Techcrunch and Twitter Documents: Was it Ethical? Was it Smart?

Possibly because this is the type of thing TC excel at - publishing what is still private information. We're not stakeholders or shareholders in Twitter, we're users. Financial information should only be available to shareholders and investors. Say the result of the publication had resulted in Twitter losing advertisers, investors, whatever, and the service had to fold. Would it still be acceptable then?

Twitter could still have learned from this via private discourse between Arrington and Ev. Users are kept up-to-date with what affects us immediately via Twitter's blog anyway. They already react to user suggestions (the @ feature and the fallout from that) - financial records aren't (or shouldn't be) part of the deal. It's like a bank employee taking your financial information and selling to not only credit agencies but anyone you might ever encounter - future lovers, friends, work colleagues, etc. Do you really agree that should be up for discussion unless you choose it to be?

Interesting thoughts, Christopher!

I agree, journalists do have to make some tough decisions and TechCrunch (whether it was tough or not) made the choice to publish some of the stolen documents. What I disagree with though is that Mashable and other sites would've published them anyway. There's a reason no one has ever questioned Mashable's ethics or that they bait with their content. Them taking the stance that TC has would have been very uncharacteristic, IMO.

As for the users - you make some valid points that we have the ability to show our displeasure and likes of the information that's out, and Twitter can utilize it to help them - but that's where TC's reputation comes into play. I'm not questioning their rep as a tech blog, of course they've earned that. But what I am questioning is with their borderline pieces comes TMZ-like reactions and comments. They have some very intellectual commentary, but with that also comes a ton of trolls and less value in continued discussions within the comments. Just my opinion, but I feel the respect of their blog, regardless of how many subscribers/readers they have, has changed immensely in the last 12 months.

Danny,

How is TC publishing this information any different from the NY Times publishing leaked memos on the Iraq war effort of the previous administration? The NY Times published memos on key policy decisions & strategies on the war which could have put people's lives at risk. A small startup's TV ideas & dreams of getting 1b users is nothing. Rumsfeld & the Bush administration didn't hand over the documents to the NY Times. Someone stole them and handed them to the press. In this case, someone sent the documents to TC & others. I don't see the separation except that in one case, we're talking about a Web 2.0 startup and in the other, we're talking about keeping the lives of our service men & women, and the Iraqi police forces safe from harm.

And what of the leaked documents on "Big Tobacco" and their efforts to get children to smoke which were authored in the 60s, & 70s and leaked in the mid-90s? They didn't hand them over so they could be litigated against. Those documents were stolen. And what of Wikileaks? How come they get to publish all sorts of stuff but no one bats an eyelash when it happens. All of that information was private. It seems as if people are angry at TechCrunch just because its TechCrunch.

Why is leaked private information in one example different from the other?

WRT your analogy, my personal identifiable information is protected under the law - so are some transactions (not all). My salary is not. Similarly, it is not illegal to know income projections. If TC released the bank account numbers of Twitter & its employees, yeah, I'd say that's a no-no. But projected income? No. Not in the private world. For public companies, the timing of the release of income projections are controlled to prevent insider trading. But the actual projection - even if it is ridiculously wrong - is not "private" information like a SSN.

Let me say this of TechCruch vs Mashable: they are two different blogs tracking two different industries and, therefore, have a different focus from one another. TechCrunch looks after the startup/VC world using a business perspective; Mashable focuses on the social media with a personable touchy-feely perspective. Mashable not publishing the financials might not have anything to do with "ethics" but with the idea it goes against what they cover.

Mashable lists the top 10 celebrities on Twitter & shows me the top 10 viral videos on YouTube. TechCrunch lists user growth, VC funding rounds & the type of funding rounds they are, and, most recently, an article on how Google's earnings were broken down. Its like comparing the magazine Fast Company to The Economist. They sometimes cover the same topics but the approach is very different. One is touchy-feely, the other is business.

And its not to say they can't deviate from a set mission statement. Mashable has recently written articles on the RIAA's campaigns against file sharers, copyright laws, & fair use. TechCrunch has also talked about gadgets, social media games, & viral videos. But the major approach they take in their writing is still very different from one another.

It isn't different, Christopher. This piece is about Techcrunch and Twitter. I have issues with any publication or company that conducts business in the less-than-ethical manner of Techcrunch in this instance (I've written numerous pieces on my own blog about ethical practices and business).

The key word you use here is "stolen" - therefore not legal (to take it to its most basic). If information is known to be stolen, you're simply becoming an accomplice to theft by publishing it. This goes for TC, Mashable, NYT or any other publication, print or otherwise.

Yes, the TC and Mashable audience is usually very different but something like Twitter is much more mainstream than the usual TC fare. So comparisons in this case are valid.

Personally, yes, leaked information will always sell newspapers/publications, but stolen information should be returned and who knows, may lead to an even more informative piece because you have the backing of the company in question?

There's a reason why theft is a crime; news "stories" shouldn't be above that, or else we may as well all give up now.

Danny,

I think I see where you're coming from. If I'm understanding you correctly, the mere fact the information was taken from Twitter against their will makes publishing it bad. Right? If I'm right in that interpretation, then whistle-blowing sites like Wikileaks are bad, too. And the NY Times would be wrong for publishing that leaked or stolen documentation, as well.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with you IF the publishing organization stole the information because that's espionage. Since TC and any other media organizations didn't do the actual stealing, I'm less bothered by it and I'll go back to my statements of how Twitter can learn from this, grow from it, and how its users can benefit and feel more connected to the organization (vs the community) it has built. But once some 3rd party has done the thieving, its a news story and I would never want the media to cover up a story unless there was a minor involved; that's how we, as citizens, keep governments and big corporations in check.

Nevertheless, it appears as if you're more concerned about the nature in which the news was leaked to the press and not the fact it was TechCrunch that wrote articles on the information. I respect that. I don't think TC did anything wrong or unethical, per se. Its not illegal either - the hack was. But I can see how the decision to publish information like this could be looked at as ungentlemanly, unsportsmanly, and done in bad taste considering some personal information was taken (although not published by TC or any other firm). Not unethical by journalistic standards, IMHO, but I'm no journalist; I just read the news...

...and comment occasionally. ;-)

Yikes, running out of column width here... :)

Yep, it's more to do with the ethical side. I'm all for whistleblowing (funnily enough, I was part of a "business improvement" team back in my days at BT in the UK, and we encouraged employees to come forward and voice concerns without fear of reprisal under "whistleblower protection"). Sometimes issues that need dealing with have to be made public, even if they cause some squirming high up.

I guess the main issue I have here with TC (and it'd be the same for any publication) is when do you decide what's stolen and what's leaked, and should they be handled or reported on differently?

I'm all for free press and will defend journalistic rights to the hilt - the last thing I want is for the same kind of monitoring as China or Iran. I'm just concerned that publishing "stolen" stories will result in tighter restrictions in the media, when better dialogue between parties could see it all handled far better. And, yes, remain on the ethical side of the fence.

Great conversation, here, Christopher, cheers! :)

Them be some strong words Danny. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Not often I see you so critical. I think I like it (=

Oh, I can be as critical as the next guy, mate, I just don't let it out often... ;-)

I respect Arrington for what he's achieved, and wrote a blog post to that effect a while back. But you know, there are ways of conducting business, and both Arrington and Techcrunch seem to be forgetting that lately.

Is it because the likes of Mashable and ReadWriteWeb are snapping at TC's heels? Maybe. Yet instead of turning into the website equivalent of "that guy", why not keep the respect, grow the readership (and advertisers) with an ethical news style?

Yes, everyone loves scandal and good gossip fodder, but it grates eventually and the backlash begins (think of Perex Hilton). If you look at the comments section of any TC post, you'll often find people castigating TC as opposed to agreeing on its stance. That's not the sign of a great topic; more the sign of questionable approaches.

Great comment Sean when some very insightful points.

To the point of Techcrunch needing to confirm with Twitter that these documents are real or legit, I don't think Techcrunch is often concerned with legitimacy. They like to gossip about rumors. That kind of news requires no confirmation of legitimacy.

Thanks for your contribution.

Really interesting points Jason.

Should we be condemning the NYT for sharing the information as well? At what point are news sites not responsible down the line?

Also a very good point about the fraternal nature of this industry. Something to think about.

That's interesting, I didn't know Mashable was also sent the documents.

The difference between Mashable and Techcrunch definitely seems to be made crystal clear in this issue and is a notable distinction. Mashable is an extremely popular and successful blog and they never resort to the type of "rumor" or "confrontation based" content that techcrunch relies on for traffic boosts.

Yea I don't think (I don't really know) that there are any legal ramifications for techcrunch here. I agree, the biggest issue with me isn't necessarily what they did, but how they went about it.

Though the security issue is with Twitter and is the main issue, it's not up to TechCrunch to post growth potential and strategies for the company.

We have interests in every company's growth potential, especially if we're making products related to it, but does that mean we're owed any sort of sneak peak into what they have planned on the business side of things? I don't think so.

I didn't mean to suggest that we/the public is owed anything. We're not. As a private company, Twitter is under no obligation to disclose financial information.

The question is whether the information is newsworthy. I'd argue that it is.

I believe security issues are, as that is the main problem here. But I just don't feel that a company's financial/growth strategies are something that is newsworthy. It more so makes Twitter to look like a bigger fool. Though I'd guess just as many ppl may be feeling the same way about TechCrunch.

Point taken. Thanks for staying with me on this.

Ditto - appreciate your viewpoint, Bill.

Thanks Rich,

I see what you're saying but I have to disagree that the information in the documents was less newsworthy.

It's certainly interesting that Twitter had a very obvious username and passwork on some important documents, but I don't think that's the real story compared to something like how Twitter plans to monetize. Everyone and their mother have been sharing their opinions on the future of twitter, and any insight into how Twitter sees it's future certainly seems quite newsworthy. The New York Times doesn't post multiple articles on a topic that isn't newsworthy.