Support NeoGAF

[LM4sure]

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.

Right, so the fact that they did that is a moot point when it comes to the criminal case. The guy knowingly bought stolen property, which he admitted to. I'm not sure why the prosecutor felt the need to have his home searched and his computer confiscated though. What are they looking for exactly? If anything they should search the seller's house. What's the worse crime: selling stolen property or buying it?

 

[scorcho]

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.

oh, i'll be the first to concede that Gizmodo are card-carrying members of the Asshats association (and i posted as such way earlier in this thread), but i think they're being pilloried too much for potentially harming Powell's reputation or potential employment elsewhere.

numble: he brought out the device minutes before the iPad's sale date to show the Woz. the fucking Woz.

 

[numble]

Apparently Apple did trace the finder's address and tried to get the phone from him:

People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

“Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,” the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn’t let them in.

...

News of Apple’s lost iPhone prototype hit the web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder’s roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. According to the source, who has direct knowledge of the Gizmodo transaction, the group of friends suspected this might be Apple’s new phone, but no one knew for sure.

“There was no effort to keep it secret,” the source said. “There were a bunch of people who knew.”

The finder attempted to notify Apple and find the owner of the device but failed, even going so far as to search alphabetically through Facebook, the source said. Thoughts then turned to contacting the press about the device to confirm its authenticity and help locate the owner, but early attempts to drum up interest went unanswered. After a few days with no response, the finder expanded the search.

“The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?” the source said.

The finder at one point attempted to restore the phone by connecting it to a roommate’s Apple computer, but was unsuccessful.

News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

numble: he brought out the device minutes before the iPad's sale date to show the Woz. the fucking Woz.

He showed it to other people as well. There are at least 2 youtube videos from random spectators showing the event. It was not minutes before the sell date--it was minutes after midnight, but about 9 hours before the sale date. At least get your facts right.

 

[BigGreenMat]

I love everyone arguing about what is a crime and what isn't and the morality of it all. You realize that you can be charged with a crime for just about anything. The guy who picked up the phone could be charged with theft immediately. Intention to return or not. If you pick up something that is not your property it is theft. Hell you *could* be charged with theft for using a fork at a restaurant. You can be charged with trespassing just for being in the restaurant. It is within the purview of the law. So really everyone should relax about the illegality of everything. Gizmodo called Apple and offered to return their property. To me that should be enough to absolve them of criminal wrongdoing. They received a lost item and attempted to return it. Good enough for me.

p.s. (that doesn't mean they didn't do it in the most dickish way possible)

 

[SuperPac]

Apparently Apple did trace the finder's address and tried to get the phone from him:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

I have a real hard time believing that the finder's intentions were only to find its rightful owner. That may be the story being told now to save his ass but, as Wired says at the end of this piece, they were contacted but didn't follow up after the tipster asked for money. He wanted money for it. I'm sure that can be proven looking at the emails to Gizmodo, Engadget, Wired and whoever else the tipster tried to sell it to.

 

[numble]

numble: he brought out the device minutes before the iPad's sale date to show the Woz. the fucking Woz.

This doesn't look like he brought it out to just show Woz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmlaYwb_7Lw

 

[scorcho]

He showed it to other people as well. There are at least 2 youtube videos from random spectators showing the event. It was not minutes before the sell date--it was minutes after midnight, but about 9 hours before the sale date. At least get your facts right.

which doesn't change the point at all, but carry on. you appear to have a borderline manic investment in this story, so far be it from me to attempt to put anything into larger perspective.

 

[syllogism]

News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

Haha, right

 

[numble]

which doesn't change the point at all, but carry on. you appear to have a borderline manic investment in this story, so far be it from me to attempt to put anything into larger perspective.

Your point was that he showed it to Woz ("the fucking Woz") minutes before the sale, I just said he showed it to other people besides Woz, hours before the sale. I think it changes the point, but carry on.

 

[scorcho]

Your point was that he showed it to Woz ("the fucking Woz") minutes before the sale, I just said he showed it to other people besides Woz, hours before the sale. I think it changes the point, but carry on.

which changes the substance of the argument in what sense? did this lead to a massive expose on the iPad hours before it went on sale? did it cause untold monetary harm to Apple's iPad sales? did bloggers inveigh injustice on how people on the line 'stole' glances at the device mere hours before Apple allowed them to?

in the grand scale of fuck ups this wasn't, and yet he was shit-canned with nary any sense of injustice hurled at Apple in this thread. meanwhile there's a schadenfreude party as karma for Giz causing unknown harm to Powell.

