Support NeoGAF

[TemplaerDude]

this is a really long thread for a phone.

 

[polyh3dron]

this is a really long thread for a phone.

The iPhone is not just a phone. If you had one or had used one for a sustained period of time you would know this.

Plus, this is about an Apple prototype getting shown to the public way before it is meant to get shown. This hasn't happened before, Apple is notorious for their security measures in place to prevent this kind of thing. It's a huge story in the tech world.

 

[boredJonathan]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many are chomping at the bit for Gizmodo to get taken down over this. I agree, the way they plastered the guy who lost the phone's info all over was out of line - but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

Even for all of their immature pranks in the past - this is a *felony* we are talking about, and could possibly have ramifications for other more legitimate blogs doing reporting in the future. Of course, I'd hope that a more legit blog wouldn't need to commit a possible felony in the first place - but still...

Even if a felony was commited, it was against Apple - not a person, a corporation. This felony charge is directed against a person, not a corporation, at least from what I've seen, please correct me if I am wrong. It just doesn't seem right to me to be rooting for Apple in this case. He did some, possibly illegal, reporting about a device that I as a consumer was excited to find out about before some wave of PR - and the response here seems to mainly be to string him up. Instead of, well ya know - it was shady, and the way they handled it was fucked up - but tough luck Apple. Don't let your prototype devices wander around with employees if you don't want to risk these kinds of outcomes.

And really, even if this lawsuit comes down against Gizmodo/Gawker, I don't see a situation where a next-gen iPhone that is being put up for sale is not going to get bought by SOMEBODY. Even Engadet was looking to buy this device. Apple was screwed the second this phone was left at a bar. You can make the argument the guy who ended up with the phone should have tried harder to get it back to Apple - but why on earth would I have wanted him to do that? Again, as a consumer I was glad/excited to get a glimpse of the hardware early.

I don't know - I realize that more likely than not a felony *was* commited. And I can understand Apple wanting to follow through on the process, as they have a right too. I'm just not getting the attitude that I've seen some take of getting behind Apple prosecuting these guys.

 

[Costanza]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many are chomping at the bit for Gizmodo to get taken down over this. I agree, the way they plastered the guy who lost the phone's info all over was out of line - but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

Even for all of their immature pranks in the past - this is a *felony* we are talking about, and could possibly have ramifications for other more legitimate blogs doing reporting in the future. Of course, I'd hope that a more legit blog wouldn't need to commit a possible felony in the first place - but still...

Even if a felony was commited, it was against Apple - not a person, a corporation. This felony charge is directed against a person, not a corporation, at least from what I've seen, please correct me if I am wrong. It just doesn't seem right to me to be rooting for Apple in this case. He did some, possibly illegal, reporting about a device that I as a consumer was excited to find out about before some wave of PR - and the response here seems to mainly be to string him up. Instead of, well ya know - it was shady, and the way they handled it was fucked up - but tough luck Apple. Don't let your prototype devices wander around with employees if you don't want to risk these kinds of outcomes.

And really, even if this lawsuit comes down against Gizmodo/Gawker, I don't see a situation where a next-gen iPhone that is being put up for sale is not going to get bought by SOMEBODY. Even Engadet was looking to buy this device. Apple was screwed the second this phone was left at a bar. You can make the argument the guy who ended up with the phone should have tried harder to get it back to Apple - but why on earth would I have wanted him to do that? Again, as a consumer I was glad/excited to get a glimpse of the hardware early.

I don't know - I realize that more likely than not a felony *was* commited. And I can understand Apple wanting to follow through on the process, as they have a right too. I'm just not getting the attitude that I've seen some take of getting behind Apple prosecuting these guys.

Finally some sense in this thread.

 

[Easy_G]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many are chomping at the bit for Gizmodo to get taken down over this. I agree, the way they plastered the guy who lost the phone's info all over was out of line - but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

Even for all of their immature pranks in the past - this is a *felony* we are talking about, and could possibly have ramifications for other more legitimate blogs doing reporting in the future. Of course, I'd hope that a more legit blog wouldn't need to commit a possible felony in the first place - but still...

