Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
He thinks that there is no concrete proof that Giz paid $5K for the prototype yet believes that (all?) police are "passive aggressive" demagogues because, apparently, he has definite evidence that they are.
He's on my ignore list now. It's like reading the delusions of some citizen from another dimension.
The penal codes of Cali and several other states disagree with you. They all define theft as taking something that is not yours either by direct force, trickery or not making sufficient attempts to return a found object.
This guy called AppleCare, not Corporate. He did not report to the bar owner that he found the phone, he did not message the guy on the facebook account he says was visible on the phone. He didn't fed ex the prototype back to Apple, drive there or hand it over to the manager of the nearest store.
He removed the phone from the bar with intent to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if a check of Chen's computer finds an email telling the guy to call Apple just so he could get a ticket as 'proof' that he tried. Or even conversations before hand saying Gizmodo would pay if he could get his hands on a iphone etc.
Which by the by is why they took all his computers, phone etc. and anything that might have a backup of information he deleted when things get hot.
My guess is that there's actual California office or they would likely have seized from there also to prevent destruction of potential evidence
You can never truly wipe a computer or any magnetic media. A trace is always there. They could also check the servers of his ISP, but I would like to think everyone here knows that.
As well as subpoenaing phone records from the phone companies, etc. The truth is they probably already know who contacted them, IF that is what occurred and IF that is what happened, as they do have the resources to do that, and honestly, they really wouldn't need to confiscate his computers to do that.
These are all things anyone can come up with if they think rationally rather than emotionally.
All of those things could be done before 9/11 and are much easier to do now that the patriot act has been ratified into law.
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Mark
ROFLMAO, Mark. I love your usage of "THIEF." 2 thumbs up for your post
He thinks that there is no concrete proof that Giz paid $5K for the prototype yet believes that (all?) police are "passive aggressive" demagogues because, apparently, he has definite evidence that they are.
He's on my ignore list now. It's like reading the delusions of some citizen from another dimension.
Wow. I mean, wow. Only read the post you choose to, in order to keep up your troll hunt.
I'll say this though: if Apple has its way, Gawker Media could end up with a couple of high-level employees in jail and possibly be sued by Apple, Inc. out of existance. Now that's really scary.
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
Recent history has shown many of them were not truly guilty, so that is not a good argument.
You could not be more wrong. When I was a poor college student, my car was stolen. I noticed it about 8:00 in the morning, called the police immediately and filed a report. They called me back about noon the same day to tell me they had found and recovered my car, they had caught the guy who stole it, and they had already filed charges against the guy assuming it would be okay with me that they prosecute the guy. That car was worth a lot less than Gizmodo paid for this phone.
And in that case the police had to actually look for my car. Imagine how much simpler this case is where Gizmodo has already published a full confession and detailed description of the crime for the whole world to see.
Um, you are wrong, X38. The police were, in fact, being passive aggressive.
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
What's that got to do with anything?
Surely it would be up to the senior officers of a division/police department to authorize the expenditure of extra time/resources at a specific time of day, not a judge?
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.
Much like a police offer can break the speed limit within the course of duty news establishments must be given a little leeway (at times) because their are expected (ethically) to report on a wide dynamic range of news.
For instance if a black book was found containing the mistresses of a prominent Politician by a third party and sold to a media establishment would said Politician have the same recourse? Probably not.
What Gizmodo/Gawker did was borderline unethical but if they are indeed a media organization they be protected under current law.
Sorry, I don't believe that journalist laws protect journalists who break the law themselves. Shield laws are meant to help protect jounalist's sources. And there is a whole world of difference in buying information on a story that is in the public's interest for the public good, and buying property that you believe is misappropriated for no other reason than satisfying the public's curiosity. If that was all it took then all the privacy laws would be no defense against a journalist with a readership with a voyeur's interest.
As I understand it, California law also puts more of a burden on Gizmodo to prove that they had no suspicion that it MAY have been stolen. You can't tell the judge, "I didn't know for sure that that TV didn't just fall off a truck like he told me!" and expect to be let off the hook. They tested it before buying, and were confident enough that it was Apple's to pay $5000 for it. They've got some 'spaining to do.