 

[numble]

which changes the substance of the argument in what sense? did this lead to a massive expose on the iPad hours before it went on sale? did it cause untold monetary harm to Apple's iPad sales? did bloggers inveigh injustice on how people on the line 'stole' glances at the device mere hours before Apple allowed them to?

in the grand scale of fuck ups this wasn't, and yet he was shit-canned with nary any sense of injustice hurled at Apple in this thread. meanwhile there's a schadenfreude party as karma for Giz causing unknown harm to Powell.

If you want to juxtapose things, you have to recognize differences. First it was a 3G prototype 27 days prior to its sale. Secondly, there is a difference between breaking an agreement intentionally and having it broadcast on Youtube and losing something, and a difference between a anonymous termination and a public outing with a publication bragging that you deserve to be fired (but also telling the person to keep his chin up). There is a difference between just showing it to Woz (which Jobs apparently thought was ok) and showing it off to strangers and on Youtube.

The talk about sales and stealing glances at things before they are allowed (which I can only guess is a comparison to the iPhone discussion) is only amongst the most extreme of the commentary here. Very few are even arguing those points or are expressing the hate at Gizmodo for that.

The hate seem to be a combination of:
1) Outing and making fun of the engineer in public for multiple posts to get more pageviews.
2) Past issues with lack of professionalism re: Gizmodo.
3) Commissions of possible felonies.

 

[lunarworks]

Here's why I'm not supporting Gizmodo on this:

1. There was no actual public benefit to their story. If they had purchased something that served as evidence of Apple doing something illegal or unethical, I'd be firmly on their side, but this is just a new model of phone. Which brings me to...
   
2. It was info that was coming out, relatively soon, anyway, and everyone already knew it existed. (However, if it was some prototype of an unreleased or canceled product, that would be far more interesting.) Gizmodo just wanted the opportunity to scoop everyone and wave their dicks around. Yes, a scoop is exciting, and can be come upon without breaking any laws (like leaks, which the shield law defends), but if its actual legality is questionable...
   
3. A crime was actually committed. My definition and your definition of Finders Keepers may differ from California law, but those laws have stood up for over 100 years. They're not gonna change over a silly phone.
   
4. All the other sites stayed far away from it. They published the "spy shots" they were given, but when the guy actually asked for money for the device itself, which he apparently did to every major tech blog, they all consulted their lawyers and declined. Gizmodo should have known better, but they threw caution to the wind and ran wild.
   
5. All in all, they were dicks about it. Yes, exposing Gray Powell's identity may or may not have saved his career in the end, but the way in which they did it was 4chan level trolling. Their intention was to kick him while he was down and laugh about it.

Yes, again, I read the article and enjoyed it, but I still can't support them.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Right, so the fact that they did that is a moot point when it comes to the criminal case. The guy knowingly bought stolen property, which he admitted to. I'm not sure why the prosecutor felt the need to have his home searched and his computer confiscated though. What are they looking for exactly? If anything they should search the seller's house. What's the worse crime: selling stolen property or buying it?

I assume they also need physical proof because he can always recant his statements. This is the way criminal investigations usually proceed.

 

[Minsc]

Probably been posted, but looks like the WWDC is now announced, June 7th.

New iPhone for sale soon after? I hope! Maybe even Verizon + T-Mobile confirmation?

 

[Particle Physicist]

News of Apple’s lost iPhone prototype hit the web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder’s roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. According to the source, who has direct knowledge of the Gizmodo transaction, the group of friends suspected this might be Apple’s new phone, but no one knew for sure.

“There was no effort to keep it secret,” the source said. “There were a bunch of people who knew.”

The finder attempted to notify Apple and find the owner of the device but failed, even going so far as to search alphabetically through Facebook, the source said. Thoughts then turned to contacting the press about the device to confirm its authenticity and help locate the owner, but early attempts to drum up interest went unanswered. After a few days with no response, the finder expanded the search.

“The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?” the source said.

The finder at one point attempted to restore the phone by connecting it to a roommate’s Apple computer, but was unsuccessful.