Even if a felony was commited, it was against Apple - not a person, a corporation. This felony charge is directed against a person, not a corporation, at least from what I've seen, please correct me if I am wrong. It just doesn't seem right to me to be rooting for Apple in this case. He did some, possibly illegal, reporting about a device that I as a consumer was excited to find out about before some wave of PR - and the response here seems to mainly be to string him up. Instead of, well ya know - it was shady, and the way they handled it was fucked up - but tough luck Apple. Don't let your prototype devices wander around with employees if you don't want to risk these kinds of outcomes.

And really, even if this lawsuit comes down against Gizmodo/Gawker, I don't see a situation where a next-gen iPhone that is being put up for sale is not going to get bought by SOMEBODY. Even Engadet was looking to buy this device. Apple was screwed the second this phone was left at a bar. You can make the argument the guy who ended up with the phone should have tried harder to get it back to Apple - but why on earth would I have wanted him to do that? Again, as a consumer I was glad/excited to get a glimpse of the hardware early.

I don't know - I realize that more likely than not a felony *was* commited. And I can understand Apple wanting to follow through on the process, as they have a right too. I'm just not getting the attitude that I've seen some take of getting behind Apple prosecuting these guys.

A felony is a felony. Gizmodo divulged WAY more information about the engineer than was necessary, possibly risking his job and livelihood. Gizmodo has a past of mean spirited pranks, incredibly biased reporting, and a complete lack of journalistic integrity. They are basically a tabloid for technology news. Just because people like reading about the iPhone doesn't make it okay to commit a felony.

 

[Vyer]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many are chomping at the bit for Gizmodo to get taken down over this. I agree, the way they plastered the guy who lost the phone's info all over was out of line - but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

.

Looking at the thread, it appears most of the disgust over Gizmodo is directed at the fact that this is just another item on a long list of General Douchebaggery.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many are chomping at the bit for Gizmodo to get taken down over this. I agree, the way they plastered the guy who lost the phone's info all over was out of line - but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

Even for all of their immature pranks in the past - this is a *felony* we are talking about, and could possibly have ramifications for other more legitimate blogs doing reporting in the future. Of course, I'd hope that a more legit blog wouldn't need to commit a possible felony in the first place - but still...

Even if a felony was commited, it was against Apple - not a person, a corporation. This felony charge is directed against a person, not a corporation, at least from what I've seen, please correct me if I am wrong. It just doesn't seem right to me to be rooting for Apple in this case. He did some, possibly illegal, reporting about a device that I as a consumer was excited to find out about before some wave of PR - and the response here seems to mainly be to string him up. Instead of, well ya know - it was shady, and the way they handled it was fucked up - but tough luck Apple. Don't let your prototype devices wander around with employees if you don't want to risk these kinds of outcomes.

And really, even if this lawsuit comes down against Gizmodo/Gawker, I don't see a situation where a next-gen iPhone that is being put up for sale is not going to get bought by SOMEBODY. Even Engadet was looking to buy this device. Apple was screwed the second this phone was left at a bar. You can make the argument the guy who ended up with the phone should have tried harder to get it back to Apple - but why on earth would I have wanted him to do that? Again, as a consumer I was glad/excited to get a glimpse of the hardware early.

I don't know - I realize that more likely than not a felony *was* commited. And I can understand Apple wanting to follow through on the process, as they have a right too. I'm just not getting the attitude that I've seen some take of getting behind Apple prosecuting these guys.

 

[Tacitus_]

I don't recall which phones have video conferencing with front facing cameras. This certainly isn't a feature of any mainstream phone I'm aware of.

Nokia since at least N70 (which came out in 2005). I think most, if not all phones in the N Series have them...

 

[SnakeXs]

Nokia since at least N70 (which came out in 2005). I think most, if not all phones in the N Series have them...

