I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
Kindly don't confuse the issue with common sense!
Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials, possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication,
There are exceptions, none of which validate the execution of the warrant. Right now, we have this:
--Gizmodo probably committed a crime by purchasing the phone:
Quote:
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 any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
--The warrant was likely not supposed to have been served during the night (already addressed--minor issue).
--Searching and Seizing with a common search warrant was very likely a violation of California and Federal Law.
Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.
After all this, you cannot possibly still believe this all a marketing stunt from Apple. -It isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?!
I would expect a 27 year old employee to be responsible (and potty trained).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
If Jonny Ive and Steve Jobs are the only 2 people who have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G then it is "truly magical." I think you are forgetting all the designers and engineers and others who help make the next gen iPhone a reality.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
As you may know already, it is the District Attorney's Office that decides whether to file a criminal case. Apple at some point may decide to file a civil case or not.
The press has a protection because of free speech, but they cannot use this shield to commit an illeggal act.
The issue here is whether a felony was committed. If a felony was committed, the wheels of justice must roll on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
Nope. No crime. The analogy works if you substitute "costly repairs". Don't niggle the edges. Deal with the meat of it.
A prosecutor, judge and jury -- all rolled into one.
Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones
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.
I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it.
Wrong.
First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.
What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.
There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:
- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?
Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?
The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
It's not Apple's fault the police did their job. They don't work for or answer to Apple. If a crime was alleged, by Apple or any other news source - and several did ponder the legalities of what Gizmodo did, then the police, FBI or whomever has jurisdiction have an obligation to investigate.
Do I think Gizmodo had malicious intent, of course not. It's more likely, as some stories suggest, that Gizmodo could not have known for certain that they were purchasing an authentic, stolen prototype. It could have been a Chinese knock-off just as easily.
Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.
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.
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.
This is wrong. Shield laws in general and specifically the shield law in CA come into play when a journalist is asked to identify a source. The idea is that a journalist cannot be compelled to identify a source by authorities and this includes seizing property which could then be later used to identify a source.
Of course this bears no relevance to this situation. In this case, a person (who happens to be a journalist) is accused of buying stolen property. This is a felony. It is not relevant that Jason Chen is a journalist. Gawker's COO/legal representative is arguing that ALL warrants served against journalist are invalid (no really.....go read her letter again). This is simply laughable.
No one is compelling Gawker/Jason Chen to identify a source. The felony here (that Jason Chen is going to be charged with) is purchasing stolen property.
Disclaimer: I am an attorney although not licensed in CA.
Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.
Until and if we hear the true facts of this case, I don't think it was ever definitively established that the Apple engineer was "drunk". Sure, he probably had a beer or two, but that doesn't necessarily equal being drunk. Maybe the guy can hold his liquor. As many have said, we've only heard one side of the story.
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
True. But if journalists stop telling secrets to the public in general, the world will be in big big trouble.
Please, tekstud, or igenius, or whichever banned troll you are, there is no "public interest" involved in engaging in industrial espionage. There's a very clear distinction and line that was crossed here.
I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...
Do they not teach civics anymore?
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
The whole point of this as far as Apple is concerned is not to actually see them go to jail. It is to send a message to anyone considering a similar thing:
"If you do this, we will come after you and and it will be expensive and scary!"
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
Sorry, in today's America, many people equates civics as something antiquated like the model T. Now, it basically My rights , MY rights without the responsibility and the consequences. When those two returns to bite them . You get the response similar to what pondosinatra posted. Sad but true.
Comments
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
Kindly don't confuse the issue with common sense!
Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.
California Evidence Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...2000&file=1070
2006 appeals ruling granting weblogs "periodical" status: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ap...es/H028579.pdf
Federal Law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials, possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication,
There are exceptions, none of which validate the execution of the warrant. Right now, we have this:
--Gizmodo probably committed a crime by purchasing the phone:
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 any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
--The warrant was likely not supposed to have been served during the night (already addressed--minor issue).
--Searching and Seizing with a common search warrant was very likely a violation of California and Federal Law.
What a soap opera, hmmm?
Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.
