Who’s Right: TechCrunch or Twitter?

This past Wednesday it was made public that 300+ confidential documents from Twitter had been stolen. While most industry related sites chose not to post these documents, a few did, most notably being TechCrunch.

Was TechCrunch wrong or right in publishing the stolen documents? Tell us.

To say Twitter is unhappy with TechCrunch would be an understatement. But, why is Twitter so angry? According to TechCrunch, Twitter had given them a green light to post the information:

"It’s important to note that we have been given the green light by Twitter to post this information – They aren’t happy about it, but they are able to live with it, they say (more on why they did that in our later post)"

Twitter CEO, Evan Williams (@ev) sees it entirely different, as you can see by his following tweet:

Taking the matter even further, Twitter co-founder, Biz Stone (@biz) updated the company blog where he reiterated Evan’s statement:

"…the publication of stolen documents is irresponsible and we absolutely did not give permission for these documents to be shared."

On Wednesday, this author wrote an article giving Biz’s response to various security concerns after the hack. He briefly touched on the legality of posting such documents:

"We are in touch with our legal counsel about what this theft means for Twitter, the hacker, and anyone who accepts and subsequently shares or publishes these stolen documents. We’re not sure yet exactly what the implications are for folks who choose to get involved at this point but when we learn more and are able to share more, we will."

TechCrunch has been receiving some serious flak for posting the stolen documents. Some loyal Twitter users have even began spreading the word that they’re boycotting TechCrunch from now on:

InformationWeek has taken the TechCrunch vs. Twitter debate to a much higher level, asking Michael Arrington, founder TechCrunch, to step down.

"By publishing documents stolen by a hacker, Michael Arrington has proven he doesn’t have the judgment necessary to run a news organization. He should have the decency to step down."

TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington defends his publication of the docs:

"There is clearly an ethical line here that we don’t want to cross, and the vast majority of these documents aren’t going to be published, at least by us. But a few of the documents have so much news value that we think it’s appropriate to publish them."

So, what are your thoughts on TechCrunch vs. Twitter? Let us know what you think.

There are 53 Comments. Add Yours.

Wilf Gerrard-Staton
July 19, 2009 at 8:03 pm

I think a big point is being missed here.

These were stolen documents. Surely Techcrunch was committing an illegal act not by receiving them but receiving them, keeping them and distributing them. Isn’t this called receiving stolen property.

If I received something that was stolen I would be charged with receiving stolen property.

Why should this be different.

Apart from that Had techcrunch got “written” permission to publish them. It is very easy to say someone at twitter gave permission. Why would Twitter be causing such a fuss if they had.

Seems illogical to me.
Guest
July 19, 2009 at 9:50 pm

A few points to bear in mind before burning Techcrunch:

1. Techcrunch seemed to be not the only one in possession of the documents. As always in news, if anyone published, the info is not secret anymore, so that’ll have been some consideration for Techcrunch in publishing the documents.

2. There clearly seems to be have been some conversation between Techcrunch and Twitter, acknowledged by both. Only now, both disagree about what was agreed. Perhaps because Techcrunch had an oerly optimistic view on what was agreed, or the other way around, because Twitter initially thought they had no options and said ‘Okay if you indeed leave out this and that’, and now has a change of heart after deep consultations with the lawyers.

Hard for us to judge at this stage, but we’ll probably hear more about it
ace
July 19, 2009 at 9:56 pm

I’m all for Tech Crunch and anyone else willing to publish the documents.

Sounds like there’s an ulterior motive as to why Twitter is so desperate.
Guest
July 20, 2009 at 12:19 am

between a ‘leak’ and a ‘hack’, either way source party did not grant it’s release. I assume news organizations are no longer allowed to posses or published leaked documents?
Armand
July 20, 2009 at 2:59 am

As most of the commenters here would say, I believe Techcrunch is wrong. Technically and legally, they may believe that they have some “newsworthy” things to say and so (believes) they had the right the publish it.

However, even though they think they had the permission from Twitter to publish it, unless they have written permission then their defence doesn’t stand at all. Verbally, they had nothing unless they can prove it otherwise.

Ethically, they had no right to do it either. I’m sure if the tables were turned they would not like that to happen to them.

A few years ago, I was really looking forward to all the articles posted by Techcrunch. Lately, I haven’t been as excited and the quality of the articles doesn’t seem to be as good as it once was. Mashable seemed to be a better preference than them.

Not sure if this act by Techcrunch is an act of desperation.

Just my two cents.

Armand
Guest
July 20, 2009 at 5:20 am

in 2 years time neither Twitter nor TechCrush will be worth that much
texxs
July 20, 2009 at 6:12 am

Screw twitter, publish away. Shouldn’t be keeping secrets anyway.
mtuba4u
July 20, 2009 at 11:25 am

Seems to me everybody fogot about the security issue, and no body is complaining about poor security or holes in security systems.

how were these documents stolen, and why ?

news is news, and there are many unethical methods used to obtain good, truthful news, but few are ever discussed or brought into the open.

We will need to see who complains, and where the complaints lead to, but boycots are not good for business, as you usualy shoot yourself in the foot when you boycot somebody for reasons that are not clearly explained, or if there is no real policy and expected results are not clear.

What is the reason for this sugested boycot, and what will be achieved ?

many people will be without their information distribution tools, and many others will not be reading valuable information, which may make their life a lot easier.

Loose, loose and loose again through boycots ?

or live with the hand that life has dealt you and make the best of your personal situation …

you choose, and live with your decision.
Guest
July 20, 2009 at 10:18 pm

All this talk about stolen documents…who’s right and who’s wrong. There’s too much finger-pointing both ways for me to say who’s right (I wasn’t there).

What I have not heard is whether Twiter has determined how the breach occured in the first place and what steps they plan to take to prevent this from hapening again in the future. As well, what were the nature of the documents – as Twitter user, has my privacy been violated?
beginyoga
July 21, 2009 at 1:58 am

Well, this is a good point. Why the documents were stolen?
In the Techcrunch case, they if in fact received stolen property, and it is a crime to possess stolen property. Let the law of land justify it.
George
July 21, 2009 at 5:47 am

Another case of mob mentality/double standards in judging a case like this.

I wonder how many people would go on a witch hunt against techcrunch if the company affected was google, microsoft, apple, or even facebook, instead of their beloved twitter.
rf121
July 21, 2009 at 8:37 am

On TechCrunch’s receiving end, those documents – stolen or not – their simply news. They didn’t do the hacking and if the documents weren’t Twitter’s it wouldn’t cause so much controversy. After all, it’s Twitter’s fault it got hacked.
Sergey
November 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm

Familiarly such but I can not recollect where already read