PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

First Amendment, TechCrunch, and Twitter docs

Posted on July 17, 2009July 3, 2025 by Dissent

There’s an interesting debate afoot about TechCrunch‘s decision to publish selected documents it received from someone who hacked into the email accounts of Twitter CEO Evan Williams and other Twitter employees. There’s already been some good coverage of the journalism ethics side of the debate, but I wanted to weigh in with some detail on what U.S. law has to say about the situation. Is it legal for TechCrunch to publish hacked documents?  As with most questions worth asking a lawyer, it depends.  It depends largely on whether the content of any particular published document is of legitimate concern to the public.

….  TechCrunch faces three possible legal claims:

First, publishing confidential company documents may be trade secret misappropriation under California law (both Twitter and TechCrunch are based in California), assuming the published documents qualify as trade secrets — that is, information that derives economic value from not being generally known to the public and that is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Second, publishing sensitive or embarrassing personal information obtained by the hacker could create liability for invasion of privacy for the publication of private facts. If there’s anything in those documents more sensitive than employee meal preferences — say, social security numbers or health-related information — TechCrunch would want to avoid publishing it.  Certainly nothing Mr. Arrington has published so far poses any risk in this regard.

Third, receiving the hacked emails might violate criminal law against receipt of stolen property. Section 496 of the California Penal Code makes it a crime to “receive[] any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained.” Documents can be “property” under statute, but there is some question whether “mere information,” rather than the paper it is printed on, can qualify (admittedly, this could be viewed as a pretty outdated distinction).  See People v. Dolbeer, 29 Cal.Rptr. 573, 574-75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963).

This all sounds pretty intimidating, but these sources of liability are subject to First Amendment limitations.

Read more on Citizen Media Law Project.  I’m sure that there will be other legal blogs discussing this issue, too, so feel free to send me any interesting links or analyses to post.

No related posts.

Category: BreachesFeatured NewsMiscOnline

Post navigation

← In China, controversial BBS post by police
PASS ID and National ID – Rejoinder to Schwartz →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Congress tries to outlaw AI that jacks up prices based on what it knows about you
  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard
  • Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Scattered Spider Hijacks VMware ESXi to Deploy Ransomware on Critical U.S. Infrastructure
  • Hacker group “Silent Crow” claims responsibility for cyberattack on Russia’s Aeroflot
  • AIIMS ORBO Portal Vulnerability Exposing Sensitive Organ Donor Data Discovered by Researcher
  • Two Data Breaches in Three Years: McKenzie Health
  • Scattered Spider is running a VMware ESXi hacking spree
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy