• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Gizmodo gets its hands on the new iPhone prototype

Status
Not open for further replies.
StopMakingSense said:
But what they did do was describe, in public, how their source committed a felony in selling the phone to Gizmodo. That really fucks over their source.
Click to expand...

And in the process how Jason Chen implicated himself in the crime by paying $5000 for it.
 
StopMakingSense said:
But what they did do was describe, in public, how their source committed a felony in selling the phone to Gizmodo. That really fucks over their source.
Click to expand...
A lot of their boasting and posts are gonna fuck themselves and the finder over, you're right.

Especially bits about how much they paid for the damn thing and Brian lam's idiot response to apple that they "didn't know it was stolen" when they bought it.

If they had just stuck to the line that they were paying for access, they might be ok.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for gizmodo. If they had decent legal counsel, they would have just posted the blurry pictures of the iphone like engadget, we would think they were fake till June and they would have been proven right after the reveal.
 
Looking for more info on Gizmodo's shady past, and found this gem.

http://tinyurl.com/2ffn3br "I have Engadget and Gizmodo next to each other," says Jobs, pointing at an invisible screen. And then the punchline: "But I like Gizmodo much better."

equap said:
no. engadget is aol.
Click to expand...

Dude changed it from Engadget to Kotaku.
 
Could anyone familiar with US law tell us the implications of this? Both for Chen and Gizmodo? How far could this be taken?
 
I meant Kotaku's front page... no Engadgets. Post edited. Anyway you can find more here:

http://kotaku.com/312573/an-apology
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/10/18/kotaku-tubgirl/
http://www.geekbrief.tv/shame-on-gizmodo/

Anywaym Gizmodo's primary fuck-up was... well there's too many for it to be truly primary. But one of their biggest fuck ups was to make the story about acquiring the phone in the first place. Up to about half of the "reveal" post was about getting the damn thing!

It should have been "Yo - This is the new iPhone - straight-up." And let everyone else speculate about its validity and how they got it.

And of course, they shouldn't have bought it outright to begin with.
 
LCfiner said:
Especially bits about how much they paid for the damn thing and Brian lam's idiot response to apple that they "didn't know it was stolen" when they bought it.

If they had just stuck to the line that they were paying for access, they might be ok.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for gizmodo. If they had decent legal counsel, they would have just posted the blurry pictures of the iphone like engadget, we would think they were fake till June and they would have been proven right after the reveal.
Click to expand...
i seriously don't think a snarky comment from Lam adds anything to this, aside being emblematic of Gizmodo writers as a pure idiots.

the amount of words and schadenfreude spilled over this is pathetic.
 
scorcho said:
i seriously don't think a snarky comment from Lam adds anything to this, aside being emblematic of Gizmodo writers as a pure idiots.

the amount of words and schadenfreude spilled over this is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe not. I don't know for sure. But it was a definite contradiction over previous posts made by gizmodo employees that they were paying for access, not for the device.

Of course, once they took it apart, I guess that line of defense went down the shitter anyway.
 
Gary Whitta said:
The cops have people that can recover data off hard drives that have been burned in a fire, I don't think Chen's passwords are going to trouble them too much.
Click to expand...
Wha? If you burn a hard drive disc platter, the magnetic data is lost. You might be thinking of services that recover data from computers burnt in a fire but that's only in rare cases when a hard drive's platers were undamaged. You burn, shatter, drill or degauss an hard drive platter, the data is gone. There isn't secret CIA forensics that can reverse degauss a hard drive. Besides, we're talking about encryption which is totally different.
 
ckohler said:
Wha? If you burn a hard drive disc platter, the magnetic data is lost. You might be thinking of services that recover data from computers burnt in a fire but that's only in rare cases when a hard drive's platers were undamaged. You burn, shatter, drill or degauss an hard drive platter, the data is gone. There isn't secret CIA forensics that can reverse degauss a hard drive. Besides, we're talking about encryption which is totally different.
Click to expand...
Fuck that! they're totally gonna enhance that shit and get the info they need.
 
Dibbz said:
I'm behind on all this news so let me get this straight.

