> I completely understand what's in it for the reporter, but I've never understood what the employee gets out of it. I've been reading Mark Gurman's scoops about Apple for years so I'm definitely biased in wanting that to continue. It just seems like there's tons of upside for the reporter and only downside for the leaker.
There's four reasons people leak information:
1. Out of moral responsibility to report unsafe or illegal activity.
2. To cause direct harm to the root organization because they feel slighted by some action in the past.
3. The "leak" is officially sanctioned as part of a submarine.
Somewhere on there should be personal vendettas. More than once I’ve seen screenshots of internal conversations on Business Insider that were clearly motivated by a desire to get that person fired.
I think that's sort of related to #2, "to get even for some perceived slight" although parent is specifically mentioning organization and not an individual in the org.
I'll repost a comment I made a few moments ago [0] again here:
> Are media organizations like 9to5mac (mentioned in Apple's memo) paying Apple insiders for the information they provide?
> Personally, I wouldn't think that the leakers were getting paid. Even if they were, I imagine the amount that these particular online web sites are able to pay is very much -- especially when compared to the average Apple employee's salary.
Let's take the memo linked in TFA, for example. Just how much can we expect Bloomberg might pay for a copy of this memo? I can't imagine that it would be very much at all -- certainly not enough to make it worth the risk of being caught.
> This makes me think that money isn't the primary motivating factor, if it is a factor at all.
You're only talking about one specific kind of leak.
How much would a hardware manufacturer be willing to pay to get specs of the latest iPhone in advance so their accessories can be out in the market before anyone else?
What about a competitor who wants to know more about the company's future releases.
All of this happens, and companies have to work to prevent it.
> You're only talking about one specific kind of leak.
Yeah, you're right.
I was focusing on leaks to media/news sites but that's because the Apple memo seemed to focus on that as well (e.g., "The employee who leaked the meeting to a reporter ...", "Instead, people who work for Apple are often targeted by press, analysts and bloggers ...", and so on), although they did specifically mention leaks "in the supply chain" too.
Leaking/selling company information to a competitor or rival is obviously a concern as well but I think this memo is pretty clearly aimed at those who might consider leaking to the press.
In addition, paying sources for information could lead to "fake" or incorrect information being provided to the media by "leakers" who are simply in need of money.
I think it’s a lot more complicated than your oversimplification. For example, where does a quid-pro-quo relationship fit into your categories?
Saying leaked out of “ego” is equivalent to saying it was leaked “because”. We know it was something internal to the leaker’s psyche, but research should help us understand what led up to that point and how it could have been avoided.
For example, would you say a gossiper gossips because of “ego”?
A gossiper gossips to raise their status; having inside information (and revealing it) shows that they are more knowledgable than the person they gossip to.
There's four reasons people leak information:
1. Out of moral responsibility to report unsafe or illegal activity.
2. To cause direct harm to the root organization because they feel slighted by some action in the past.
3. The "leak" is officially sanctioned as part of a submarine.
4. Ego.
Numbers 3 and 4 are the biggies.