After all this, you cannot possibly still believe this all a marketing stunt from Apple. -It isn't.
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?!
I would expect a 27 year old employee to be responsible (and potty trained).
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
If Jonny Ive and Steve Jobs are the only 2 people who have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G then it is "truly magical." I think you are forgetting all the designers and engineers and others who help make the next gen iPhone a reality.
and some very crazy analogies.
But the big car company committed a crime by covering up the deadly defect. Did Apple commit a crime by making a prototype phone?
Nope. No crime. The analogy works if you substitute "costly repairs". Don't niggle the edges. Deal with the meat of it.
It's like domestic violence, the victim can't stop the police from pressing charges.
unless you run the police department ... even then it's called corruption.
True, but without a witness, the prosecution has a big problem.
There is no legal need for a victim to "press charges", just as you say.
However, there is often a practical need for the victim to do so.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......
As you may know already, it is the District Attorney's Office that decides whether to file a criminal case. Apple at some point may decide to file a civil case or not.
The press has a protection because of free speech, but they cannot use this shield to commit an illeggal act.
The issue here is whether a felony was committed. If a felony was committed, the wheels of justice must roll on.
Nope. No crime. The analogy works if you substitute "costly repairs". Don't niggle the edges. Deal with the meat of it.
A prosecutor, judge and jury -- all rolled into one.
CGC
A statement later proved to be false. So much for moral high ground.
All those chortling with glee over Chen's misfortunes - would you be equally gloating if it were Kasper this was happening to?
Kindly don't confuse the issue with common sense!
Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.
California Evidence Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...2000&file=1070
2006 appeals ruling granting weblogs "periodical" status: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ap...es/H028579.pdf
Federal Law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
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.
I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it.
Wrong.
First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.
What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.
There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:
- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?
Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?
The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
So, I say, make an example of them. It's not like the world will be a lesser place without Gizmodo.
True. But if journalists stop telling secrets to the public in general, the world will be in big big trouble.
The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
It's not Apple's fault the police did their job. They don't work for or answer to Apple. If a crime was alleged, by Apple or any other news source - and several did ponder the legalities of what Gizmodo did, then the police, FBI or whomever has jurisdiction have an obligation to investigate.
Do I think Gizmodo had malicious intent, of course not. It's more likely, as some stories suggest, that Gizmodo could not have known for certain that they were purchasing an authentic, stolen prototype. It could have been a Chinese knock-off just as easily.
Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.
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.
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.
This is wrong. Shield laws in general and specifically the shield law in CA come into play when a journalist is asked to identify a source. The idea is that a journalist cannot be compelled to identify a source by authorities and this includes seizing property which could then be later used to identify a source.
Of course this bears no relevance to this situation. In this case, a person (who happens to be a journalist) is accused of buying stolen property. This is a felony. It is not relevant that Jason Chen is a journalist. Gawker's COO/legal representative is arguing that ALL warrants served against journalist are invalid (no really.....go read her letter again). This is simply laughable.
No one is compelling Gawker/Jason Chen to identify a source. The felony here (that Jason Chen is going to be charged with) is purchasing stolen property.
Disclaimer: I am an attorney although not licensed in CA.
Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.
Until and if we hear the true facts of this case, I don't think it was ever definitively established that the Apple engineer was "drunk". Sure, he probably had a beer or two, but that doesn't necessarily equal being drunk. Maybe the guy can hold his liquor. As many have said, we've only heard one side of the story.
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
.
/SNIP
Thank goodness someone else understands this.....
True. But if journalists stop telling secrets to the public in general, the world will be in big big trouble.
Please, tekstud, or igenius, or whichever banned troll you are, there is no "public interest" involved in engaging in industrial espionage. There's a very clear distinction and line that was crossed here.
I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...
Do they not teach civics anymore?
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
"If you do this, we will come after you and and it will be expensive and scary!"
Do they not teach civics anymore?
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
Nicely stated.
Do they not teach civics anymore?
Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
Sorry, in today's America, many people equates civics as something antiquated like the model T. Now, it basically My rights , MY rights without the responsibility and the consequences. When those two returns to bite them . You get the response similar to what pondosinatra posted. Sad but true.