Guy found iPhone in a bar
Turned out to be prototype iPhone yet to be announced
Tried to contact and return to apple but they didn't believe him
Sold it to a website and they wrote about the new phone

Where does theft even fit into any of this?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of "theft by finding"? It sounds silly, but it's quite real. Finders are NOT legally keepers.
 
DoctorWho said:
Wait, did they reveal the name of who lost the phone? I take back my previous statement if true. That is a scummy thing to do.
Click to expand...
Yes, in multiple articles, as well as photos, facebook and other personal information.
 
Fake Steve got me at:
Welcome to the jungle, Gawker guys. You merry pranksters got crazy with the wrong dude when you tangled with me. Oh, you had a good laugh. You had a big “scoop.” You thought were all badass, didn’t you?
Click to expand...
:lol :lol :lol
 
Fake Steve is right though. It's like returning to the scene of the crime or a serial killer that got away with it wanting to stroke his ego and tell everyone how smart he is. Giz are legally fucked, well this Chen guy is anyway.

Unlike serious professional journos who go to jail rather than reveal their sources, I have a feeling the Chen is going to, or already has given him up. I'd be spending that $5k pretty fast and shitting bricks right now!

Not sure if US law is similar, but in the UK we have "theft by finding". As soon as you start treating it as your own, you've stolen it. The guy had no right to sell it. Giz had no right to open it up. They're handling stolen goods. There defence of "we didnt know it belonged to Apple until we opened it up" is weak as well. Why pay 5k for a bit of junk?
 
Should have never paraded that engineer kid's personal life to grab more page views. Now karma is coming back to bite Gizmodo. :lol

I don't think it will result in any more than a few scary nights in the prison. Watch that soap. :D
 
Gary Whitta said:
Yes, in multiple articles, as well as photos, facebook and other personal information.
Click to expand...
I looked at the photos and specs but never read the actual article. What could they have possibly hoped to gain from contacting the original owner? They should have just reported on the product and left it at that. Looks like they fucked this up in every conceivable way.
 
i_am_not_jon_ames said:
Fake Steve got me at:
:lol :lol :lol
Click to expand...
Fake Steve said:
My guess is Jason Chen (above) is gonna be a very popular guy when he arrives in prison. He’ll look a lot like he does in the photo, except he’ll be wearing some lipstick, and that thing he’s holding next to his face won’t be an iPhone.
Click to expand...

OH SHIT :lol
 
The warrant was not approved as a "night search," and Gaby Darbyshire took issue with this fact because the search ended at 9:45 PM. However...

California Penal Code 1533 -- Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html

If the above is correct, "night searches" are searches after 10 PM, so they technically may not have violated the warrant.
 
numble said:
The warrant was not approved as a "night search," and Gaby Darbyshire took issue with this fact because the search ended at 9:45 PM. However...

California Penal Code 1533 -- Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html

If the above is correct, "night searches" are searches after 10 PM, so they technically may not have violated the warrant.
Click to expand...

From what I read the search only needs to begin between those hours. Looks like Gawker's barrister is working out brilliantly for them.
 
numble said:
The warrant was not approved as a "night search," and Gaby Darbyshire took issue with this fact because the search ended at 9:45 PM. However...

California Penal Code 1533 -- Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html

If the above is correct, "night searches" are searches after 10 PM, so they technically may not have violated the warrant.
Click to expand...
Plus, according to what the cops told Chen, they arrived a few hours prior to 9:45.
 
mightynine said:
Interesting thought over at Daring Fireball:
Click to expand...

More from Gruber to underscore the main thrust of this:

Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.”
Click to expand...

The section of code their barrister references protects journalists from penalty of contempt from failure to comply with a subpeona, etc. It doesn't protect them from search warrants issued with probable cause.
 
Chin up, Gizmodo! Hang in there David Chen! Were still rooting for you.
 
editor-joshua-topolsky.jpg
 
Perhaps if the retards hadn't been all "hey check this out, we paid $5000 for stolen property!" they wouldn't be in this mess. I don't get why they simply didn't say the story was sent to them via an anonymous email tip.
 
mightynine said:
Hmmm. I wonder how that will apply to Giz's source.
Click to expand...


