Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[grarpamp]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-journalists-ignore-some-leaked-emails
http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and
https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-emails-1f2081122915

Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which
showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer:
"I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't
for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now
mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing
that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers
for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This is perfectly legal. As long
as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly
allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this
case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation
of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to
expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however
unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with
our election...

As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the
availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these
discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets
journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it
would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was
providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using
them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is
it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet,
even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"