or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › DA decides not to bring charges against Gizmodo in iPhone 4 case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DA decides not to bring charges against Gizmodo in iPhone 4 case - Page 2

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

Who reads their regurgitated garbage. Gawker has like ten blogs, but crossposts so much, that it's like 1.5 blogs worth of content. Gizmodo is the worst. Tech 'news' for ten year olds, written by ten year olds.

I can't believe they're still around.

Lifehacker is actually a pretty good and the only gawker site that I visit.
"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 #42 of 57
Sadly, crime does sometimes pay.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #43 of 57
Gawker's properties, including Gizmodo, are exemplary of tabloid journalism reborn as a click-hungry website. Anything that gets the clicks. (I've stopped going to the Huffington Post because it's such a mousetrap, too.) This online company really doesn't care much about anything but sensationalistic stories and clicktrhough.

This little adventure with the iPhone is typical of what a lack of ethics will do to you. Did they know it was stolen? Well, duh. Did it matter to them? Not in the slightest, no more than phone hacking mattered to News of the World. No more than facts do to Fox News.

In the U.S., it's very hard to make a civil charge stick against any news source. Our libel laws are very broad, and there's that thing about the 1st Amendment.

What Gizmodo managed to do was to get the cops to work from a voluntary basis. So, they have to ask specifically for x evidence of y facts, and the company will then send them the evidence. They had first gotten a search warrant, which would be used on normal citizens. A search warrant means, I get anything I can find in X place. I take your computer, and I look around for evidence. Guess which way is the most productive of evidence?

I don't mind this deference being given to newspapers or other sources of news. But in the case of a sleazy tabloid, it does make you angry that the organization is abusing its rights to free speech.
post #44 of 57
Read the article from CNET and then read DED's article... Then you can talk to me about substance. DED's focus is on the actions of Gizmodo and his personal outrage the DA didn't file charges against them. (Grammar mistakes are DED's not mine, btw)

..."all under probably cause that Chen's computers had been "used as the means of committing a felony."

"Despite Gizmodo's role in the misappropriation of Apple's lost property and its apparent possession of stolen property, which it used to taunt Apple's legal representatives for what appears to have been a period of weeks after obtaining it..."

Contrast that to the CNET news article...
"Neither Gizmodo nor its parent company, Gawker Media, has been charged with any crime, Wagstaffe said. Nor have any of Gawker Media's employees, including the editor whose home was raided by police armed with a search warrant."

The point is... that DED's article is a slanted article intended to share his outrage that the DA didn't press charges against Gizmodo, Gawker, et al. The CNET article actually reported on the news that happened today The DA pressed charges against two people related to the theft and sale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum. Both headlines are true. Oh, I get it. It's all about hating on DED so substance really doesn't matter.
post #45 of 57
Hey jragosta:

Of course both headlines are true...That's what makes it 'spin' and not 'lies'. If you had read both articles, the difference in tone and inference is pretty apparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The only funny part is that you are apparently incapable of understanding that an article is more than the headline. Both statements are completely true. The DA did decide not to bring charges against Gizmodo while the prosecutors did decide to file some charges (just not against Gizmodo).

Is that distinction really too complicated for you?



Maybe, maybe not. Apple still has the option for a civil complaint. They could put Gizmodo out of business by burying them with legal expenses if nothing else.



Oh, really? Where is your evidence that the warrant was obtained illegally and was declared invalid?

Oh, wait. You're repeating Gizmodo's erroneous claim that anything that occurs in a newsroom is exempt from search and seizure. That is, of course, nonsense. If it were true, Jimmy Hoffa would be sitting in NBC's production studios right now, rather than under the end zone of a football stadium.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And gizmodo got millions and millions of hits and probably retained many new readers, was it worth $5000, hell the f yeah.

Also permanently lost a bunch of readers. I'll never visit a Gawker site again.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Also permanently lost a bunch of readers. I'll never visit a Gawker site again.

How are you "a bunch"?
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson View Post

So if I buy a car from someone that does not belong to them, and I know it is probably not their property when I purchase it, and then later the real owner of the car contacts me asking for it back, which would indicated the car was probably stolen, I am not guilty of possessing stolen property?