Hopefully Apple understands that to make it matter they need support and proper software.

It's not like that's what they excel at or anything.

 

[harriet the spy]

Dumb as he was, I still feel really bad for the poor engineer who lost the phone, especially given the 'welcome' he must have had at apple after that.
I am surprised anyone is supporting gizmodo in this. Don't give a shit about apple, but what they did to that guy was beyond malicious and retarded.

 

[maharg]

I don't recall which phones have video conferencing with front facing cameras. This certainly isn't a feature of any mainstream phone I'm aware of.

There was a pretty huge push on video-capable phones around here for Christmas the last two years. TV ads with college students talking to their moms with their video capable phones.

I think the most common case is flip phones with high quality outer shell displays. Like the Razr2. Basically, if it's a 3g phone but not a smartphone there's good odds it can or does have a front facing camera.

 

[StopMakingSense]

but I don't see how that equates to wanting them to get hit with a *felony*.

Gizmodo very publicly admitted to committing a felony as defined by California law.

 

[Burai]

That wasn't what Rubin said though, which means you agree with him that Google doesn't care if a new Android phone was leaked. You can also take that to mean such a phone would include a new version of Android as well and Google wouldn't be mad.

Of course not. Android is open source so they wouldn't care.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to be flippant about how you don't care about trade secrets being leaked when the sector in question isn't a major source of income and that, should someone leak something Google actually does make money from, they'd be slightly less happy about openness.

 

[dojokun]

Of course not. Android is open source so they wouldn't care.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to be flippant about how you don't care about trade secrets being leaked when the sector in question isn't a major source of income and that, should someone leak something Google actually does make money from, they'd be slightly less happy about openness.

Well the idea is that on average, Google finds ways to make it so when they win, the consumers win. Apple doesn't seem to be finding ways to do that, at least not as much as Google. Google provides way more free services to people than Apple does.

 

[Aaron]

I don't know - I realize that more likely than not a felony *was* commited. And I can understand Apple wanting to follow through on the process, as they have a right too. I'm just not getting the attitude that I've seen some take of getting behind Apple prosecuting these guys.

Apple isn't doing anything. They committed a criminal offense, so the state of California is looking into this issue to see if there's enough reason to bring a charge. I personally happen to think if you buy property that you know is stolen, you should face the consequences. That these guys are total dicks doesn't change the fact they broke the law.

 

[WordAssassin]

so why raid jason chens house? I mean he didn't steal the phone. And the house raid, then seizing computers?




because all that has got to do with the iphone. sheesh

Are you joking? Like, seriously, you don't understand how taking the computers and digital cameras and phones of the person who bought a stolen product has anything to do with the iphone?

Does it need to be spelled out for you? Because I personally can't fathom how one could NOT see it important to take those things in a criminal investigation.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Of course not. Android is open source so they wouldn't care.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to be flippant about how you don't care about trade secrets being leaked when the sector in question isn't a major source of income and that, should someone leak something Google actually does make money from, they'd be slightly less happy about openness.

The joke was whether or not Andy Rubin would be mad if someone left a top secret Android phone at a bar and a blog scooped it. He said he wouldn't mind it and actually seemed positive on the idea.

The joke wasn't whether or not Google lost something they thought was valuable, the joke was in how Google is different from Apple.

 

[Puck]

Seriously, suck shit to Gizmodo.

They bought a knowingly misplaced product (more than likely suspected stolen) for a large sum of money for their own personal gain (a fucktonne of hits + lots of publicity from other outlets) .

How can anyone defend that? They broke the law to some degree, were extremely unethical (along with engadget for the naming and shaming of the Apple employee) and acted very arrogantly.

 

[WordAssassin]

LMAO!

Telltale games has been sending out promo packages to different websites full of erasers and iPod Touches loaded with promo art. Check this shit out:

Hahahahahaha fucking Gizmodo

 

[jcm]

Which is still a crime, correct? The admittedly loose analogy would still hold.

