California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor

1246727

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 530
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    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.



    They did their part by asking for the prototype back and they received it back.



    It is not uncommon for the state (any state) to pursue charges on their own in the stead of the "victim" but in this case they may actually be shooting both themselves and even Apple in the foot.



    If this was a controlled leak (nothing at this points says it was not) then both Apple and the police and the states attorney will have both egg on their face, looking like a nazi police gestapo and eating humble pie.



    And when that occurs, and if I was Gizmodo and Chen, I would crank up the big litigation machine and hit them where it hurts the most:



    IN THE POCKET AND THE PRESS.



    Let's face it, would any of you want to be the Judas for their Jesus Phone?



    And you presented a "very objective summary of events" -- being privy to all the evidence and eyewitness, as they unfolded.



    CGC
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mattjumbo View Post


    See, my friend, ridiculous hyperbole like that is the problem. Jason Chen isn't Bob Woodward, Jobs isn't Nixon and the iPhone is not Watergate.



    First of all, Steve Jobs can no more "influence" the police than he can turn lead into gold. This story has been *everywhere* including lots of mainstream websites. The police couldn't have missed it if they were blind as a bat. No one needed to *influence* anyone.



    Secondly, Pravda? Seriously? Are you one of these people who calls someone a Nazi if you disagree with their politics? What an insult to a real, serious situation that millions of Russian suffered under for years.



    Gizmodo and Chen are just pseudo-journalists with absolutely no standards who have grown used to having their way because no one cared. This time, finally, they went too far. They paid for stolen merchandise, not just information, an actual, physical object.



    They were serving no greater good by exposing some corrupt politician or bringing down a criminal organization. They are just a rinky-dink bunch of posers whose utter lack of morals or ethics has finally caught up with them.



    You can't buy stolen merchandise and then say, "Hey look it's a scoop!"



    I'm sorry, but I agree with the gentleman you are responding to, but only if it turns out that is what occurred. That is a lot of implication and hyperbole though.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 530
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,932member
    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.



    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.



    I think there's something about 'compelling public interest' that has to be demonstrated by anyone invoking freedom of the press. We are not talking about the Pentagon Papers here or a madame's black book with senators' names in it.



    But I'm no lawyer so I don't put much weight on what I just said. Neither should anyone.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 530
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post


    2. If the Apple engineer is careless enough to lose his prototype at a bar (of all places), then bad is on Apple for giving it to him in the first place. The phrase "don't drink and drive" should be replaced with "don't drink and carry an iPhone prototype".



    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





    Quote:

    From: S.Jobs

    To: Gizmodo



    Yes sure, send $5000 to my swiss bank account, and I'll get you one.



    Sent from my iPad.



    On Apr XX, 2010, at xx:xxpm Gizmodo wrote



    Hi Steve Can I buy an iPhone prototype?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 530
    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.



    Stop the hyperbole... please.



    -Clive
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 530
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,932member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    So the police are allowed to execute a warrant without the owner being present? An honest question.



    Yes. At least in 'Law and Order' that's allowed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 530
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    This has nothing to do with journalism. It has to do with buying stolen property.



    I take your point, but, Gizmodo's defense will be based on them having journalistic protection (i.e. the police should not have been able to take his computers etc. because they were in a "newsroom")



    Now, I don't really have an opinion on who is right and wrong here. My basic feeling is that if you have to pay for your story, you are not a journalist, therefore you don't deserve journalistic freedoms, but at the same time, I'm not sure that is the best way to define what a journalist is.



    Press freedoms I think are of critical importance in any functioning democracy, and they could come into play here, which makes the whole thing way more important than Apple's latest phone.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post


    And you presented a "very objective summary of events" -- being privy to all the evidence and eyewitness, as they unfolded.



    CGC



    I am going by the reports that had been reported. The same information you have. When the police in the area were contacted, they stated apple had not reported the phone lost or stolen.



    You could easily get this information from the same sources, if you weren't more interested in attempting to call me out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 530
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,464member
    Really



    All that matters is what can be proven in court. In this case they better hope they find a smoking gun sitting on Chen's computer.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 530
    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?



    Search warrant was illegal do tell, how is that?



    Apple influence the police, are you some sort of conspiracy buff, nut, whatever.....



    Clearly, what these people did need to be investigated, and should it be found that this item was stolen, and that they clear.y knew they were purchasing stolen goods, I hope they shut them down, and they all go to the big house to meet bubba! That'll teach em a thing or two!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 530
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    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.



    Yes, IIRC, the 9/11 hijackers were journalists, too. Yeah, that's the ticket!



    Chen's mistake was not posting a sign "JOURNALIST AT WORK -- SEARCH WARRANTS ILLEGAL" on his house.



    Next time I'm pulled over for a traffic violation, I'll just tell the officer I'm a journalist on duty.



    Daniel Ellsberg, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were pikers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 530
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I take your point, but, Gizmodo's defense will be based on them having journalistic protection (i.e. the police should not have been able to take his computers etc. because they were in a "newsroom")



    Now, I don't really have an opinion on who is right and wrong here. My basic feeling is that if you have to pay for your story, you are not a journalist, therefore you don't deserve journalistic freedoms, but at the same time, I'm not sure that is the best way to define what a journalist is.



    Press freedoms I think are of critical importance in any functioning democracy, and they could come into play here, which makes the whole thing way more important than Apple's latest phone.



    +1



    It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.



    1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection

    2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 530
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post


    i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo



    Me, too. If the issue is with potentially doing something illegal then these same people should also hate Apple and boycott their products. Apple has actually lost court case while this Gizmodo case is still mostly speculation.



    Personally, I enjoyed seeing the G4 iPhone, don't think it will hurt the stock or company, and outside of that I'm indifferent, though am interested to see what will happen. No Schadenfreude here, but I do like conflict. Conflict is drama is entertainment.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 530
    ndengndeng Posts: 14member
    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?





    Free? who said that?



    Manual: Define " Free "



    ??????????????????????????
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 530
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    So the police are allowed to execute a warrant without the owner being present? An honest question.



    Same concern here, as posted above. However, if I remember correctly, there were cases where premises were raided and the evidence gathered was accepted as legally obtained evidence.



    Whether the same rationale will apply in this situation is another story. If the law enforcement officers did not do it by the book, to be decided in case the issue ever reach the court, then the evidence may be thrown out -- irregardless of whether the party involved are innocent or guilty.



    CGC
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 530
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


    I can see that the usually zombies are all celebrating but lets look at the broader implications here... Do we really want the COPS or FEDS breaking in the doors of people reporting the news simply because they found a story and reported it?



    Perhaps Gizmodo should have turned in the device to the police and then in due time bough the same #*%&*( 'stolen' item LEGALLY (since the cops are the ones doing the selling).



    First, there is the issue of a law likely being broken.



    Second, given how long it take before police can (or will) sale stuff turned in and not claimed it could have been a long time before Gizmodo got their hands on it it at all (they could have been out bid in the auction)



    No matter how you slice it Gizmodo really dropped the ball on this.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 530
    this whole story is just epic beyond belief...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 530
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    +1



    It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.



    1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection

    2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.



    I"m glad to see there is some objective posters chiming in on this. Too many emotional responses on this topic. I was eating alive yesterday for suggesting what you said.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 530
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,932member
    Deleted by poster. Nothing to say in the end.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 530
    satcomersatcomer Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post


    i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo



    How about when they turned off presentations I was watching at the 2008 CES ?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.