Seems like a strange ruling. I can only guess that there were some technical issues related to the evidence or how it was collected that made the DA think it would be hard to convict on the charges.

Giz dodged the bullet on this. They purchased stolen property, did stuff which could be considered industrial espionage, and then extorted Steve Jobs directly by asking for "consideration for early access to information, etc." in exchange for returning the prototype.
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Sorry, you cannot fine anybody unless you are the police.

Sorry, you cannot fine anybody unless you are the court.
Police cannot fine you.
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Or they were unsure. Or they were 70% sure. Or an infinite number of other possibilities.

If they had any suspicions that it was real, they should have never touched it - Gizmodo should have known any prototype would have been illegally gotten unless they wanted to be deliberately naive. And who spends 5000 bucks without verifying what they are being sold.

Lets be honest here, they wanted to remain ignorant for this exact reason.
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Sorry, you cannot fine anybody unless you are the court.
Police cannot fine you.

So that ticket that cop issued me a few months ago should have been issued by the local courthouse???? The police issue citations and fines all the time. The courts enforce the citations via interpretation of the existing laws.

I have paid several (very minor) fines and never seen the inside of a courthouse. My check went to the state, but it was the police that issued the citations in the first place. The courts are there in case we don’t agree with said citations and we want to appeal them. Or we don’t pay them at all and they arrest you.

The court can fine you too, but that only happens when you are at a trial. The Police do most of the citations (though they act as agents of the state).
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

If they had any suspicions that it was real, they should have never touched it - Gizmodo should have known any prototype would have been illegally gotten unless they wanted to be deliberately naive. And who spends 5000 bucks without verifying what they are being sold.

Lets be honest here, they wanted to remain ignorant for this exact reason.

Gizmodo knew all along what they were doing. You don't write an extortion email to Steve Jobs on a whim.
post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Gizmodo knew all along what they were doing. You don't write an extortion email to Steve Jobs on a whim.

Which is why I suspect that Gizmodo isn't going to get off entirely. Apple can still file a civil complaint. Or else Apple may have already reached an agreement with Gizmodo to settle the civil matter.
"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 #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Gizmodo knew all along what they were doing. You don't write an extortion email to Steve Jobs on a whim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Which is why I suspect that Gizmodo isn't going to get off entirely. Apple can still file a civil complaint. Or else Apple may have already reached an agreement with Gizmodo to settle the civil matter.

Very possibly - Civil court is much more flexible than criminal court.
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Meaney View Post

Read the article from CNET and then read DED's article... Then you can talk to me about substance. DED's focus is on the actions of Gizmodo and his personal outrage the DA didn't file charges against them. (Grammar mistakes are DED's not mine, btw)

..."all under probably cause that Chen's computers had been "used as the means of committing a felony."

"Despite Gizmodo's role in the misappropriation of Apple's lost property and its apparent possession of stolen property, which it used to taunt Apple's legal representatives for what appears to have been a period of weeks after obtaining it..."

Contrast that to the CNET news article...
"Neither Gizmodo nor its parent company, Gawker Media, has been charged with any crime, Wagstaffe said. Nor have any of Gawker Media's employees, including the editor whose home was raided by police armed with a search warrant."

The point is... that DED's article is a slanted article intended to share his outrage that the DA didn't press charges against Gizmodo, Gawker, et al. The CNET article actually reported on the news that happened today The DA pressed charges against two people related to the theft and sale.

Actually, I did read both before I commented. But you called out the headlines in your post so that's what I commented on. Now that you've opened up the argument to include content I will be happy to respond. The degree of slant is arguable, but since CNET is a "general purpose" tech website I would expect a neutral tone. Since AI is basically for Apple fans, some degree of slant is neither unexpected nor unwelcome from my point of view.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Very possibly - Civil court is much more flexible than criminal court.

It's not so much flexibility as it is the evidentiary standards.

To win in criminal court, you must show that the person committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, you typically only have to show a preponderance of evidence.
"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 #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

That's all you noticed? The article has more typos than that!
Use a proofreader, Dan.

Maybe he relies on iOS autocorrect

How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › DA decides not to bring charges against Gizmodo in iPhone 4 case