Yes, it is still of course a crime. The analogy doesn't really work with Gizmodo, since they didn't originally steal the phone. The guy who found it and sold it, though, would be charged with grand theft in your analogy. Gizmodo would be the chop shop he sold it to.

That's not the way the law works. The actual act of taking the car was the theft and you will absolutely still be charged with grand theft auto even if you decide to return it to the owner the next day.

Not in my jurisdiction. One of the elements of grand theft is permanently depriving the owner. When my car was stolen, they caught the thief driving around in it two weeks later. Thy only charged him with unauthorized use, since he hadn't sold the car, and they couldn't prove he wasn't planning to return it. It may be different elsewhere.

 

[scorcho]

A felony is a felony. Gizmodo divulged WAY more information about the engineer than was necessary, possibly risking his job and livelihood.

/end hyperbole.

 

[RyanDG]

Yes, it is still of course a crime. The analogy doesn't really work with Gizmodo, since they didn't originally steal the phone. The guy who found it and sold it, though, would be charged with grand theft in your analogy. Gizmodo would be the chop shop he sold it to.

Not in my jurisdiction. One of the elements of grand theft is permanently depriving the owner. When my car was stolen, they caught the thief driving around in it two weeks later. Thy only charged him with unauthorized use, since he hadn't sold the car, and they couldn't prove he wasn't planning to return it. It may be different elsewhere.

Are you in the US? What jurisdiction are you in? I can absolutely assure you that in your above case he should have absolutely been charged with Grand Theft Auto. Future intent to return the vehicle does not lesson the charge. Did you know the thief? Was he a friend or someone who had prior access to your vehicle?

If they only charged him with unauthorized use, there had to be some mitigating factor there. Police do not have to prove that he was not planning on returning it in order to charge him with theft as long as he deprived the owner of the vehicle with use of the vehicle by the act of taking the vehicle.

Furthermore, there is not a caveat to motorvehicle theft that includes the perpetrator has to sell the vehicle, otherwise every single person who is pulled over in a stolen vehicle would never be charged with the crime of grand theft auto because police could not prove that he was not planning to return the vehicle. This is absolutely wrong in the terms of the law.

As a side note, pretty much every single state in the US defines motor vehicle theft as intentionally taking or driving away an automobile without permission of the owner. There are usually different felony levels for theft of taking the motorvehicle (ie, stricter harsher penalties if the theft was in the act of attempting to sell it), but it is all still defined as theft of a motor vehicle. This includes even if they return the item since the crime has already been committed.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Yes, it is still of course a crime. The analogy doesn't really work with Gizmodo, since they didn't originally steal the phone. The guy who found it and sold it, though, would be charged with grand theft in your analogy. Gizmodo would be the chop shop he sold it to.

Good analogy. One is worse than the other, but both are illegal.

A felony is a felony. Gizmodo divulged WAY more information about the engineer than was necessary, possibly risking his job and livelihood.

That is where most people's beefs come in. And how the fuck did they find the guys name and info? And hopefully nothing bad comes of this for Gray.

And I think people need to let their anti-apple bias be toned down a bit and look at the facts of it all. Apple may be dicks when it comes to a lot of things, but Gizmodo did engage in a criminal act and acted like dicks because of it.

 

[The Elite]

Seriously, suck shit to Gizmodo.

They bought a knowingly misplaced product (more than likely suspected stolen) for a large sum of money for their own personal gain (a fucktonne of hits + lots of publicity from other outlets) .

How can anyone defend that? They broke the law to some degree, were extremely unethical (along with engadget for the naming and shaming of the Apple employee) and acted very arrogantly.

Besides the fact that they shouldn't have bought the product, just paid for access, I see no reason they shouldn't have gone after getting their hands on an iPhone prototype. It's news! They are in the job of relaying that information to the public.