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
The only scary part of this is that it is a white-collar crime, and seeing people do time for it is not as satisfying as in the case of violent crimes.
I don't really want to see Chen or Denton do time, but they deserve to be punished in some way.
Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."
Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."
I have a feeling the advice given to Jason Chen, Gizmoo and Gwaker media will have little hope of standing up in court. They're screwed...
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
I have a feeling the advice given to Jason Chen, Gizmoo and Gwaker media will have little hope of standing up in court. They're screwed...
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
If they reported how they received the phone accurately and she's their council, they are screwed.
The only scary part of this is that it is a white-collar crime, and seeing people do time for it is not as satisfying as in the case of violent crimes.
I don't really want to see Chen or Denton do time, but they deserve to be punished in some way.
I'm white collar and I'm okay with white collar criminals doing time. Is prison okay for blue-collar criminals but white collar people are somehow special?
I didn't say it was perfect. It sounds like you think they all should go free cause the system's not perfect?
Again with the attacks.
It must be that time of night. The adults have gone to bed and the children have come out to practice vandalism, which means it's time for me to go to bed.
I'm white collar and I'm okay with white collar criminals doing time. Is prison okay for blue-collar criminals but white collar people are somehow special?
Of course not. I'm just saying that prison is serious business...and Giz is more a joke than reality. I have a hard time envisioning any of those clowns in jail.
Comments
Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
He thinks that there is no concrete proof that Giz paid $5K for the prototype yet believes that (all?) police are "passive aggressive" demagogues because, apparently, he has definite evidence that they are.
He's on my ignore list now. It's like reading the delusions of some citizen from another dimension.
The penal codes of Cali and several other states disagree with you. They all define theft as taking something that is not yours either by direct force, trickery or not making sufficient attempts to return a found object.
This guy called AppleCare, not Corporate. He did not report to the bar owner that he found the phone, he did not message the guy on the facebook account he says was visible on the phone. He didn't fed ex the prototype back to Apple, drive there or hand it over to the manager of the nearest store.
He removed the phone from the bar with intent to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if a check of Chen's computer finds an email telling the guy to call Apple just so he could get a ticket as 'proof' that he tried. Or even conversations before hand saying Gizmodo would pay if he could get his hands on a iphone etc.
Which by the by is why they took all his computers, phone etc. and anything that might have a backup of information he deleted when things get hot.
My guess is that there's actual California office or they would likely have seized from there also to prevent destruction of potential evidence
You can never truly wipe a computer or any magnetic media. A trace is always there. They could also check the servers of his ISP, but I would like to think everyone here knows that.
As well as subpoenaing phone records from the phone companies, etc. The truth is they probably already know who contacted them, IF that is what occurred and IF that is what happened, as they do have the resources to do that, and honestly, they really wouldn't need to confiscate his computers to do that.
These are all things anyone can come up with if they think rationally rather than emotionally.
All of those things could be done before 9/11 and are much easier to do now that the patriot act has been ratified into law.
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Mark
ROFLMAO, Mark. I love your usage of "THIEF." 2 thumbs up for your post
He thinks that there is no concrete proof that Giz paid $5K for the prototype yet believes that (all?) police are "passive aggressive" demagogues because, apparently, he has definite evidence that they are.
He's on my ignore list now. It's like reading the delusions of some citizen from another dimension.
Wow. I mean, wow. Only read the post you choose to, in order to keep up your troll hunt.
Honestly, whatever makes you happy.
I'll say this though: if Apple has its way, Gawker Media could end up with a couple of high-level employees in jail and possibly be sued by Apple, Inc. out of existance. Now that's really scary.
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
Recent history has shown many of them were not truly guilty, so that is not a good argument.
