or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor - Page 5

post #161 of 531
Holy Conflict of Interest Batman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

Quote:
The California criminal investigation into the case of the errant Apple G4 iPhone that Gizmodo.com unveiled before legions of curious Internet readers last week is noteworthy in its potential to make new media law. But it's also striking for another reason: The raid that San Mateo area cops conducted on the house of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen came at the behest of a special multi-agency task force that was founded to work with the computer industry to tackle high-tech crimes. And Apple Inc. sits on the task force's steering committee.


This is NOT good people. It looks very bad.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #162 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.

It is as close to the source as you are going to get. Take it as coming from Gray. He is not saying anything else about it, expect that it was Stolen off him, not lost.
post #163 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Those cost extra for no apparent reason. The white ones are much more affordable.

Maybe they are machined from a solid block of billet aluminum...
post #164 of 531
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were revealed. Please.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #165 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.

Yes, but hearsay is admissible here at AI.
post #166 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

There are many possibilities.

1) the gizmodo editor bought the iPhone prototype without any idea that it was stolen
2) the gizmodo editor knew it was stolen
3) the gizmodo editor stole the iPhone prototype
4) the Apple engineer actually sold gizmodo the iPhone
5) Steve Jobs sold gizmodo the iPhone.

The police needs to get the evidence. Breaking the door might be a bit over the top, but that's probably regular procedure in order to preserve evidence.

they might actually find emails like

Your leaving out one possibility, as stolen and lost are different verbs.

so:

6) the Apple engineer left the phone on the bar and it was found.

If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
post #167 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were reaveled. Please.


Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
post #168 of 531
You are all missing the point. The search was carried out by California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team. There whole raison d'etre is to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen.

This search was done "pour encourager les autres". (google it if you don't know what it means).
post #169 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Here are the remarks from Neowin members, for everyone's amusement.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gizmodo-e...eized#comments

LOL

I particularly liked
"Yeah, i never buy anything from Apple... One reason! OVER PRICED! AND RIP-OFF!".

Not to mention expensive.
post #170 of 531
The whole 'journalism' argument is bullshit.

1. Chen should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
2. Gizmodo and its parent company should be prosecuted for materially benefiting from Chen crime.
- Certainly any revenue generated from page clicks on pages relating to the crime.
- Possibly a fine for knowingly benefiting from a crime.
post #171 of 531
I don't know why they needed to do that, all the evidence is right there on the web for anyone to see. I am in favor of fining them for publishing trade secrets, but knocking down people's doors is a bit extreme.

After this, I guess in future if anyone finds an Apple prototype they will keep their mouth shut and quietly mail it back to them!
post #172 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottkrk View Post

The whole 'Law' argument is bullshit.

1. Chen should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
2. Gizmodo and its parent company should be prosecuted for materially benefiting from Chen crime.
- Certainly any revenue generated from page clicks on pages relating to the crime.
- Possibly a fine for knowingly benefiting from a crime.

There fixed that for you
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #173 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?

If you find someone's wallet in a bar, are you allowed to keep it, spend all the money, and publish all their private info on the web? Or would that change it from finding to stealing? If you quietly hand it to the bartender that is finding.
post #174 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Your leaving out one possibility, as stolen and lost are different verbs.

so:

6) the Apple engineer left the phone on the bar and it was found.

If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?

actually you do not own anything you "found".

You can give it to the police. after a period of time, if no one claims the property, then it's yours to keep.
post #175 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

actually you do not own anything you "found".

You can give it to the police. after a period of time, if no one claims the property, then it's yours to keep.

That's a good point.
post #176 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

You are swearing off apple products because someone stole an Apple prototype?

You mean someone stole AND FENCED an Apple prototype. And then the purchaser broke all sorts of trade secret laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.

Not relevant. The courts have already ruled that being a journalist does not allow you to break the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri3 View Post

Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.

