or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story - Page 7

post #241 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This might make for a CSI: New York and The Mentalist crossover episode. \

Oh yes! But We want true Steve Jobs!

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply
post #242 of 393
its just a phone guys!

lets be honest, we were all desperate to see it and i have no doubt we all looked closely at the pictures and teardown!

rather than hurt apple it has just created more interest in the product. jobs must be ecstatic!!!
post #243 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You logic was that CA can't prosecute Gawker because they are not based in CA. It doesn't matter if the act was legal or not in NYC. Crimes are prosecuted based on where the crime was committed not where the criminal lives.

The original CNET article stated:

"Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year."

I imagine the value of the prototype greatly exceeded $400.

It seems to me that the fellow who found the device is almost assuredly involved in a theft under this definition. If he was in California when he transferred possession, then the other party would also have broken the law. I have no idea as to how the Federal laws against transporting stolen goods across state lines work if the definition of "stolen property" differs.

It certainly was "stolen property" (by Calif law) when it approached the state line. It seems to me that the person carrying it was therefore "transporting stolen property across state lines" even if it was not considered stolen once on the other side.

They should just invite them to the next Apple event - then grab their asses when they show!! :P (joking)
post #244 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

I think Dr.NO was an employee of Gawker....

Dr.NO, sounded a lot like DR.Benway, who I have noticed is also banned.
post #245 of 393
So who owns a cell phone I just found in a bar?

I HAVE NO IDEA!

I've never seen it before, but then again the world is full of cell phones that I haven't seen before...
post #246 of 393
Slightly off topic, but...

What's with all the Gizmodo hate? Every single person on this thread probably read their article on the new iPhone and loved every minute of it, just like I did.
post #247 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

Did you even read that link or the one I quoted above? They both quote Denton admitting that he/Gawker/Gizmodo bought the phone and may have to pay legal fees to defend himself. That's not even in question here.

But of course you didn't read them. You are entertaining yourself by, how did you say it, "pushing people's buttons". Make sure not to give it away again your ban will be forthcoming.

Hello Rockgod,

please read who you are replying to before multi-quoting.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #248 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

DITTO THAT. Gizmodo can suck it. I hope they get pinched hard. Lam should be fired. They're a bunch of arrogant imbeciles who pulled this stunt and then tried to make the devleoper who lost (or had stolen from him) that phone look like an idiot.

It will be a sweet moment when this comes full circle.

Gizmodo got a scoop and went for it. I can't believe I'm reading all these hateful comments here. People should be pumped they got to see the new iPhone early. I know I am. I guess if you're a stockholder that's one thing, but it's probably not going to hurt the stock price at all. Does it help the competition? Maybe, but most of them have shown they really don't get it anyway, and I don't know how knowing there's a front facing camera or new design is going to help them in the least. It's the software, and Apple already showed off OS 4 to the public.

I love Apple, the company makes great stuff and I wish them well. I get tired of the secrecy and mystery. It wears thin three phones in. Not to mention the iPad. I don't see how most people, especially gadget lovers, can be upset about seeing what is arguably the ultimate gadget early. You should be happy.
post #249 of 393
What stuns me is the AMAZING stupidity of the person who found the G4 phone. Didn't they realize the largesse Apple would have lavished on someone with the morals and cojones to hand it in? This company gives away spondoolix of freebies to people just for spending a buck on the quadrillionth iTunes download. What was the top secret iPhone worth to them—a damned sight more than a lousy $5000 from Jizmodo, that's what.
S/he could have walked out that bar, taken a taxi to 1 Infinite Loop, walked in to reception, and asked to see Steve or Phil or Johnny because s/he had something they REALLY would want back now and then been set for LIFE (after signing the NDA) with a new MacBookPro every time a new model arrives, free iTunes forever, free iPhones and iPads for their heirs until the sun becomes a red giant......
I hope the dumbass thinks about that as the rap sheet is being read.
post #250 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by plankton View Post

What stuns me is the AMAZING stupidity of the person who found the G4 phone. Didn't they realize the largesse Apple would have lavished on someone with the morals and cojones to hand it in? This company gives away spondoolix of freebies to people just for spending a buck on the quadrillionth iTunes download. What was the top secret iPhone worth to thema damned sight more than a lousy $5000 from Jizmodo, that's what.
S/he could have walked out that bar, taken a taxi to 1 Infinite Loop, walked in to reception, and asked to see Steve or Phil or Johnny because s/he had something they REALLY would want back now and then been set for LIFE (after signing the NDA) with a new MacBookPro every time a new model arrives, free iTunes forever, free iPhones and iPads for their heirs until the sun becomes a red giant......
I hope the dumbass thinks about that as the rap sheet is being read.

