thus do not know US law hence why I am asking the questions I am asking.

Outside of the US there are different rules, e.g. in some countries there are authorities that need to officially recognize reporters for protections to apply.

Therefore, from this post and others you have posted it would seem that if Prosser can prove he obtained the information about the prototype iphone lawfully there is nothing Apple can do because Prosser's First Amendments rights to post what he did about the iphone Trumps that of Apple's right to keep trade secrets a secret.

It might be a valid defense but it's not at all a given: e.g. the disclosure might be determined to not be "in the public interest".

 

[SanderEvers]

In other words, you don't have a single example, let alone one that is backed up by reliable evidence. Until then it's a conspiracy theory.

That Sonic trailer wasn't deliberately leaked, it was simply released.

It's not a consipracy, it's just a thoery. An opinion like I said in the very first reply I wrote: "I often see as", it's an opinion. Like everything I write. I never claimed it to be true.

Because I know it's nearly impossible to prove. But that doesn't take away my opinion that it does happen.

 

[jlc1978]

It might be a valid defense but it's not at all a given: e.g. the disclosure might be determined to not be "in the public interest".

IANAL, but I think that would be tough to argue that it wasn't in the public interest, I suspect it would be more likely to decide that in a case where someone revealed a private conversation between two individuals who are not well known and just talking about a private matter.

 

[burgman]

One exception is if the reporter participated in obtaining the material or encourged someone to obtain it:

Part three notes that courts have distinguished between a solicitation to steal information and a request for information that is already stolen. The First Amendment may not protect publishing illegally obtained material when a journalist participates in the illegal conduct, even indirectly

So since all three engaged in this behavior according to the lawsuit, what's your point?

 

[laptech]

Outside of the US there are different rules, e.g. in some countries there are authorities that need to officially recognize reporters for protections to apply.



It might be a valid defense but it's not at all a given: e.g. the disclosure might be determined to not be "in the public interest".

Why does 'in the public interest' matter when it's a private individual versus a private company? because if I am understanding your post correctly, first amendment rights is only lawful if the the issue is in the public interest and if it is not in the public interest then first amendment rights are irrelevant.

to put is another way:-
First amendment right - it's in the public interest, he wins
First amendment right - it is not in the public interest, he loses.

 

[bsolar]

Why does 'in the public interest' matter when it's a private individual versus a private company? because if I am understanding your post correctly, first amendment rights is only lawful if the the issue is in the public interest and if it is not in the public interest then first amendment rights are irrelevant.

The issue is not that the parties are private entities: the issue is whether the information disclosed is of public interest. Even information from private entities can be of public interest.

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press, regardless of whether they are of public interest or not, but those protections are not absolute and when they come in conflict with other rights the courts need to find a balance.

In some legal circumstances, the presence of a "public interest" is relevant to decide whether the disclosure of information is protected under the First Amendment or not.

 

[jlc1978]

So since all three engaged in this behavior according to the lawsuit, what's your point?

Simple - the poster I replied to claimed Prosser would still be libel if he knew, or should have known, the material was illegally obtained, seperate from his active participation in getting the material.

Apple alleges he was an active participant, it is possible the person who broke into the iPhone did it before calling Prosser (I have not seen his video) and thus was in possession of it prior to revealing it, which may put Prosser safely under the First; assuming he did not encourage the person to get the information.

IANAL, but from my understanding this is likely more complicated than it appears; based on my understanding of the law and how it applies to journalists.

 

[laptech]

The issue is not that the parties are private entities: the issue is whether the information disclosed is of public interest. Even information from private entities can be of public interest.

The First Amendment protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press, regardless of whether they are of public interest or not, but those protections are not absolute and when they come in conflict with other rights the courts need to find a balance.

In some legal circumstances, the presence of a "public interest" is relevant to decide whether the disclosure of information is protected under the First Amendment or not.

The 'public' is a varying demographic of people. The only demographic who would be interested in the leak provided by Prosser is to Apple fans. Therefore, because the leak is only really relevant to a specific demographic of the public, ie Apple fans, would a judge still see it as 'in the public interest' even though it is targeted at a specific group of the public or does it not matter because outside of people interested in Apple, that leak would not be of interest to the majority of the public.

 

[bsolar]

The 'public' is a varying demographic of people. The only demographic who would be interested in the leak provided by Prosser is to Apple fans. Therefore, because the leak is only really relevant to a specific demographic of the public, ie Apple fans, would a judge still see it as 'in the public interest' even though it is targeted at a specific group of the public or does it not matter because outside of people interested in Apple, that leak would not be of interest to the majority of the public.

Public interest is about the nature of the information, not it's "popularity". There are plenty of information that are mainly of interest of a very narrow audience but still considered "public interest".

 

[FrozenDarkness]

just to be honest, i'd be shocked if the glass design of ios 26 will be of public interest. this case will be weighed heavily against how much prosser knew about the illegalities of how the information was obtained.

 

[Skoal]

Nothing worse than trespassing to steal trade secrets!

All while you happily browse every Apple leak you can find I’m sure.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

All while you happily browse every Apple leak you can find I’m sure.

i'll be honest, i assume 90% of the stuff i read on macrumors was fed by apple directly.

 

[Skoal]

This is the difference between clowns like Prosser and disciplined guys like Gurman and Kuo.

You don't actively conspire and encourage others in the plan to steal it, then actively explore confidential software.

And he used FaceTime? Come on. At least learn to use Signal and WeChat.

FaceTime had nothing to do with it and you seriously trust WeChat?

 

[laptech]

Public interest is about the nature of the information, not it's "popularity". There are plenty of information that are mainly of interest of a very narrow audience but still considered "public interest".

I personally do not think Prosser could win on it being in the public interest because no one would be interested except Apple fans. I do not think that is enough to win it on public interest. I also do not think he would win on the grounds of him being a reporter having a first amendment right to publish Apple's trade secret. I personally think it will come down on Apple's lawyers putting the squeeze on Ramacciotti to give up Prosser saying Prosser knew the info he was getting was stolen and helped to get it because there is no way Prosser is going to incriminate himself. He will keep on saying he knew nothing. In a situation like that the only way to get Prosser would be for Ramacciotti to rat him out to save himself.

 

[Tonewheel]

What do you expect form a 20 year old?

 

[Vulkan]

Ahhh this reminds me of a MacRumors precursor site ThinkSecret. ThinkSecret was obliterated by Apple back in 2007. These alternate rumor sites, who like to fly to close to the sun and then cry wolf when they get slapped into order.

Why can't they simply do what MacRumors does? Keep it classy...