Is your phone a valuable prototype that's worth millions of dollars and your competitors would love to get a look at it? If not, your phone is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.

You left a couple out:
Theft
Purchase of stolen property
Possession of stolen property
Unlawful disclosure of trade secrets
Damaging stolen property

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the DA will respond that the issue is simply receiving stolen property, and what chen/giz did with the info about it after they did that - the journalism part - is irrelevant. a separate civil matter. and so there is no journalist shield applicable here.

of course this is legally arguable. maybe the case will go all the way to the supremes. but look at the scooter libby precedent ... even where is was just pure info about a crime and not the stolen hardware itself, the subpoena was upheld. so good luck with that one, giz.

It's not arguable (well, technically, it's arguable, but they'll lose). No one has EVER won a case on the basis of a journalist in this country where they did something like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out?

The state (California) is being gregarious where they really have no need to be. Apple did not report the item stolen, therefore they never reported a crime.

How do you know that Apple never reported a crime? Do you have the police logs?

More importantly, Apple didn't have to report it. Gizmodo did that. Gizmodo published what amounts to a confession of theft of stolen property and misappropriation of trade secrets. The police had sufficient knowledge of a crime to get a judge to order a warrant. Apple didn't have to do anything. If the police know of a crime being committed, they're supposed to take action - particularly when the criminal is so public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I see things from both sides here.

The burden of proof lies with California to prove that Gizmodo knew the item was stolen and also prove that Gizmodo/Gawker media should not have the same protections and rights that other media companies enjoy.

Both statements are false.

Gizmodo's published story says that the phone was found in a public place and sold to Gizmodo for $5 K. Under CA laws, that is a theft. Actually, given the price paid, it's grand theft.

Whether Gizmodo is a journalist, a blogger or a high school newspaper reporter is irrelevant. Being a journalist does not give you protection against theft charges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo

Yeah, we should all LOVE someone who so openly breaks the law--and then brags about it.

Want to bet that the confiscated computers indicate that we don't have the whole story? Like the unnamed 'finder' was actually sent by Gizmodo or contacted Gizmodo in advance saying he thought he could get a phone? I really suspect that there's a lot more. Look at the timeline:
- Gizmodo offers a large reward for info on the new phone
- Someone just happens to be in a bar where Apple engineers hang out.
- Someone from Apple just happens to leave their phone on a bar stool.
- The person who 'finds' it just happens to ignore all the rational ways to return it and calls AppleCare instead
- The person who 'finds' it ignores the ringing phone all evening - which would almost certainly be the owner or someone who knows him.
- The person who 'finds' it just happens to call Gizmodo - hardly a household name. Why not the police? Apple HQ? Steve Jobs? The person the phone belonged to (his name and facebook page were on the phone)? The bartender or bar manager? Time Magazine? San Francisco paper? CNET? Out of all those options, he just 'happens' to call Gizmodo.

Suuuuuurrre.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

There are many possibilities.

1) the gizmodo editor bought the iPhone prototype without any idea that it was stolen
2) the gizmodo editor knew it was stolen
3) the gizmodo editor stole the iPhone prototype
4) the Apple engineer actually sold gizmodo the iPhone
5) Steve Jobs sold gizmodo the iPhone.

The police needs to get the evidence. Breaking the door might be a bit over the top, but that's probably regular procedure in order to preserve evidence.

they might actually find emails like

The place your argument falls down is that Gizmodo publicly announced that someone found it on a barstool and sold it to Gizmodo. Under CA law, that's felony theft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."

Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Sorry, under CA law, it is theft. If the guy had continued to try to get it back to the owner, you could make your argument. But the minute he sold it to Gizmodo, it became theft - and Gizmodo became the knowing recipient of stolen property.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #177 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.