Or he could have done it because it's simply the right (and legal) thing to do.

Americans! How does it affect MEEEE???? The greatest generation was a LONG time ago.
post #251 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeBarnes View Post

Or he could have done it because it's simply the right (and legal) thing to do.

Americans! How does it affect MEEEE???? The greatest generation was a LONG time ago.

Best comment EVER!!!
post #252 of 393
The best thing to come out of this entire thread is Dr. No getting banned.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #253 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post

The best thing to come out of this entire thread is Dr. No getting banned.

The mods are on top of things. Very nice to see.
post #254 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeBarnes View Post

Or he could have done it because it's simply the right (and legal) thing to do.

Americans! How does it affect MEEEE???? The greatest generation was a LONG time ago.

Don't go out of your way to stereotype an entire country or anything.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #255 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Wrong. That only works if it's illegal in both states. It's not. Represent yourself in court, it'll be hilarious.

You may want to update the Supreme court on that matter, as they seem to have it wrong. You see they supreme court thinks that "...The locus of a crime is the place where the criminal act takes effect." Well where did this crime take place? The court has an opinion on that, too. They say that "a concurrent jurisdiction exists in the place of starting the offense".

Also you should contact the harvard law review and have them update their article, because they have it wrong, too.

California has Jurisdiction over this crime, as the starting place of it was clearly California.

Next time do us a favor and just shut the hell up.

-Mayes

EDIT: Haha I posted this in from the first page. Seven pages later I find out he's already banned. Oh well, it's still adds to the discussion though I think.
post #256 of 393
post #257 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post

I love Apple, the company makes great stuff and I wish them well. I get tired of the secrecy and mystery. It wears thin three phones in. Not to mention the iPad. I don't see how most people, especially gadget lovers, can be upset about seeing what is arguably the ultimate gadget early. You should be happy.

People around here award themselves points if they care more about Apple than they do about themselves.

They forget that they are consumers, and identify directly with the corporate interests rather than the interests of consumers.
post #258 of 393
I'm of the opinion that Gawker Media committed a criminal act with the purchase and sharing of the prototype iPhone. I've read up on some of the laws that apply to the situation and my armchair analysis is this:

1) Although the prototype iPhone was supposedly found in a bar, the person that found it did NOT make reasonable attempts to return the iPhone to its proper owner. The moment that person removed the iPhone from the bar, he/she became guilty of theft. It was not his/hers to take and it CERTAINLY was not his/hers to sell. This is the person that I have the most desire to see prosecuted for criminal activity. Having him/her spend a bit of time in jail would send a nice message to all of the "finders keepers" believers out there. (The ones that are, apparently, still in grade school.) Once the thief has to hire a lawyer to defend him/herself, he/she will wish he/she had gotten a lot more than $5K from Gawker Media. In fact, I bet that person is worried sick right now. As he/she should be!

2) By Gawker Media's own admission, they knew the prototype iPhone did not belong to the person they purchased it from. That's all that we need to know. They KNEW it was not the rightful property of the person selling it. In my opinion, by purchasing it, Gawker Media became guilty of purchasing stolen property.

3) Gawker Media's argument that "they didn't know what they had until they opened it" is pure nonsense. There's no way they would spend $5K to purchase a phone device if they didn't already know it was something special. They knew.

4) "Freedom of speech" and "Freedom of the press" will not protect Gawker Media in this case. This isn't a first amendment case. It's a criminal case about stolen property. The first amendment issues would only come into play during a subsequent civil suit (filed by Apple) over the release of trade secrets, etc.

5) Apparently, the only good advice Gawker Media got from their "legal team" was to make sure the prototype iPhone remained in California. That saved Gawker Media from the biggest bag of hurt. Had the prototype crossed state lines, then it would be the US District Attorney and the FBI investigating this situation. The federal laws on the transportation of stolen property across state lines are quite clear. It would have been a felony.

6) Lastly, the story linked at the beginning of this thread is about a CRIMINAL investigation. Nowhere does it say that Apple is suing Gawker or anyone else. Apple may be preparing a civil suit, but, as of now, none has been announced. This story is about possible criminal activity. Other than Apple possibly filing the actual criminal complaint (which I suspect they did and, frankly, predicted they would), the investigation is now in the hands of Santa Clara law enforcement. If, during their investigation, they discover that the prototype iPhone ever crossed state lines, I am sure the feds will get involved too. If Santa Clara law enforcement finds sufficient evidence of violation of California law, then charges will be brought.

And HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART... In a CRIMINAL case, Gawker Media cannot use a first amendment defense to protect the person that found and sold the prototype iPhone. In a CRIMINAL case, they will be forced to reveal the identity of that person. If Gawker Media refuses, then principles at Gawker Media will likely find themselves behind bars for contempt of court and charged with interfering with a criminal investigation.

If the person that "found" this prototype iPhone is reading this... You should be very very worried right now! You are in for a world of hurt if law enforcement and the DA decides to move forward with criminal charges. You could be facing jail time and significant fines. Gawker Media will not be able to protect you. Your best bet is to come forward immediately and contact the Santa Clara district attorney to try to work a plea deal in exchange for your testimony against Gawker Media. I'm sure the district attorney would rather make the bigger headlines of hanging Gawker Media out to dry vs. some John Doe that happened to make a really really stupid error in judgement in a bar.

Then, after the criminal part is done, then you can start worrying about the civil suit that Apple might bring. But at least that won't land you in jail.

BTW, the above recommendation applies to Jason Chen, who is, apparently, the Gawker Media employee that is based here in California that held possession of the prototype iPhone for Gawker. Jason is likely to be the "fall guy" in any criminal prosecution. If there is an arrest (fingerprinting and photos and all that stuff), Jason is likely to be the first one. Jason just might want to consider working a plea deal himself.

Mark
post #259 of 393
The irony here is that Gizmodo are massive Apple fanboys. And now they won't get invited to another Apple event ever again. Apple has a very long memory. The Register were banned about 10 years ago and still aren't allowed to attend.
post #260 of 393
[QUOTE=Dr.No;1619321]And trade secrets are usually found in bars. That'll be one hell of a defense. Can't wait to see it.


/QUOTE]

lol .... you're right !!!!

... and all comments around here defending Apple are ridiculous ....
how can you talking about trade secrets when you can left them on a bar stool ? lol ...
Appel has a childish attitude in this case .... if the related story is confirmed.

What about the President leaving the atomic bomb plans in a bar ? who is responsible ? The President or the iranian waiter ? .... lol
post #261 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Next question. Who took the pictures?

And by the way, your sentence says that they stole NY, but they didn't have it. That was weird.

Technically they did steal NY because they stole an apple which is also NY (the big apple)
post #262 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucci View Post

Slightly off topic, but...

What's with all the Gizmodo hate? Every single person on this thread probably read their article on the new iPhone and loved every minute of it, just like I did.

I agree with your sentiment. The holier-than-thouness in this thread is quite breathtaking.
post #263 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucci View Post

Slightly off topic, but...

What's with all the Gizmodo hate? Every single person on this thread probably read their article on the new iPhone and loved every minute of it, just like I did.

+ 1

all the comments against gizmodo are ridiculous ....
post #264 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The irony here is that Gizmodo are massive Apple fanboys.

I can think of many things they are: arrogant, irrelevant, annoying... but fanboy does not come to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandrakeTheMagician View Post

+ 1

all the comments against gizmodo are ridiculous ....

Call it what you will... doesn't change the fact that they stepped over the line and this is what people are passionate about.
post #265 of 393
I find it rather interesting that Nick Denton's Twitter page has been on fire with smug tweets about their iPhone "scoop" since Monday. That is, until yesterday. So far, no more iPhone article tweets since the news broke regarding the criminal investigation:

http://twitter.com/nicknotned

Apparently, the cat has Nick's tongue.

Mark
post #266 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucci View Post

Slightly off topic, but...

What's with all the Gizmodo hate? Every single person on this thread probably read their article on the new iPhone and loved every minute of it, just like I did.

I admit I was initially interested in the story and was shocked anyone at Apple could be so careless, but the more I found out the more I realized Gizmodo had probably crossed the line.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #267 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

I'm of the opinion that Gawker Media committed a criminal act with the purchase and sharing of the prototype iPhone. I've read up on some of the laws that apply to the situation and my armchair analysis is this:

--big snip--

Mark

Excellent analysis!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #268 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I agree with your sentiment. The holier-than-thouness in this thread is quite breathtaking.

I couldn't agree more. There is so much righteousness here and yet everyone lapped up every single video and photo that Gizmodo produced about this.

Only after the fact everyone is critical of Gizmodo so they can be smug about Apple's propriety in this. Apple doesn't need protecting from a mistake that they made.

