We’ve had plenty of examples over the past couple of years of how Twitter can be used to break news, especially news that official sources don’t want revealed, and we got another one this week when the Obama administration tried and failed to keep the president’s trip to Afghanistan a secret from everyone but the official White House press corps. Twitter broke the news, naturally, thanks to a post from an Afghan news website, and the incident raised a number of questions about how political news works in a digital world of real-time distributed information — and whether official secrets are becoming a thing of the past.

As several outlets including CNN and The Huffington Post have described, the White House tried to keep the news of President Obama’s trip to the Afghanistan capital of Kabul secret for the usual reasons — the main one being that the commander-in-chief’s life could be threatened if his exact movements were known, especially the dates and times when he would be flying, and therefore at risk of an attack. So the White House did what it always does: namely, tell the press corps, swear them to secrecy and then release some cover story about all-day meetings with dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Information wants to be free, and Twitter wants to help

That all worked pretty well, right up until the point at which the Afghan news website TOLONews posted a comment on Twitter about the fact that Obama was about to meet with Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The tweet was quickly deleted — presumably after a nasty phone call from someone working for the State Department — but the news had already escaped into the wild. Soon, Twitter messages appeared asking whether the president was actually in Washington or whether he was in Afghanistan.

Even then, the Obama administration’s persuasive methods managed to stem most of the leaks: officials denied the president was on his way to Afghanistan (a fact that was technically true at the time they stated it, since his flight hadn’t left yet) and then later asked websites like Buzzfeed to pull down the Twitter posts they had published with speculation about the trip. Ben Smith of Buzzfeed — formerly of Politico — said the decision was a tough one, but in the end the site decided to play ball:

Like most news organizations, we will typically defer to the White House’s judgment on true security risks… it didn’t seem like the right moment to have an abstract argument about the contemporary media ecosystem, though I think it’s getting harder and harder to unring these bells.

Of course, there were sources that government officials couldn’t do anything about, including the Drudge Report — “There is nothing you can do about Drudge,” said one administration source — and Twitter. Presumably other users inside Afghanistan saw the TOLONews message, something that could have turned into a bigger source of leaks if there were more overlap between Twitter users in that country and the U.S. With the ability that sources of news now have to go direct, it’s surprising that the White House or any other government can keep much secret at all.

Secrecy is the government’s friend, but not always the public’s

The ability to manage what information gets out and when has been one of the chief weapons of any American government — whether it’s secret info about the Bay of Pigs invasion, or President Kennedy’s various sexual liaisons, or the break-ins at Watergate that toppled Richard Nixon’s government. In a recent speech, Watergate icon Robert Woodward scoffed at the idea that the internet would have been of any help in such a case, which seems to deliberately ignore everything we’ve learned from Wikileaks about the fragility of official secrets.

In a somewhat bizarre coincidence, the same week that saw the Obama government try to maintain a White House secret also saw the Associated Press newswire apologize to the reporter that it fired more than 60 years ago — after he broke the official embargo on the end of World War II. Edward Kennedy was one of a handful of reporters who were told that the Germans were signing a treaty to end the war, but were forbidden to publish that news until they got the green light from the U.S. government. Kennedy got frustrated with the wait and eventually filed a report to the wire, which led to his dismissal.

Imagine what might have happened during World War II — or Vietnam or any other global conflict — if soldiers and reporters and even government agents had had access to Twitter and Facebook and mobile phones. Would those wars have been fought differently? It’s easy for the Obama government, or any government, to argue that secrecy is required for the safety of the president, and that of his family (a recent trip that involved the Obama children was also kept secret, to the point where stories about it were removed from the internet). And national security is an even bigger defence.

While those kinds of arguments might work for official sources who belong to the clubby White House press corps, however, they probably aren’t going to sway other non-official sources, who now have the means to publish just as widely as any newspaper. Does that mean the government will eventually try to censor Twitter and Facebook, or will it just try to play the game by these new rules?

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users Jennifer Moo and New Media Days

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The 2013 task management tools market
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Examining the rise of crowd labor platforms in 2012

The unanimous three-judge ruling was handed down by California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that is an authority on computer and technology issues. The case was about a company called Psystar that came up with a way to provide its customers with Mac-like laptops for $699. It did this by copying Apple’s operating system onto cheaper computers.

Psystar also shipped its computers, called “OpenMacs”, with a disc containing an authorized copy of the Apple software. The point of including the disc was not for the customer’s benefit — the $699 computers already had the software installed — but an attempt to get around copyright law.

When it was sued, Psystar tried to argue that Apple was abusing copyright by refusing to let people use software that had they validly purchased. The argument was based on the legal rule that a copyright owner’s rights expire after an article has been sold (this is why you can sell a used book or CD). In the case of Psystar’s Mac clones, however, the court ruled that the principle did not apply because people did not actually own the software but instead used it subject to a license from Apple. The license amounts to a contract that limits how the software can be used.