You could not be more wrong. When I was a poor college student, my car was stolen. I noticed it about 8:00 in the morning, called the police immediately and filed a report. They called me back about noon the same day to tell me they had found and recovered my car, they had caught the guy who stole it, and they had already filed charges against the guy assuming it would be okay with me that they prosecute the guy. That car was worth a lot less than Gizmodo paid for this phone.
And in that case the police had to actually look for my car. Imagine how much simpler this case is where Gizmodo has already published a full confession and detailed description of the crime for the whole world to see.
Um, you are wrong, X38. The police were, in fact, being passive aggressive.
Source: harleighquinn
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
What's that got to do with anything?
Surely it would be up to the senior officers of a division/police department to authorize the expenditure of extra time/resources at a specific time of day, not a judge?
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.
Much like a police offer can break the speed limit within the course of duty news establishments must be given a little leeway (at times) because their are expected (ethically) to report on a wide dynamic range of news.
For instance if a black book was found containing the mistresses of a prominent Politician by a third party and sold to a media establishment would said Politician have the same recourse? Probably not.
What Gizmodo/Gawker did was borderline unethical but if they are indeed a media organization they be protected under current law.
Sorry, I don't believe that journalist laws protect journalists who break the law themselves. Shield laws are meant to help protect jounalist's sources. And there is a whole world of difference in buying information on a story that is in the public's interest for the public good, and buying property that you believe is misappropriated for no other reason than satisfying the public's curiosity. If that was all it took then all the privacy laws would be no defense against a journalist with a readership with a voyeur's interest.
As I understand it, California law also puts more of a burden on Gizmodo to prove that they had no suspicion that it MAY have been stolen. You can't tell the judge, "I didn't know for sure that that TV didn't just fall off a truck like he told me!" and expect to be let off the hook. They tested it before buying, and were confident enough that it was Apple's to pay $5000 for it. They've got some 'spaining to do.
Um, you are wrong, X38. The police were, in fact, being passive aggressive.
Source: harleighquinn
adult to kindergarten in less than 5 seconds flat.
Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.
In general, are you sympathetic with other convicts in prison?
The only scary part of this is that it is a white-collar crime, and seeing people do time for it is not as satisfying as in the case of violent crimes.
I don't really want to see Chen or Denton do time, but they deserve to be punished in some way.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
Which raises the question: do we really want a corporation directing the expenditure of taxpayer money in criminal investigation?
Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
Which raises the question: do we really want a corporation directing the expenditure of taxpayer money in criminal investigation?
Unfortunately this has already been brought up and shot down by the Mac faithful.
Just thought I would save you the impending flaming.
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Gaby Darbyshire
Take a close look at the pic.
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
Recent history has shown many of them were not truly guilty, so that is not a good argument.
I didn't say it was perfect. It sounds like you think they all should go free cause the system's not perfect?
I have a feeling the advice given to Jason Chen, Gizmoo and Gwaker media will have little hope of standing up in court. They're screwed...
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Gaby Darbyshire
Take a close look at the pic.
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
If they reported how they received the phone accurately and she's their council, they are screwed.
....like a deer in the "headlights" screwed.
The only scary part of this is that it is a white-collar crime, and seeing people do time for it is not as satisfying as in the case of violent crimes.
I don't really want to see Chen or Denton do time, but they deserve to be punished in some way.
I'm white collar and I'm okay with white collar criminals doing time. Is prison okay for blue-collar criminals but white collar people are somehow special?
I didn't say it was perfect. It sounds like you think they all should go free cause the system's not perfect?
Again with the attacks.
It must be that time of night. The adults have gone to bed and the children have come out to practice vandalism, which means it's time for me to go to bed.
I'm white collar and I'm okay with white collar criminals doing time. Is prison okay for blue-collar criminals but white collar people are somehow special?
Of course not. I'm just saying that prison is serious business...and Giz is more a joke than reality. I have a hard time envisioning any of those clowns in jail.
Why attack Gizmodo?
The rest of you are doing that just fine.
I'll defend the underdog, thank you.
...
...And, in classic proper police fashion, rather than serve the warrant at a time ...
i.e.: how cops really are.
Careful, your slip is showing ...