WHEN hackers sent an email on Sept 16 containing the personal data of some 300,000 customers of local karaoke bar chain K Box, it sparked a question that regularly challenges the ST newsroom: How should the newspaper draw the fine line between privacy and public interest? PEH SHING HUEI who assumed the News editor's post recently explains how he and his colleagues covering the story arrived at the decision to meet its obligation in satisfying public interest without compromising personal privacy.
(ST) journalist Pearl Lee ("K Box members feeling angry and insecure"; Sept 17) has named (online site) The Real Singapore as one of the media outlets that had received K Box membership information. Her editors might not be aware that the "report" on TRS contains a hyperlink to allow readers to download the stolen K Box database? This is downright irresponsible of ST. In addition, I do not think TRS deserves any mention by a respectable publication such as ST.
The article ("K Box members feeling angry and insecure"; Sept 17) should not direct people to The Real Singapore website because people will visit the site to view the leaked information and download it. This means the leaked info will be further spread and cause more harm. I think it is also unwise to say The Real Singapore is a socio-political website because I think it is just a tabloid website.
I AM curious to know why there was no coverage of the ongoing City Harvest Church trial on Aug 5 and 6 print edition of The Straits Times.
ALFRED LAM CHUN YIP
THE trial of City Harvest is news and of great public interest. Why is it now being blacked out. Don't the public and readers deserve to be well informed of such an earth-trembling trial?
JOHN TAN CHOR-YONG