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.
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.
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?
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.
Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but according to many news outlets, Apple has talked to the police. So, Apple told the police something to cause the police to suspect a crime. Apple isn't required to give a public statement about it's thoughts on the matter, anymore then you or I would be if somebody broke into our house and took something. Apple suspects theft. It has told the police so.
Further, neither Apple nor it's engineer has publicly stated that the phone was lost. That comes solely from Gizmodo. Apple's engineer could suspect the phone was taken from him at the Bar, which would explain why the finder failed to tell the bar owner about the lost phone [as any reasonable person would do].
The story reeks set up.
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey Gizmodo! You got a little piece of griefer blowback on your face.
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.
Yes, but according to many news outlets, Apple has talked to the police. So, Apple told the police something to cause the police to suspect a crime. Apple isn't required to give a public statement about it's thoughts on the matter, anymore then you or I would be if somebody broke into our house and took something. Apple suspects theft. It has told the police so.
Further, neither Apple nor it's engineer has publicly stated that the phone was lost. That comes solely from Gizmodo. Apple's engineer could suspect the phone was taken from him at the Bar, which would explain why the finder failed to tell the bar owner about the lost phone [as any reasonable person would do].
The story reeks set up.
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.