News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

This sounds like complete bullshit. How did Gizmodo know who was the Apple employee that lost the phone, including their facebook page if the phone at that point was already nuked?

 

[evil ways]

No sympathy for Gizmodo as they created the big clusterfuck they are in. Regardless of how they got the phone and what they actually did with it, all they had to do was report that they had a scoop, post pics, videos and impressions, contact apple, give them the phone and shut the fuck up. End of story.

Instead they made this whole soap opera, and included every single little detail of how they got it, when they go it and why(except the identity of the guy who sold them the phone). I'm surprised they didn't post pics of them handing a big cardboard check worth $5,000 to some guy with a blurred face and made an even bigger joke and deal out of everything. Now it all bites them right in the ass.

 

[mightynine]

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

....and that's NOT what Giz could face charges over.

My goodness, some of you are dense.

As an aside, could Powell have a case for slander for what Giz did?

 

[StopMakingSense]

As an aside, could Powell have a case for slander for what Giz did?

No. Truth is always a valid defense of libel (slander is spoken, libel is written).

There might be an issue of wether Mr. Powell is/is not a public figure, and where that fits with other types of litigation.

 

[mightynine]

Scorcho, honest question: your employer hands you a new product. This product is not be handled by the public before 9am on date X. You decide at 8am on date X that you're going to show said product to someone, despite being told not to do so. Your employer finds out about this and fires you for not complying with the clearly stated rule.

Are they unfair?

 

[rezuth]

Scorcho, honest question: your employer hands you a new product. This product is not be handled by the public before 9am on date X. You decide at 8am on date X that you're going to show said product to someone, despite being told not to do so. Your employer finds out about this and fires you for not complying with the clearly stated rule.

Are they unfair?

I don´t even think this is really about showing that actual piece of hardware but more he broke the rules. If he did this now whats stopping him from showing another device several days earlier. Something they can´t afford happening.

 

[LCfiner]

FWIW, i think it sucks that the Apple guy who showed Woz he 3G iPad got fired. it really feels like such a minor transgression.

But that's the way things go sometimes when you bend the rules.

I think we were all pretty surprised to find out that Gray was still at Apple after the Gizmodo story. I guess he was still there since his (dumbass) mistake was an accident whereas this other dude acted willfully and took the 3G version out in public.

 

[StopMakingSense]

First smart thing Chen's done: hired a criminal defense lawyer

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236

 

[VeryGooster]

 

[GDJustin]

Right, so the fact that they did that is a moot point when it comes to the criminal case. The guy knowingly bought stolen property, which he admitted to. I'm not sure why the prosecutor felt the need to have his home searched and his computer confiscated though. What are they looking for exactly? If anything they should search the seller's house. What's the worse crime: selling stolen property or buying it?

We're discussing public sentiment here, not legal precedent.

 

[LCfiner]

I love Fake Steve Jobs. :lol

It was our private investigators, not us. And they didn’t break in. They just tried to. Actually what happened is they showed up and attempted to intimidate the kid into letting them search through his stuff. Perfectly legal. Perfectly acceptable behavior. There is no law, in California or anywhere else, that says it’s a crime to go to someone’s home and ask them to invite you inside and let you look through their stuff. There just isn’t. Hell, Jehovah’s Witnesses do this all the time. Except for the part about searching through your stuff. But why quibble over details.

Wired.com broke the story. And sure, what they’ve written is correct. Nevertheless we are demanding that they take it down, and if they won’t, we are threatening to reject all Conde Nast apps from the App Store, and to never let anyone from Wired come sit at my feet and ask me fawning questions and write down my phony scripted answers, ever again.

We’re pretty sure they’ll see the light on this.

Meanwhile, for now we’re asking John Gruber to ignore this story and simply pretend he hasn’t seen it or heard about it, and so far he seems to be complying. That’s for now anyway. Katie and her team are working on a version of the “Apple’s private goons trying to get into some guy’s house” story that isn’t spun and twisted in such a way that we come off like bad guys. As soon as they’ve got the story together we’ll publish it on Daring Fireball.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Do we know he was breaking the rules? Every version of the iPhone has left a digital footprint on the Internet weeks prior to its release. I'm sure there are a group of engineers who test the new product in the wild for several months before it goes on sale to the public.