Let's put it this way, if Jason Chen murdered someone, and the police had probable cause to believe there was evidence on his computer of his murder, the shield laws wouldn't apply, would they. According to Gawker's barrister, they would.

Change murder to felony theft and there you go.
 
PotatoeMasher said:
Gaby Darbyshire is making a nice push to be named the nation's worst provider of legal opinion in 2010.
Click to expand...

That's what gets me. You'd think at some point during the past couple of weeks she'd have realized she's out of her depth and hired a lawyer. One who's licensed to practice in California, and familiar with the law there.
 
"So, Apple Employee Gray Powell’s personal details get plastered all over Gizmodo. Jason Chen’s get pixelated" is an awesome, awesome quote. Fuck Gizmodo.

I think it is finally sinking in (for literally the first time in years) for these guys that they exist in the REAL WORLD. Not some mythical internet world.

By leaking the new iPhone, they materially damaged Apple, a publically-traded company. And not for the first time.

This is not a message board, Gizmodo. You can't just do... whatever... and then shout "Objection! Read back the minutes!" when called on it. This is real life.
 
I understand the thing about Gizmodo being total dicks, their legal advice possibly being questionable, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand, as a consumer, being upset about them leaking details about a new phone though.
 
before we cheer the seizure of all of Chen's computers, there's still little notice as to whether the cops are targeting Chen specifically, the anonymous seller, or both.

AstroLad said:
I understand the thing about Gizmodo being total dicks, their legal advice possibly being questionable, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand, as a consumer, being upset about them leaking details about a new phone though.
Click to expand...
because it's Apple a;dfnel;kn34J489)DFOPJILSK!!! fyord.
 
AstroLad said:
I understand the thing about Gizmodo being total dicks, their legal advice possibly being questionable, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand, as a consumer, being upset about them leaking details about a new phone though.
Click to expand...

Are people upset about this? All the people that I noticed are upset over this is because they revealed the engineer who lost the phone, not because they revealed the phone.
 
It's more an issue of journalistic responsibility and professionalism, something the blogosphere really needs a kick in the ass about. If Gizmodo had been on a press tour of Apple and had spotted a prototype device on someone's desk and swiped it then opened it up and written about it on their website, along with a bunch of personal info and photos that they also found on the guy's desk, they would be journalistic scum. What they actually did is barely any different than that.
 
AstroLad said:
I understand the thing about Gizmodo being total dicks, their legal advice possibly being questionable, etc. etc. etc. I don't understand, as a consumer, being upset about them leaking details about a new phone though.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Wtf?

I haven't actually been paying attention to this thread, so I don't know if it's here, but I have definitely seen anger at someone daring to leak an apple product elsewhere. Along with a certain degree of revelry in seeing a company punished for doing so, and a sudden and inexplicable near universal hatred of this particular site that I'd never ever seen expressed before.
 
Gawker as an institution deserves whatever shit flies their way. They treat their workers like shit. Have no respect for sources. Lack basic integrity yet cry for Journalistic-treatment at incidents like this.
 
Gary Whitta said:
It's more an issue of journalistic responsibility and professionalism, something the blogosphere really needs a kick in the ass about. If Gizmodo had been on a press tour of Apple and had spotted a prototype device on someone's desk and swiped it then opened it up and written about it on their website, along with a bunch of personal info and photos that they also found on the guy's desk, they would be journalistic scum. What they actually did is barely any different than that.
Click to expand...

It's highly unethical sure, but the real problem is it's a felony. They fucked up by stating they paid for the phone, rather than for access to the device. They even established the value of the phone ($5,000).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple posts a very cringe ad for new iPhone - A ferret gets triggered
48
749
PonyStation4 replied
Foldable iPhone renders
2
79
1K
Trilobit replied
No, you´re not getting old: iPhone keyboard is broken
15
648
TheUnicornGuy replied
Robotic Hands
13
578
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Ultra clear look for the iPhone is wild. Here's how to get it.
48
2K
ShirAhava replied
Top Bottom