The problem is, they just about screwed up everything they could have by buying the product and then outing the person who lost it. Their arrogance is their undoing.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Besides the fact that they shouldn't have bought the product, just paid for access, I see no reason they shouldn't have gone after getting their hands on an iPhone prototype. It's news! They are in the job of relaying that information to the public.

The problem is, they just about screwed up everything they could have by buying the product and then outing the person who lost it. Their arrogance is their undoing.

The Doctor is BOSS.

And if Apple loses the case against them, I could see them just buying Gizmodo just to shut it down. That would be a dick move, but funny too.

The ultimate revenge though would be if the new iPhone was nothing like what Giz got a hold of.

 

[AlexMogil]

Their arrogance is their undoing.

It's somewhat of a pattern with them. Their arrogance of reviews, their ability to shit on products from companies that don't play ball, and then their self absorbed kingmaker attitude led to this.

 

[scorcho]

ITT:

Apple being dicks or arrogant is par for course and accepted.
Gizmodo being dicks or arrogant is outrage and deserving of corporate death.

see: fake outrage over the outing of the Apple employee who lost the prototype (yes, lost without without quotes), but no curiosity over Woz's anecdote about the employee who was canned for showing him an apparent 3G ipad prototype.

 

[numble]

ITT:

Apple being dicks or arrogant is par for course and accepted.
Gizmodo being dicks or arrogant is outrage and deserving of corporate death.

see: fake outrage over the outing of the Apple employee who lost the prototype (yes, lost without without quotes), but no curiosity over Woz's anecdote about the employee who was canned for showing him an apparent 3G ipad prototype.

Intentionally showing a prototype to a group of people waiting in line is different from losing a prototype. Nobody called that being dicks or arrogant. Intentionally violating terms of contract is different.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

see: fake outrage over the outing of the Apple employee who lost the prototype (yes, lost without without quotes), but no curiosity over Woz's anecdote about the employee who was canned for showing him an apparent 3G ipad prototype.

How is this related at all? One guy was already fired and is still anonymous to the public. The other guy is still working but has his name and reputation ruined for life for no reason. You just look for ways to be contrary in Apple discussions.

 

[scorcho]

How is this related at all?

because a fair share of the outrage heaved at Gizmodo is for being dicks for 'ruining' this guy's livelihood by attaching a name/face to the story, meanwhile the other party in this story actually did 'ruin' some guy's livelihood for innocently giving the other Steve a few minutes of playtime with a 3G version of the device.

i find the juxtaposition quite funny.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

because a fair share of the outrage heaved at Gizmodo is for being dicks for 'ruining' this guy's livelihood by attaching a name/face to the story, meanwhile the other party in this story actually did 'ruin' some guy's livelihood for innocently giving the other Steve a few minutes of playtime with a 3G version of the device.

i find the juxtaposition quite funny.

The guy ruined himself, just as we all agree Gray Powell ruined himself. What we're mad at is Gizmodo giving out the guy's details, not the guy losing the phone. There's no juxtaposition. The two things aren't related.

 

[McBacon]

I hope Steve Jobs opens the conference with "This is Apple's new iPhone"

 

[numble]

because a fair share of the outrage heaved at Gizmodo is for being dicks for 'ruining' this guy's livelihood by attaching a name/face to the story, meanwhile the other party in this story actually did 'ruin' some guy's livelihood for innocently giving the other Steve a few minutes of playtime with a 3G version of the device.

i find the juxtaposition quite funny.

How is the guy's livelihood ruined? He got another job quickly, if I recall, and the new employer probably didn't know he was fired for breaking a contract. If he was actually outed, he would've been in more trouble than he is--he intentionally showed up to a line of people waiting for the iPad (including Woz), announced he worked for Apple and started showing off the 3G. Who would hire somebody that intentionally breaks the contract to look good on Youtube videos? At least he was quietly terminated.

 

[robertsan21]

A felony is a felony. Gizmodo divulged WAY more information about the engineer than was necessary, possibly risking his job and livelihood. Gizmodo has a past of mean spirited pranks, incredibly biased reporting, and a complete lack of journalistic integrity. They are basically a tabloid for technology news. Just because people like reading about the iPhone doesn't make it okay to commit a felony.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

journalist dont have that!

