Public figures (in the legal sense) do have reduced privacy protection under the law compared to someone who isn't a public figure.
Lethal
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Disclosures Regarding Jobs' Health Remain Under Scrutiny by SEC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lethal
I think that if apple did know the whole time about his needing a transplant then yes, they have done wrong. But if steve/apple found out after going on leave then I think they don't have any (or shouldn't rather, I'm not clear on the law regarding this) reason to tell the public seeing as it should simply be covered under medical leave. It didnt interfere with the timeframe they set for him to be gone so I dont personally think they had any reason to let the media know.
That being said, I think its incredibly sad that there are laws in place to invade personal privacy simply because of money matters.\
Edit: to lethal: really? Thats disgusting.
there is basically nothing separating them. people are crying about the government snooping, then on the other hand they want to hand over all their info to the very same people they are complaining about.
Just curious. If it was a key member of Microsoft or Dell that was being investigated, would your position be the exact same?
Well yes, if you want to boil down SEC investigations into company policies and national health care down to rhetorical, be my guest. They are separate matters for anyone who doesn't like to play politics with the details however.
GO SEC!!! Oh, nice job keeping an eye on the markets in 2007-2008. 
Freaking waste of my Federal Tax. These laws are as clear as the bottom of the Niagara River.
People that live in Glass Houses should not throw Rocks.
Freaking waste of my Federal Tax. These laws are as clear as the bottom of the Niagara River.
People that live in Glass Houses should not throw Rocks.
I don't see what disgusting about it. If the POTUS has a brain tumor that could be impairing his judgement that's news. If Joe Blow down the street has the same condition that's not news.
Public Figures
Lethal
Of course that quote covers nothing of medical details. After all Jobs did authorize disclosure of the transplant. He did to of his own free will (and the fact that it would have gotten out anyway). I still see nothing there that obligates him to release anything medically related without his consent. At best, its a legal defense regarding someone else invading ones privacy. Its not akin to a judge ordering disclosure of information normally private.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
I think that this is a bit silly. Medical issues are personal no matter who it is. Apple and Steve Jobs both revealed more than what was necessary in my opinion. I know that he is a CEO of a large publically traded company but that does not remove his right to his own privacy.
I think that this is a bit silly. Medical issues are personal no matter who it is. Apple and Steve Jobs both revealed more than what was necessary in my opinion. I know that he is a CEO of a large publically traded company but that does not remove his right to his own privacy.
I feel that once he took medical leave, he shouldnt be required to disclose any more medical information, unless it would make the medical leave longer, which it didn't.
I didn't say that it had anything to specifically do w/releasing medical details. I was just correcting NT1440's assumption that public figures have the same right to privacy as non-public figures.
In this situation Jobs is a victim of his own success. If Apple would've come out and said exactly what was going on the stock would have tanked. But they had to say something so the investigation is to whether or not Apple stepped over the line it was tiptoeing. If Jobs was just a 'normal' CEO Apple could've been up front w/everything w/o the fear of the stock tanking. But when your CEO is seen as a singular genius that saved the company from extinction and has played a lead role in changing the landscapes of consumer electronics and digital media distribution the game isn't the same.
Lethal
Think of it this way, which gets the SEC more attention:
1. Investigating a well known and well liked company
or
2. Doing their job the way they're supposed to
Steve Jobs needs to say Snow Leopard pwns Windows 7 and that everyone should buy a Mac. Then continue to say "The problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have no taste and I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way.".
I asked for the cite. All I was doing was expanding on things from said cite. I was not trying to imply that you were claiming anything about disclosure of medical records - just pointing out the natural extension that someone could have leap-frogged onto.
And steve's ongoings during medical leave that had no impact upon his return time are significant because.....
How exactly does a liver transplant have no impact on his return time, or the future of the company? This isn't like getting a strep test, he's going to be on heavy drugs for the rest of his life to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. Face it, Jobs IS Apple. He started it and built it back up from absolutely nothing. He is the sole reason for the companies success in the past eight years. While this may be more of a special case than any other CEO, it doesn't change the fact that anything happens to him DIRECTLY affects the company. Shareholders have a right to know about something so life threatening. And yes, it's ALL about money and the shareholders.
You don't know the internal significance.
He is the CEO of a billion dollar company. It is his duty to keep the shareholders in touch with his future. If he wanted privacy... he wouldn't be CEO of a PUBLIC company.
Like I said, the POTUS having a condition that could impair his ability to do his job is newsworthy. Joe Blow having a condition that could impair his job at the 7/11 is not newsworthy. Joe Six Pack hiring illegal immigrants to take care of his lawn isn't really newsworthy. Someone high up at the INS hiring illegal immigrants to take care of his law is newsworthy.Newsworthiness now has something to do with the amount of privacy the law gives you?
Going beyond the scope of Jobs and the SEC, newsworthiness has a lot to do w/Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
Lethal
Yes.
My point is that the SEC has let us all down terribly; that it bears a significant portion (not all, by any shot) of the responsibility for the global economic meltdown. I would annoy me greatly to see them focusing on splitting hairs on a minor disclosure issue no matter who the target is.
Not every criticism of an Apple detractor is due to fanboyism.
Hm. We call a person who defends Apple no matter what a fanboy... but what do we call people who think any comment that does not criticise Apple must have been made by a fanboy?