Heck, I even think Steve Jobs was shown using his first gen iPhone in public before it was released.

That said, the dude needs to be far more careful, and if I were at Apple, I'd fire his ass.

 

[jax (old)]

I think its hilarious how some of you are debating this like the gizmondo guys did any real wrong.


"public benefit to the story"? ... LOL. if that is it, why report anything at all. Lets shut the internet down.

"You realize that you can be charged with a crime for just about anything". Lets stay home and not leave. Maybe in a cloistered lifestyle, we can live safely.

from the law.com article.

The lawyer added that "there's a serious question about the propriety of issuing a search warrant for a journalist."

Spoiler

I want an ipad

I hope jason chen can sue someone and make some bank

 

[StopMakingSense]

I think its hilarious how some of you are debating this like the gizmondo guys did any real wrong.

They committed a felony. And admitted it. In public.

 

[Mudkips]

They committed a felony. And admitted it. In public.

What felony?

Person A finds an item.
Person A sells an item to person B.
Person B posts about said item on the internet.

Person B did nothing illegal.

Buying an item that is known to be stolen is wrong and illegal.
The item was not stolen.


Obviously they knew who it belonged to, that they wanted it back, etc.

But their defense is going to be "It was lost, then found. We were contacted about it, and we bought it and tried to determine if it was real. We then contacted Apple and gave it back.". Nothing illegal there, at all.

Everyone involved - Apple, the guy who lost it, the guy who found it, Engadget - is acting like a bunch of 6-year olds, and my fucking taxes are going pay to sort it all out.

Apple should have pulled a Nintendo and broke the news themselves ahead of time.

Edit: LOL, I typed Engadget! Fuck it - I'm leaving it in! :lol :lol

 

[StopMakingSense]

What felony?

Person A finds an item.
Person A sells an item to person B.
Person B posts about said item on the internet.

Person B did nothing illegal.

YES. Buying known stolen property is extremely illegal. A felony in California for goods in this price range.

This definition of stolen includes property that was found and then sold, as defined in California law. And if you think that the police investigating the ADMITTED theft of a prototype device of the largest company in the state is a waste of your tax money, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[RyanDG]

What felony?

Person A finds an item.
Person A sells an item to person B.
Person B posts about said item on the internet.

Person B did nothing illegal.

Buying an item that is known to be stolen is wrong and illegal.
The item was not stolen.


Obviously they knew who it belonged to, that they wanted it back, etc.

But their defense is going to be "It was lost, then found. We were contacted about it, and we bought it and tried to determine if it was real. We then contacted Apple and gave it back.". Nothing illegal there, at all.

Everyone involved - Apple, the guy who lost it, the guy who found it, Engadget - is acting like a bunch of 6-year olds, and my fucking taxes are going pay to sort it all out.

Apple should have pulled a Nintendo and broke the news themselves ahead of time.

Edit: LOL, I typed Engadget! Fuck it - I'm leaving it in! :lol :lol

Here's the problem. The item - as soon as it was sold - moved from being just a 'lost' item to a stolen item under California law. And Gizmodo admitted freely to knowingly purchasing a 'lost' item for an amount of money on a blog that is now public record. That's where the crime comes in. And yes, it is illegal.

 

[Tobor]

What felony?

I see this thread is as dense as when I last checked it. :lol

 

[calder]

If anyone is still confused about why, yes, there were clearly crimes committed should check out this pretty simple explanation from Slate.

California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act prohibits the theft or disclosure of legitimate commercial secrets. The state law does not distinguish between rogue employees, corporate spies, and the media, all of whom can be liable under the act. Nor does it matter that Gizmodo obtained the information secondhand—what's important is the fact that the prototype was a secret and the tech blog either knew or should have known that it was acquired improperly. Both of these conditions seem to be satisfied, according to Gizmodo's own account of what happened.

There's no question that the iPhone was obtained unlawfully. California law requires that finders of lost property inform the owners and return the property, minus "a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of [it]." If the materials are worth more than $100, and the owner is unknown or makes no attempt to claim it, then the finder must turn the item over to the police, who hold it for 90 days before giving it back to the finder.