Isnt that what everyone is screaming about? Its not like the hid the fact they had it. They promptly returned it when asked for it. It was a lost phone they may or may not have belonged to Apple. Whats the difference of me buying something stolen from a crackhead and then posting pics all over the neighborhood asking if this item belonged to someone?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #178 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by grover432 View Post

I'm glad that law enforcement officials are following up on this. I think "Gizmodo" went too far on this one. Rumors are fine, but if they knowingly took possession of property that they knew was Apple's and then went on to disassemble and distribute information about it, I think they should be charged.

Agreed... I think Gizmodo went way too far when they took the device apart.
post #179 of 531
Do people in America read anymore? How many times does it have to be repeated that this is not about revealing trade secrets, free speech, journalistic freedom or any of that! They payed $5000 for a piece of property that they had to know with 100% certainty did not belong to the person they were buying it from. It has NOTHING to do with Apple! There are probably thousands of these same type of investigations happening every year but you don't hear about it because nobody cares. The only reason why this is making such a big deal is because at least one party involved is well known around the world.
post #180 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

As far as I have gathered, the only one "publishing original text" was Gizmodo - that then got republished and speculated by both internet and print media.

Apple is not exactly talking -- to corroborate or deny the sequence of events, or their validity. While there were reports about the Apple employee that left the alleged iPhone in the bar, all the scenarios were from second hand sources (e.g., the Father). The bar owner indicated that the Apple employee called the bar several times; there was no report of anyone "finding" the alleged lost item.

To my knowledge (mostly from Gizmodo and secondary or umpteenth repetition from other sources):
  1. Gizmodo has identified who was the original holder of the alleged iPhone G4.
  2. Note: "Alleged" because there was no confirming evidence from Apple that it was indeed an iPhone G4. Gizmodo, or anyone else is not yet privy to the technical specifications of the actual iPhone G4 widely known to be released around June 2010.
  3. Gizmodo has not identified the person who got "it" and was not very forthcoming about the sequence of events after.
  4. Eventually the alleged iPhone "magically" reached someone associated with Gizmodo.
  5. Gizmodo admitted to paying $5,000 for access to the alleged iPhone G4.
  6. Gizmodo was certain the "alleged" was actually an iPhone G4 -- the basis of its scoop. For the same reason, Gizmodo must then have realized also that the existence the alleged iPhone G4 remains restricted, as it is not yet released.
  7. As such, the alleged iPhone G4 must be treated as a propriety property under the protection of "trade secrets".
  8. There is no indication that Gizmodo ever contacted Apple to inform the latter that they (Gizmodo) are in possession of a proprietary property that Gizmodo believed to be the iPhone G4 -- not yet released and not readily available to the public -- that belongs to Apple.
  9. In spite of all the aforementioned, Gizmodo decided to take photos, disassemble the alleged iPhone G4 to learn more about how it worked. And published their findings.

I could go on, but we really do not know the full story. What is certain is that the California statutes have definite rulings on how to deal with "lost or stolen" properties.

Gizmodo believed it did not violate any laws. Obviously, the law enforcement offices and officers, at the very least in California, believed otherwise (assuming I summarized the alleged events as dispassionately as I can).

CGC

So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.

So tell me, why come at me the way you did?
post #181 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were revealed. Please. Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.

It may be hard to prove what damages were caused, but certainly trade secrets were revealed. Here's what was not public knowledge (regardless of speculation or rumors) but was revealed by Gizmodo having illegally paid for the stolen iPhone and publishing it:
1) Front facing camera
2) Apparent doubling of screen resolution
3) 80GB which may indicate two flash modules
4) Consolidation of components
5) Flash
6) Larger camera lens
7) Larger battery
8) Design change

These aren't trade secrets in the sense that a competitor will think, "oh, we never thought of having a front facing camera or more storage", but rather it affects Apple's ability to do several things:
1) Control the release and promotion of the information
2) Make changes without disappointing people...imagine if the released phone doesn't now come with the above things. That wouldn't be good.
3) Surprise competitors with where they're going to be this summer.
4) While there's a pattern of new iPhone releases in June/July, nobody knew for sure and certainly not the details...thus customers may wait on buying existing models or may decide that the upcoming iPhone won't be that great so they'll buy a competitive product (and it may turn out that the actual iPhone is better than the prototype).