The outcome of the appeals court decision is not a great surprise because the software license theory is a long-established part of the legal landscape. What did come as a surprise, however, is a short section at the end of the ruling that said a lower court was wrong in letting Apple seal documents related to the case. The 9th Circuit said it had joined another influential court in believing there is “a strong presumption in favor of access” when it comes to court records.

This could prove bothersome for Apple, which is known for being highly secretive, even by the standards of technology companies. In legal matters, Apple routinely tries to seal anything and everything related to the hundreds of lawsuits in which it has been involved. One prominent recent example is the case in which a patent troll called Lodsys is suing companies that develop apps for the Apple store. Apple claims that it has a license that protects the developers and has filed a copy with the court — but then convinced the court to promptly seal the license.

In its decision, the California court may be sending a message that Apple and others are going too far with their requests to conceal documents, and that iit s time for them to be more transparent in their legal proceedings.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Consumer privacy in the mobile advertising era
• Takeaways from mobile’s second quarter
• The evolution of consumer-media cloud storage

Regarding corporate culture, the New York Times illustrates just how secretive Apple can be, describing multiple checkpoints for those working on top-secret projects, and security that doesn’t end at the cubicle, either.

Work spaces are typically monitored by security cameras, this employee said. Some Apple workers in the most critical product-testing rooms must cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful, he said.

Does anyone else think this sounds like something out of a Half-Life expansion? Of course, internal security is just part of the equation. The other side, the public one, includes actions like providing analysts with potentially misleading statements. Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray describes the company as a “a total black box,” relating the story of a senior Apple executive who told him four years ago that Apple “had no interest in developing a cheap iPod with no screen.” This was shortly before the iPod Shuffle was unveiled.

Less oblique have been Apple’s efforts to deal with leaks, not just those who reveal information, but those who publish rumors. The story of Think Secret and the “Asteroid” breakout box for GarageBand, in which Apple sued and ultimately lost, is related. Of course, as part of the settlement Think Secret was effectively shut down, and a lot of other rumor sites were effectively shut up.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with the culture of secrecy at Apple, except possibly relating to Steve Jobs’ health issues. The New York Times cites divided opinion as to the amount of legal disclosure required, noting that day-to-day operation of the company had been handed off before Jobs’ leave of absence for a liver transplant. However, Cult of Mac interviewed Paul Argenti, Professor of Corporate Communication, who did not hesitate to give his opinion.

“The difference between a nutritional imbalance and a liver transplant is huge,” said Prof. Argenti to CoM by phone. “If this is not a legal issue and a Regulation FD issue, I don’t know what is.”

“The law is very clear — full disclosure of material information,” said Argenti. “If a CEO’s liver transplant isn’t material, what is? But whether the SEC has the balls to do something about it, we’ll see.”

What Professor Argenti does not go on to to say with his colorful use of language is that the SEC is ultimately tasked with protecting shareholders. Barring any breaking of actual law, in the coldest fiduciary terms the question then becomes whether Steve Jobs’ actions increase or decrease company value. Apple stock was valued at around $85 a share in January when he left, and is now approximately $135. Does anyone really see shares of Apple declining now that Steve Jobs has returned?

For Apple, the bet on secrecy is one that always seems to pay off.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• Research In Motion: future scenarios for its fate
• The evolution of consumer-media cloud storage

Ciarelli points to the many recent instances of early product leaks from other rumor sites which have not resulted in site closures or suits.  The following is from an interview conducted for the article:

“There’s no doubt that Apple has changed,” Jeremy Horwitz, editor in chief of iLounge, told me in an email. “Probably due to the awful PR its prior lawsuits generated, and because cease-and-desist letters only confirm leaks, Apple has wisely stopped going after the people who generate its ‘buzz.’”

Apple has not only become more mellow with product leaks.  The recent lifting of the restrictive NDA is yet more proof that Jobs and company are beginning to see that with rapid growth comes a necessary relaxing of control.  It was far easier to maintain a culture of silence when Mac users were a much smaller and less vocal group.  Increased sales, attention from the mainstream press, and the heightened degree of credibility accorded tech news and review websites and blogs have combined to create a consumer environment antithetical to secretive Apple corporate practice.

So what are the next steps?  More cooperation with companies and organizations like DisplayLink, and OpenClip seeking to develop utilities Mac users are hungry for but Apple seems unwilling to provide?  Let’s hope that a more open and communicative Cupertino is in fact on the horizon.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How do developers ride the Siri wave?
• Connectivity means making the machine disappear
• Access vs. ownership: Why UltraViolet has already lost