I HATE THEM ALL! fucking journalists

 

[lunarworks]

Yes, it is still of course a crime. The analogy doesn't really work with Gizmodo, since they didn't originally steal the phone. The guy who found it and sold it, though, would be charged with grand theft in your analogy. Gizmodo would be the chop shop he sold it to.

1) IINAL, but it's a crime to knowingly buy stolen property.
2) Seizing Gizmodo's computers was a crucial step in gathering evidence against the guy who sold it to them. E-mail correspondence, chat logs, etc. Plus, they kinda have to do it unannounced, or Gizmodo could have wiped the evidence to protect themselves and the source. The police knocking on the door nicely saying "Hay guyz, got any evidence on that guy you bought that phone from?" won't exactly work when a crime is involved.

 

[AstroLad]

man it's like being a fly on the wall at the san mateo county prosecutor's office in here. good work guys

 

[scorcho]

The guy ruined himself, just as we all agree Gray Powell ruined himself. What we're mad at is Gizmodo giving out the guy's details, not the guy losing the phone. There's no juxtaposition. The two things aren't related.

how aren't they related? in the contest of Gizmodo being dicks for the possible impact on Powell's life, well, he is still gainfully employed by Apple in spite of his innocent mistake meanwhile another employee isn't for an even more harmless one.

how has Gizmodo harmed Powell's life moreso than that of the employee that Apple unceremoniously canned?

How is the guy's livelihood ruined?

on that thought, how has Powell's life been ruined?

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Anyone else thinking Gizmodo outing the engineer as much as they did may have actually saved his job at Apple due to the high profile nature of the fuck-up? I mean, they canned the hell out of that guy that showed the 3G iPad to Woz. Sorry if this has been mentioned a thousand times already.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

how has Gizmodo harmed Powell's life moreso than that of the employee that Apple unceremoniously canned?

Because Apple didn't call out their guy to the public. And didn't then sarcastically tell him to keep his chin up.

You've missed the entire tone of the thread in an effort to try and pin some hypocrisy on fanboys or something. No one got really pissed at Gizmodo until the guy got outed.

 

[Dark Octave]

I'm not speaking about the guy's personal info, but if I was a tech reporter who had the next Apple product and possibly the biggest story of the year in the tech world, fall into my lap, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself if I didn't report on it. It doesn't make sense to me how someone could expect him to hold back.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I'm not speaking about the guy's personal info, but if I was a tech reporter who had the next Apple product and possibly the biggest story of the year in the tech world, fall into my lap, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself if I didn't report on it. It doesn't make sense to me how someone could expect him to hold back.

It's not about what they reported, but more about how they reported it and how they went about their business in a public forum.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Because Apple didn't call out their guy to the public. And didn't then sarcastically tell him to keep his chin up.

You've missed the entire tone of the thread in an effort to try and pin some hypocrisy on fanboys or something. No one got really pissed at Gizmodo until the guy got outed.

Yeah this is where they lost the public goodwill for sure. That's where the legitimate newsworthiness got left behind and the juvenile and malicious hazing kicked in.

Not to Giz: if you want to enjoy the same legal protections as professional journalists, you might want to start ACTING like professional journalists.

 

[lunarworks]

I'm not speaking about the guy's personal info, but if I was a tech reporter who had the next Apple product and possibly the biggest story of the year in the tech world, fall into my lap, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself if I didn't report on it. It doesn't make sense to me how someone could expect him to hold back.

They didn't report on something that fell into their laps. They reported on misappropriated goods they paid $5000 to acquire.

(I still admit I enjoyed reading the article, even if they did commit a crime to do it.)

