Just Charlotte

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock this week, you’ll probably have read all about the TechCrunch/Twitter/stolen documents saga which has encompassed intense ethical debates as well as discussions about the actual content of the material.

If you missed the story, I’ll give you a quick recap. Earlier this week, TechCrunch received hundreds of documents apparently stolen (virtually) from Twitter HQ by a French hacker. Michael Arrington, the founder of TechCrunch, decided to publish a selection of the documents which did not contain data of a particularly sensitive or personal nature.

This decision, despite it being something of a compromise after Arrington held talks with the top dogs at Twitter, was criticised by many at the time who made sure their anger was felt by leaving comments on TechCrunch as the events were unfolding. Since the publication, accusations have been directed towards Arrington which, in all honesty, have been of a far more personal nature than the content published by TechCrunch. Some have called for him to resign whilst others have questioned his morals and sense of what’s right and what’s not.

Whilst such accusations have understandable elements to them, Arrington really deserves to be defended. If TechCrunch had turned down the documents, they would have been taken elsewhere, perhaps to an individual who wouldn’t have stopped to think about the sensitive nature of some of the content which was disregarded by Arrington. The implications of that for Twitter could have been, if not disastrous, at least highly humiliating.

Furthermore, in my mind, Arrington is simply doing his job. After all, the sense of responsibility, ethical or otherwise, should surely lie with the French hacker who stole the documents in the first place. All Arrington did was report the news. At least the content published was true…take a look at The Sun today and you’ll not only be confronted by numerous stories of a sensitive nature (many of which will have fallen into the editor’s hands by means many would instantly call unethical) but you’ll also have to question the validity of 90% of them.

If there’s any element of interest in this story at all, it’s that access to these documents was gained after the hacker apparently guessed the password/security question of a Twitter employee. I think this emphasises the slight element of naivety which many people, even those who work in the web industry, have towards online activity. Too many people use a universal password to gain access to their e-mails, bank accounts, and other online areas which contain potentially sensitive information. I think it also exposes the inherent weakness of the security question as a means of protecting such accounts and it is issues such as these that should be hitting the headlines.