But really this whole affair makes everyone look like shit. Gizmodo looks like dicks and mildly inept criminals, the kid who found it clearly was trying to make a buck off it and Apple looks like raging assholes with their "hey can we search your apartment for our phone" bullshit and scary ability to get the police to toss your home if they are mad at you. Personally, I think Apple looks worst of all but Gizmodo has to be right up there, their shameless page-hit pandering the whole way was the most legal and yet also most annoying thing they did imo, then dragging the doofus who lost the phone into it just to kick the story back up was just mind boggling. :lol

 

[Gary Whitta]

What felony?

Person A finds an item.
Person A sells an item to person B.
Person B posts about said item on the internet.

Person B did nothing illegal.

Buying an item that is known to be stolen is wrong and illegal.
The item was not stolen.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[LCfiner]

Jesus Christ, mudkips. if you’re going to post something that long about something, at least do a minimum amount of research to speak intelligently about it.

 

[Pimpwerx]

First smart thing Chen's done: hired a criminal defense lawyer

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236

Hmmm, I hope Giz and its crew come out of this with well-deserved scorn, and not much else. The legal pursuit of this is douchebaggery IMO. You lose a prototype and a blog does a teardown. That's the era we live in, folks. You don't need to be a genius to tear apart a phone, and you don't need to even have a hardware degree to understand how they work on the macroscopic level. Giz did us a service, though they were complete tools about it. Slap on the wrist and that's it. If Apple tried bringing the hammer down on them, I hope they get crucified. Their faithful will support it, but it would just be bullying at that point. Apple fucked up...life goes on. It's not like the sales are gonna hurt that much anyway. PEACE.

 

[Gary Whitta]

I'm still finding it amusing that there are people in this thread who really believe that Apple controls the police.

 

[RyanDG]

Hmmm, I hope Giz and its crew come out of this with well-deserved scorn, and not much else. The legal pursuit of this is douchebaggery IMO. You lose a prototype and a blog does a teardown. That's the era we live in, folks. You don't need to be a genius to tear apart a phone, and you don't need to even have a hardware degree to understand how they work on the macroscopic level. Giz did us a service, though they were complete tools about it. Slap on the wrist and that's it. If Apple tried bringing the hammer down on them, I hope they get crucified. Their faithful will support it, but it would just be bullying at that point. Apple fucked up...life goes on. It's not like the sales are gonna hurt that much anyway. PEACE.

So you condone news organizations (using a loose definition that includes Gizmodo of course) admitting to breaking laws on their blog in the pursuit of news and then escaping with no punishment for it? I'm all for under cover journalism, but if Blogs and online reporting wants to be taken seriously, they have to do in traditional manner and reap the consequences if they don't (which is what is happening here). That is to protect sources, tell only the story you need to tell, and leave out what you need to leave out to avoid legal prosecution.

It's all really simple here.

If Gizmodo simply had not admitted to purchasing the device after admitting that they knew it was a found item and the seller did not have the legal right to sell it, they would not have the situation that they are in now. However, since they did admit that and revealed countless other details on the blog which were absolutely unnecessary to the story, they have caught themselves in a position where they have admitted publically to breaking a law (even if they try to claim ignorance to the law itself which is highly irrelevant).

Just my thoughts at least.

 

[jax (old)]

I'm still finding it amusing that there are people in this thread who really believe that Apple controls the police.

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

 

[KHarvey16]

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

Apple did not initiate the criminal investigation so I can't think of any reason why they'd be able to end it.

 

[LCfiner]

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

you seriously don’t get it.

BY LAW, THE PHONE IS STOLEN ONCE IT IS SOLD TO GIZMODO. JASON CHEN IS IN TROUBLE FOR BUYING STOLEN SHIT.

There’s a good reason why the other websites who were given the choice to buy this phone said no fucking way.

 

[StopMakingSense]

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

No, they can't. A DA has full autonomy on prosecutions irrespective of the victim's wishes.

 

[Mudkips]

Hey morons, I'm simply stating what Gizmodo's defense will be.

Obviously Gizmodo is guilty of buying hot shit.

But they're going to need to prove what they knew and when they knew it.
What they've said so far isn't going to cut the mustard in that regard.
It all hinges on how stupid they were in emails about the sale.

And yes, I can still be pissed that my tax dollars are being wasted on this trivial fucking matter. It's the next iPhone big whoop. No one was harmed by it, Apple got their property back, etc.

