GG Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Way to uphold that universal principle of putting out all the news that's fit to print. linky thingy. I particularly like this quote (not in the linked story) "We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law," said New York Times Co. spokeswoman Diane McNulty. "It's a country that doesn't have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country's law." What the AP story also doesn't tell you is how NYT is blocking Brits' access. They do it by filtering IP addresses that originate in the UK. And there you are privacy advocates. You are all being watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Way to uphold that universal principle of putting out all the news that's fit to print. linky thingy. I particularly like this quote (not in the linked story) Uh, the article seems pretty fair as to why they did it. The story was published in Monday's paper. Under British laws, courts will punish media organizations that publish material that judges feel may influence jurors and prevent suspects receiving a fair trial. "There has not been a prosecution for contempt over anybody publishing outside this jurisdiction (Britain), but logically there is no reason why there should not be," said Caroline Kean, partner at UK media law firm Wiggin. While restricting what British media can report has been effective in the past, the Internet has made it far harder to stop information published by foreign outlets, which may breach Britain's laws, from being seen by UK readers. The New York Times article cited unnamed investigators providing information not given publicly by British police. Whats wrong with them covering their own ass, exactly? What the AP story also doesn't tell you is how NYT is blocking Brits' access. They do it by filtering IP addresses that originate in the UK. And there you are privacy advocates. You are all being watched. 757033[/snapback] Take off the tin foil. IP addresses and where they originate from are completely public information. Any good forum software, such as this one, tracks what IP address/addresses you use, for purposes of banning/identifying users. There is absolutely NOTHING for privacy advocates to get their panties in a knot about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 There is absolutely NOTHING for privacy advocates to get their panties in a knot about. That doesn't stop them from getting their panties in a knot on a regular basis in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Uh, the article seems pretty fair as to why they did it.Whats wrong with them covering their own ass, exactly? Way to see the big picture. They obviously had no problems with legal ramifications of publishing stories that landed a reporter in jail. Or that they are more concerned about legal ramifications than the editorial judgement of printing security-sensitive stories. Take off the tin foil. IP addresses and where they originate from are completely public information. Any good forum software, such as this one, tracks what IP address/addresses you use, for purposes of banning/identifying users. There is absolutely NOTHING for privacy advocates to get their panties in a knot about. 757393[/snapback] Thus, it's ok for Procter & Gamble to know your exact surfing habits so they can sell you the right bar of soap to wash your hands (after you're done) than it is for the government to know the IP addresses of surfers visiting extremist sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Does the public still have a right to know, if it adversely affects a defendant's right to a fair trial? Fine line there. The UK laws sound more restrictive than ours, but the topic has been debated on this side of the pond ever since the Sam Sheppard trial. (And probably well before that, come to think of it.) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...trialissues.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Way to see the big picture. They obviously had no problems with legal ramifications of publishing stories that landed a reporter in jail. Or that they are more concerned about legal ramifications than the editorial judgement of printing security-sensitive stories. A company, like the NYT, is going to do what gets them the most money with the minimal costs. I don't hold the NYT to any ethical standard because I don't think that they, like most companies, have one. There was no benefit for them to publish this story in the UK and risk legal costs and action against them. Thus, it's ok for Procter & Gamble to know your exact surfing habits so they can sell you the right bar of soap to wash your hands (after you're done) than it is for the government to know the IP addresses of surfers visiting extremist sites. 757501[/snapback] Erm, tracking cookies and IP addresses are two completely different things. NYT filtering it out based on IP doesn't have anything to do with tracking users unless further technology was involved, which I haven't heard anything of. Now if they had put a tracking cookie on each person's computer to see the other websites they were visitng then yeah, I'd have a problem with it. But filtering it out based upon IP is not only the most logical way to filter one country from your content, but it also doesn't have anything to do with tracking user's habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts