dria.org

Three stories just jumped out at me (via RSS feed through ThunderBird).

First, Lawmakers: Hands off Web logs.

“Curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the Web for original, insightful political commentary,” said the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers and online activists.

Second, Apple Wins Trade Secrets Legal Dispute.

A California judge on Friday ruled that three independent online reporters may have to divulge confidential sources in a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc., ruling that there are no legal protections for those who publish a company’s trade secrets.
…
Free speech advocates and attorneys for the reporters criticized the ruling, insisting that all journalists should enjoy the same legal protections as reporters in mainstream newsrooms.

Third, and not related to the first two, AOL Eavesdrops, Grants Itself Permission To Steal Your AIM Conversations.

Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.

Off the cuff, underinformed commentary?

First, I applaud the democratisation of the media. Big fan. With that, however, is the caveat: buyer beware. For every weblog out there that’s actually worth reading, there are 10,000 that suck (including this one). Informed reading is becoming increasingly important in this age of sound bites and 11 o’clock sensationalism. For example, don’t believe everything you read on Slashdot. Hoo boy.

Second, having a weblog doesn’t make you a journalist. If someone told me something he shouldn’t have because of an NDA, I would be a fool to think that I could claim the same protections as journalists if I published it on this website. Anyone with a computer and a phone line can set up a weblog in about 30 seconds, and that sure as hell shouldn’t afford them the same protections as accredited journalists. That seems to go against my favouring of the democratisation of the media, but not really. I just think that anyone who is going to claim to be a journalist better not be doing so just to save themselves some legal grief. Journalists have rights, yes, but they also have some responsibilities. If webloggers are going to claim the title of “journalist”, I think they should require some form of accreditation, if only so they understand that there are ethics and responsibilities involved.

Third, well, to the third I can only say, “thank god for IRC”. Might be time to set up a secure private network somewhere.