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

Apple doesn't have the authority to tell the state whether or not to prosecute someone in a criminal case. Apple could bring a suit of their own and then drop it, however the fuck they wanted.

 

[KHarvey16]

Hey morons, I'm simply stating what Gizmodo's defense will be.

Obviously Gizmodo is guilty of buying hot shit.

But they're going to need to prove what they knew and when they knew it.
What they've said so far isn't going to cut the mustard in that regard.
It all hinges on how stupid they were in emails about the sale.

And yes, I can still be pissed that my tax dollars are being wasted on this trivial fucking matter. It's the next iPhone big whoop. No one was harmed by it, Apple got their property back, etc.

Did you really just type this?

 

[Mudkips]

Did you really just type this?

Did you really just type that?

?
Derp?

 

[StopMakingSense]

And yes, I can still be pissed that my tax dollars are being wasted on this trivial fucking matter. It's the next iPhone big whoop. No one was harmed by it, Apple got their property back, etc.

Do you live in Santa Clara county?

 

[PhoncipleBone]

well, they can ask for the case to be dropped so yeah, I'd say they are controlling how this is going in this instance. Apple guy fcks up and jason chen pays for it.

agree with pimpwerx's post 100%.

 

[KHarvey16]

Did you really just type that?

?
Derp?

Yep, and with a straight face even. I have no idea how you could have accomplished the same there.

 

[Pimpwerx]

So you condone news organizations (using a loose definition that includes Gizmodo of course) admitting to breaking laws on their blog in the pursuit of news and then escaping with no punishment for it? I'm all for under cover journalism, but if Blogs and online reporting wants to be taken seriously, they have to do in traditional manner and reap the consequences if they don't (which is what is happening here). That is to protect sources, tell only the story you need to tell, and leave out what you need to leave out to avoid legal prosecution.

It's all really simple here.

If Gizmodo simply had not admitted to purchasing the device after admitting that they knew it was a found item and the seller did not have the legal right to sell it, they would not have the situation that they are in now. However, since they did admit that and revealed countless other details on the blog which were absolutely unnecessary to the story, they have caught themselves in a position where they have admitted publically to breaking a law (even if they try to claim ignorance to the law itself which is highly irrelevant).

Just my thoughts at least.

I don't think Apple should press the matter. If the government does, that's their thing. But it would seem a bit heavy-handed if Apple was pushing for it.

I really don't care too much, but even rinky-dink, mom and pop blogs serve a purpose. And in this case, Giz got a better scoop than a more-professional mag. It's unfortunate they acted like complete idiots, but it was a phenomenal scoop regardless.

It's quite baffling why they chose to burn the Apply guy, and then make a big deal of telling how they acquired it. They must have thought "any press is good press" so go ahead and blow it up into a drama, but at no point in this whole mess did someone stop and say, "hey...you think this might be a bit illegal?" I mean...seriously.... I'm not gonna cry if they end up getting buried by this. They made the decision, they live with the consequences, but in the name of scrappy little internet sites, I'd hope they make it through.

Journalism, in its infancy, was all about the little man getting an inside scoop on a story and sharing it. You didn't need to have huge publisher ties. Blogs are the little man. It'll be nice to stumble on a find like that once in a while. PEACE.

 

[Particle Physicist]

If anyone is still confused about why, yes, there were clearly crimes committed should check out this pretty simple explanation from Slate.



But really this whole affair makes everyone look like shit. Gizmodo looks like dicks and mildly inept criminals, the kid who found it clearly was trying to make a buck off it and Apple looks like raging assholes with their "hey can we search your apartment for our phone" bullshit and scary ability to get the police to toss your home if they are mad at you. Personally, I think Apple looks worst of all but Gizmodo has to be right up there, their shameless page-hit pandering the whole way was the most legal and yet also most annoying thing they did imo, then dragging the doofus who lost the phone into it just to kick the story back up was just mind boggling. :lol

Do you actually believe that? Same person that made those claims also said these obviously bullshit lies:

News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

The finder attempted to notify Apple and find the owner of the device but failed, even going so far as to search alphabetically through Facebook, the source said. Thoughts then turned to contacting the press about the device to confirm its authenticity and help locate the owner, but early attempts to drum up interest went unanswered. After a few days with no response, the finder expanded the search.

“The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?” the source said.