All over the world the media is aggressively opportunistic with their stories and routinely blurb busines secrets out before the companies are ready to formally release them. That's the way a competitive media industry works. We are all better informed as a result while the companies are kept on their toes to keep innovating faster and faster to keep up with it all.
post #269 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

All over the world the media is aggressively opportunistic with their stories and routinely blurb busines secrets out before the companies are ready to formally release them. That's the way a competitive media industry works.

Really? So the media should be above the law! Have you even thought about what you wrote?
post #270 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

I couldn't agree more. There is so much righteousness here and yet everyone lapped up every single video and photo that Gizmodo produced about this.

Only after the fact everyone is critical of Gizmodo so they can be smug about Apple's propriety in this. Apple doesn't need protecting from a mistake that they made.

All over the world the media is aggressively opportunistic with their stories and routinely blurb busines secrets out before the companies are ready to formally release them. That's the way a competitive media industry works. We are all better informed as a result while the companies are kept on their toes to keep innovating faster and faster to keep up with it all.

I want my news sources to be a bit on the scrappy and envelope-pushing -- although ethical -- side.

I genuinely believe that both political and corporate power (and sometime the two are intertwined; although that is not necessarily true of Apple) can be kept in check only with an aggressively free press. While the payment portion of the transaction makes me queasy -- it creates a National Enquirer aspect to the story -- on balance, it is better that the story is out there than not. As we have witnessed from the stock market reaction, Apple investors have basically shrugged it off as a non-event.

It's also helpful to remember a few other things: Gizmodo's 10+ million hits is something that equivalent media will kill for, and I have to believe that lots of media outlets would have run with the story in a similar way; Apple has actually got incredibly valuable 'consumer reaction' testing out of this for free; it is only two months from release anyway, and many signficant Apple products have had the details of both internals and externals 'outed' much earlier -- indeed, the details of the first iPhone were know more than 6 months prior and this one is a fourth generation, for goodness sake; Gizmodo probably knows much more than they are letting on (e.g., the processor details), and in that sense, they have been somewhat circumspect; finally, it is not at all obvious to me that the whole thing was just a coincidence.

Apple should -- and will -- let it go with a shrug and a laugh. That's my bet.
post #271 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by q dude View Post

Really? So the media should be above the law! Have you even thought about what you wrote?

No one should be above the 'law.' But in a country such as the US, the 'law' is constantly evolving, and that's the way it should be. The envelope-pushing is a necessary part of that evolution.
post #272 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

I'm of the opinion that Gawker Media committed a criminal act with the purchase and sharing of the prototype iPhone. I've read up on some of the laws that apply to the situation and my armchair analysis is this:

1) Although the prototype iPhone was supposedly found in a bar, the person that found it did NOT make reasonable attempts to return the iPhone to its proper owner. The moment that person removed the iPhone from the bar, he/she became guilty of theft. It was not his/hers to take and it CERTAINLY was not his/hers to sell. This is the person that I have the most desire to see prosecuted for criminal activity. Having him/her spend a bit of time in jail would send a nice message to all of the "finders keepers" believers out there. (The ones that are, apparently, still in grade school.) Once the thief has to hire a lawyer to defend him/herself, he/she will wish he/she had gotten a lot more than $5K from Gawker Media. In fact, I bet that person is worried sick right now. As he/she should be!

2) By Gawker Media's own admission, they knew the prototype iPhone did not belong to the person they purchased it from. That's all that we need to know. They KNEW it was not the rightful property of the person selling it. In my opinion, by purchasing it, Gawker Media became guilty of purchasing stolen property.

3) Gawker Media's argument that "they didn't know what they had until they opened it" is pure nonsense. There's no way they would spend $5K to purchase a phone device if they didn't already know it was something special. They knew.

4) "Freedom of speech" and "Freedom of the press" will not protect Gawker Media in this case. This isn't a first amendment case. It's a criminal case about stolen property. The first amendment issues would only come into play during a subsequent civil suit (filed by Apple) over the release of trade secrets, etc.

5) Apparently, the only good advice Gawker Media got from their "legal team" was to make sure the prototype iPhone remained in California. That saved Gawker Media from the biggest bag of hurt. Had the prototype crossed state lines, then it would be the US District Attorney and the FBI investigating this situation. The federal laws on the transportation of stolen property across state lines are quite clear. It would have been a felony.

6) Lastly, the story linked at the beginning of this thread is about a CRIMINAL investigation. Nowhere does it say that Apple is suing Gawker or anyone else. Apple may be preparing a civil suit, but, as of now, none has been announced. This story is about possible criminal activity. Other than Apple possibly filing the actual criminal complaint (which I suspect they did and, frankly, predicted they would), the investigation is now in the hands of Santa Clara law enforcement. If, during their investigation, they discover that the prototype iPhone ever crossed state lines, I am sure the feds will get involved too. If Santa Clara law enforcement finds sufficient evidence of violation of California law, then charges will be brought.

And HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART... In a CRIMINAL case, Gawker Media cannot use a first amendment defense to protect the person that found and sold the prototype iPhone. In a CRIMINAL case, they will be forced to reveal the identity of that person. If Gawker Media refuses, then principles at Gawker Media will likely find themselves behind bars for contempt of court and charged with interfering with a criminal investigation.

If the person that "found" this prototype iPhone is reading this... You should be very very worried right now! You are in for a world of hurt if law enforcement and the DA decides to move forward with criminal charges. You could be facing jail time and significant fines. Gawker Media will not be able to protect you. Your best bet is to come forward immediately and contact the Santa Clara district attorney to try to work a plea deal in exchange for your testimony against Gawker Media. I'm sure the district attorney would rather make the bigger headlines of hanging Gawker Media out to dry vs. some John Doe that happened to make a really really stupid error in judgement in a bar.

Then, after the criminal part is done, then you can start worrying about the civil suit that Apple might bring. But at least that won't land you in jail.

BTW, the above recommendation applies to Jason Chen, who is, apparently, the Gawker Media employee that is based here in California that held possession of the prototype iPhone for Gawker. Jason is likely to be the "fall guy" in any criminal prosecution. If there is an arrest (fingerprinting and photos and all that stuff), Jason is likely to be the first one. Jason just might want to consider working a plea deal himself.

Mark

Great post. Additionally, Gizmodo's defense will likely include some language regarding their inability to verify the validity of the device until after purchasing it. This will be thrown out the window given the fact that they published a dissection of the device with verification of its authenticity, rather than simply keeping it private and returning it to Apple.

They can't prove their ignorance or intent, when their actions say otherwise.
post #273 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I agree with your sentiment. The holier-than-thouness in this thread is quite breathtaking.

The funniest aspect of that phenomenon is that AppleInsider published every single tidbit that they found on Gizmodo, but few of the Holy types criticize AI.
post #274 of 393
.....
post #275 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by q dude View Post

Really? So the media should be above the law! Have you even thought about what you wrote?

They are not above the law. The law accommodates the people's right to know. It also accommodates competing interests.

I don't see a mistakenly-revealed trade secret as trumping the public's rights. This isn't a matter of national security. The media should have a WIDE latitude to keep us informed.

And Apple needs to be more careful with its secrets if it wants to keep them secret.
post #276 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post


3) Gawker Media's argument that "they didn't know what they had until they opened it" is pure nonsense. There's no way they would spend $5K to purchase a phone device if they didn't already know it was something special. They knew.

To say they 'knew' is an assumption, and you lose a bit of credibility when you make it sound so certain. I am sure they suspected it was something special. They'll simply claim they wanted to confirm it. After all, (a) Apple knock-offs are dime a dozen, and (b) they (and dozens of others like them) take stuff apart like this all the time and make the information public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

This story is about possible criminal activity. Other than Apple possibly filing the actual criminal complaint (which I suspect they did and, frankly, predicted they would), the investigation is now in the hands of Santa Clara law enforcement.

If Apple had filed the criminal complaint, wouldn't that be public knowledge by now? Also, unless it was specifically requested by the 'injured party' (in this case Apple), I would have to believe that Santa Clara police have cost-benefit trade-offs to make: I'll bet this is far from the most pressing law enforcement issue in that town/county.
post #277 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

...

"That's right man. Don't take any guff from these swine."

--Raoul Duke
post #278 of 393
@ DoctorBenway

You may want to edit your post or those multiple personal attacks may lead to a ban.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #279 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by q dude View Post

Really? So the media should be above the law! Have you even thought about what you wrote?

You'll note that I'm not advocating above the law at all. Obviously each agency has to check themselves to make sure they don't cross the line.

As media is an incredibly tough business, the ones that balance maximising readership and keeping their writers out of jail are the ones getting the balance right.

I think what anantksundaram is saying here "scrappy and envelope-pushing -- although ethical -- side" is the right idea. That said each newspaper, blog and TV station has different ethics and their interpretation of the law will vary from one office to the next so consumers get some genuine media diversity that they wouldn't otherwise get.
post #280 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No one should be above the 'law.' But in a country such as the US, the 'law' is constantly evolving, and that's the way it should be. The envelope-pushing is a necessary part of that evolution.

Envelope pushing--as you call it--should not include violating someones rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

They are not above the law. The law accommodates the people's right to know.

Yes, but not through thievery.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story