Apple could've been wrong to not demo and release the specs of the upcoming iPhone a long time ago, but that's their call to make and taking that away from them is revealing trade secrets and is illegal when the methods used are illegal themselves (the felony of paying $5K for a stolen iPhone).
post #182 of 531
No one is allowed to break the law, not journalists, not cops, no one.

That is what a warrant is - special temporary permission from a judge, in advance, to do something otherwise illegal (such as searching another man's house).

If Gizmodo had a warrant to publish Apple's trade secrets then they'd be ok.
post #183 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Let's stop falling back on that. In a criminal case you must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and if the "victim" is unwilling to state a crime has been committed against them, i.e.: a police report or ratified statement stating such, it makes this a difficult case to prosecute.

Hmmmm. Gizmodo publicly showed the stolen iPhone 4g. They crowed about it. They bragged about it. They are STUPID.
post #184 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexor View Post

Do people in America read anymore? How many times does it have to be repeated that this is not about revealing trade secrets, free speech, journalistic freedom or any of that! They payed $5000 for a piece of property that they had to know with 100% certainty did not belong to the person they were buying it from. It has NOTHING to do with Apple! There are probably thousands of these same type of investigations happening every year but you don't hear about it because nobody cares. The only reason why this is making such a big deal is because at least one party involved is well known around the world.

Ok so lets say your friends iPhone was stolen, and the next day that very phone was offered for you to buy and you immediately recognize it as your friends phone. Calling the police will take too long, so you buy it in order to return to your friend. So are you now guilty of buying stolen property because you were doing your friend a favor and recouping their lost phone?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #185 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, under CA law, it is theft. If the guy had continued to try to get it back to the owner, you could make your argument. But the minute he sold it to Gizmodo, it became theft - and Gizmodo became the knowing recipient of stolen property.

Don't you love it how he was unable to get hold of Apple but had no problem getting hold of Gizmodo. Apple HQ is less than 20 miles away and I am sure a police station is even closer. He could have mailed the phone. But he chose to sell it to the highest bidder. If that's not theft then some people are really living in Bizarro World.
post #186 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Isnt that what everyone is screaming about? Its not like the hid the fact they had it. They promptly returned it when asked for it. It was a lost phone they may or may not have belonged to Apple. Whats the difference of me buying something stolen from a crackhead and then posting pics all over the neighborhood asking if this item belonged to someone?

I think the point is that if they, for example, "bought stolen goods", whether they had time to publish anything about the "goods" isn't relevant to whether a crime was committed.
post #187 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

No one is allowed to break the law, not journalists, not cops, no one.

That is what a warrant is - special temporary permission from a judge, in advance, to do something otherwise illegal (such as searching another man's house).

If Gizmodo had a warrant to publish Apple's trade secrets then they'd be ok.

Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.

The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.

The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #188 of 531
I'm kinda curious to find out if Jason's computers had File Vault activated on them. Oh, the irony. Evidence of a crime committed against Apple prevented from disclosure by the very encryption technology they deployed.

Can Jason be compelled to give up the password? Not in the criminal case. Mr. 5th Amendment likely applies. But probably not in any civil case someone in Cuppertino might wish to bring against him (and his employer.)

Pass the popcorn, Ginger....
post #189 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

I think them saying that they paid for it is enough evidence, unless there are other motives... like they don't want to pay the guy, so they are like "did you see the post on twitter? we said we paid already"...

That could also be misdirection.

My point being is that no one knows what really happened and we shouldn't be demonizing or speculating that a crime has been committed when there is no proof of such.
post #190 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

I guess it's okay then if I steal your car and sell it to Gizmodo so they can do a story on your stereo system. Freedom of the press, right?

You're really going crazy here. Gizmodo bought stolen property - is that so hard to understand?

