As expected , theElectronic Frontier Foundation(EFF ) has filed an appeal in a showcase that pits Apple against connection sites reporting on Apple products .
sooner this month a California Superior Court evaluator ruled in favor of Apple after the company file a subpoena ad testificandum request records from Nfox , Internet service supplier for Mac newsworthiness land site PowerPage . PowerPage has print information about an as - yet unpredicted Apple product code - nominate “ Asteroid , ” and Apple wants to know who told PowerPage about the twist . Apple hopes that by securing information from Nfox , which provides tocopherol - mail service service to PowerPage , they will teach who separate PowerPage about the product .
This ruling and the proceedings ring this display case have generated controversy because the EFF claims that the author of these online sites it stage — PowerPage and AppleInsider — are diary keeper and therefore are protected by both the First Amendment and California ’s “ shield law ” which leave journalists to protect their secret sources . Apple counter that the land site have revealed patronage secrets and are n’t entitled to invoke either the First Amendment or California ’s buckler law of nature to protect themselves .
In cut his opinion on March 11 , 2005 , California Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg allow Apple ’s subpoena to Nfox to proceed , though he for the most part ring the broader questions regarding exemption of the crush .
“ What underlie this decision is the publishing of information that at this former stage of the judicial proceeding fits squarely within the definition of trade arcanum , ” Kleinberg wrote . “ The right to keep and hold proprietary data as such is a right which the California legislative assembly and court of law have long affirmed and which is crucial to the hereafter of engineering and conception generally . The court ensure no reason to forsake that right even if it were to assume , arguendo , movants are ‘ diary keeper ’ as they claim they are . ”
“ … the First Amendment can not be so well waived , ” enounce the EFF in a statement following its filing of an appeal on Tuesday . The brass suggest that Apple has not yet done “ an thorough search elsewhere ” to find the data it seeks , and that Apple must certify it has done so before it can expect Nfox to rick over any information .
“ The Superior Court ’s ruling exalted statutory swop secret aegis over constitutional rights , misapplied the test for when the constitutional newsperson ’s privilege may be have the best , and disregard the Stored Communications Act entirely , ” said EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston . Bankston ’s instruction consult to Union legislating enacted in 1986 . The Stored Communications Act ( SCA ) is a Union law which protects the privacy of , among other thing , atomic number 99 - chain armor stored by Internet Service Providers ( ISPs ) .
Apple was not available for commentary when MacCentral posted this clause , but the company routinely does not comment on issues associate to pending litigation .