 

[scorcho]

You've missed the entire tone of the thread in an effort to try and pin some hypocrisy on fanboys or something. No one got really pissed at Gizmodo until the guy got outed.

from my recollection the collective outrage at the engineer's outing (which i think went too far, but i can see the rationale behind it) was built off growing sentiment that the phone was 'stolen' (hat tip to Gruber) and that Gizmodo did harm to Apple. the disdain at Gizmodo was already present.

and in terms of real world implications between the two scenarios - one is now a likely embarrassed public figure who still has a job at Apple. the other innocent in this case isn't, which matters more to me in terms of real world impact than amorphous claims of injury to Powell's reputation.

 

[numble]

from my recollection the collective outrage at the engineer's outing (which i think went too far, but i can see the rationale behind it) was built off growing sentiment that the phone was 'stolen' (hat tip to Gruber) and that Gizmodo did harm to Apple. the disdain at Gizmodo was already present.

and in terms of real world implications between the two scenarios - one is now a likely embarrassed public figure who still has a job at Apple. the other innocent in this case isn't, which matters more to me in terms of real world impact than amorphous claims of injury to Powell's reputation.

Again, how are Apples being dicks for firing somebody who intentionally showed up to a line of people waiting for the iPad, announced that he worked for Apple, and began showing off the 3G for everyone and Youtube to see? He signed an agreement to not show it to anyone, and intentionally broke that agreement.

Even Gizmodo defends the difference in treatment:

Gizmodo's John Herman has an interesting interpretation of Wozniak's story, arguing that, in Apple's view, there was a significant difference between showing the iPad to Wozniak and losing an iPhone in a bar. A.J., Herman contends, was fired because he deliberately showed the device to someone who was not authorized to see it. Powell, on the other hand, made an honest mistake when he lost his iPhone prototype, so he was allowed to keep his job.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194973/wozniak_on_apple_secrets_and_leaks.html

You may also forget that Brian Lam, Gizmodo's editor in chief, was on Twitter bragging about how Powell will be fired and deserved to be fired.

 

[syllogism]

The rationale for the special legal protections is that what journalists do serves a greater social purpose. To wit, they are acting in the public interest. An interested public is not the same as the public interest; the information Gizmodo revealed has no true social value.

 

[SuperPac]

I'm not speaking about the guy's personal info, but if I was a tech reporter who had the next Apple product and possibly the biggest story of the year in the tech world, fall into my lap, I'm not sure I'd be able to live with myself if I didn't report on it. It doesn't make sense to me how someone could expect him to hold back.

I don't think their reporting on it is the issue. Engadget reported it with pictures two days before Gizmodo's story went live. Far as I know no task force is knocking on their door. They reported on it, printed the pictures, end of story.

Gizmodo bought a prototype iPhone that wasn't the finder's to sell. That's where they're in hot water, and that's where the finder is gonna be in hot water.

 

[Gary Whitta]

from my recollection the collective outrage at the engineer's outing (which i think went too far, but i can see the rationale behind it) was built off growing sentiment that the phone was 'stolen' (hat tip to Gruber) and that Gizmodo did harm to Apple. the disdain at Gizmodo was already present.

That's somewhat accurate but I think it was more the result of a pre-existing dislike of Gizmodo rather than a pre-existing love for Apple. And the real animosity definitely did not kick into overdrive until they outed Gray Powell and started posting articles mocking him and posting his personal info for shits and giggles.

 

[LM4sure]

That's somewhat accurate but I think it was more the result of a pre-existing dislike of Gizmodo rather than a pre-existing love for Apple. And the real animosity definitely did not kick into overdrive until they outed Gray Powell and started posting articles mocking him and posting his personal info for shits and giggles.

But that's not a crime. That's all public information. The guy was an idiot. He got what he deserved.

 

[Gary Whitta]

But that's not a crime. That's all public information. The guy was an idiot. He got what he deserved.

No-one is saying it is a crime. I'm not suggesting they should be prosecuted for making a spectacle of the guy on the internet. I'm saying that's not how professional journalists, or even decent human beings, behave. And that's why there's a lot of hatred toward Giz right now.