And somebody "notified police their warrant is invalid"? Funniest thing I ever heard. I guess the police should have just said, "Yes, sir, you must be right. We'll leave now." The only entity that can tell police their warrant is invalid is a court - and the court approved it. Gizmodo can file suit and argue that the warrant's invalid - I'm betting they lose.
post #191 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

Hmmmm. Gizmodo publicly showed the stolen iPhone 4g. They crowed about it. They bragged about it. They are STUPID.

That still is not an adequate counter to my point.
post #192 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker View Post

This story just keeps getting stupider and stupider. From the guy who lost the phone, to the guy who found it, to Gizmodo, to the cops no one has acted with intelligence or integrity. It's a sad tale that tells a lot more about the human condition than just karmic justice.

Good points.
post #193 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Ok so lets say your friends iPhone was stolen, and the next day that very phone was offered for you to buy and you immediately recognize it as your friends phone. Calling the police will take too long, so you buy it in order to return to your friend. So are you now guilty of buying stolen property because you were doing your friend a favor and recouping their lost phone?

Except Gizmodo didn't buy it to return it to Apple. They bought it to write the story and make money out of it. If their purpose was to return it to Apple then they should have return it without going public about the phone. They should have called Apple and told them they have what they have first. Gizmodo never tried to contact Apple when they purchase the iPhone. Actually they kept it for a whole week before saying anything about it.
post #194 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Holy Conflict of Interest Batman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795




This is NOT good people. It looks very bad.

Why does it look bad?

The "lost/stolen" iPhone prototype is technically a trade secret. Apple is only one of the 25 member in the committee. And the steering commitee doesn't even have control over "R.E.A.C.T." They are basically a consultant.
post #195 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

The only entity that can tell police their warrant is invalid is a court - and the court approved it. Gizmodo can file suit and argue that the warrant's invalid - I'm betting they lose.

Based on what? There's a reason why we have Appeals Court. The court system is not infallible.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #196 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.

Presumably the judge who issued the warrant reviewed the facts of the case first, and knew about the provision quoted in the email. So perhaps it does not apply for some obscure legal reason? I guess we will find out in the days to come.
post #197 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

That could also be misdirection.

My point being is that no one knows what really happened and we shouldn't be demonizing or speculating that a crime has been committed when there is no proof of such.

I'm speculating because a search warrant was issued, therefore, I believe there was reasonable evidence presented to the judge that demonstrated that a crime was committed.

Also just because the police on the scene "supposedly" stated that no one reported the phone stolen does not mean that such a report was not filed. the police on the scene were just exercising the warrant and may or may not have all of the information.
post #198 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Why does it look bad?

The "lost/stolen" iPhone prototype is technically a trade secret. Apple is only one of the 25 member in the committee. And the steering commitee doesn't even have control over "R.E.A.C.T." They are basically a consultant.

It draws a trail back to Apple and cast doubt on whether this group is being as impartial as they should be. If I'm opposing counsel I'm going to bring this connection to light and potential subpoena their history looking for any patterns of favoritism.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #199 of 531
The Gizmodo folk appear to be griefers. People have mentioned the stunt where they turned off monitors at CES. They have shown numerous times they like to give Apple grief and that is what they were doing here along with trying to get an interesting scoop. Well that seems to have gone just a little bit awry for them. I doubt they set out to do anything illegal. And we don't really know yet if the state considers that they did. Nonetheless, they did step in a big pile of it.

Hey Gizmodo! You got a little piece of griefer blowback on your face.
post #200 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

That could also be misdirection.

My point being is that no one knows what really happened and we shouldn't be demonizing or speculating that a crime has been committed when there is no proof of such.

maybe it's a misdirection, but the story they told was a story of a thief who sold them a stolen iPhone.

Like I said, it could be all a lie. The reality maybe Steve Jobs sold them the iPhone prototype. Which is why the police needs to investigate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor