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.
It's not Gizmodo VS Apple.
This is for catching the guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.
No matter how you slice it Gizmodo really dropped the ball on this.
Maybe we'll see the Apple conspiracy theorists now chime in that this was also a Gawker conspiracy to profit from suing their attorney for malpractice.
meh. Who cares really. We got what we wanted out of it, and iphone 4g is just a few months away anyways. It's not like Apple's 2015 model got out or something REALLY damaging.
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.
You forget option
6) Gizmodo is composed of paparazzi or yellow journalism minded twit brains who wanted to publish a story no matter what and played dumb in the hope they would get away with being Homer Simpson level stupid.
Actually now I think about it, Homer Simpson is smarter.
meh. Who cares really. We got what we wanted out of it, and iphone 4g is just a few months away anyways. It's not like Apple's 2015 model got out or something REALLY damaging.
You mean iphone 9g will act as a HOVER BOARD!?
But you have to buy two as well as the Nike+++++++ attachments for your shoes. That's where get cha!
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!
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
What people don't understand is this, Gizmodo themselves were the ones that created this chain of events that led to the authorities in California to seize, Jason Chen's computers. Link number one, they showed the lost iPhone prototype in their possession by showing pictures of it in their website, Link number two, they admitted that they paid a large amount of money to the finder and btw, they were noted to actively looking for someone who can provide them with the existence of the 4 gen iPhone and are willing to pay for it, link number three, they acknowledge that the finder knew who the Apple engineer who lost the prototype by looking at his facebook account the very night the guy/girl found the lost iPhone, link number four, they posted the Apple engineer's name all over the web as the one who lost the prototype but not the name of the finder. I am no lawyer, but the way Gizmodo handled it, it will looked like they have something to hide and the authorities are curious about it .
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.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
Gizmodo needs a lawyer so they can continue to play the "I don't know it's stolen" card.
I am sure the lawyers are reviewing each and every blog posts about the iPhone G4 at the moment.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
What people don't understand is this, Gizmodo themselves were the ones that created this chain of events that led to the authorities in California to seize, Jason Chen's computers. Link number one, they showed the lost iPhone prototype in their possession by showing pictures of it in their website, Link number two, they admitted that they paid a large amount of money to the finder and btw, they were noted to actively looking for someone who can provide them with the existence of the 4 gen iPhone and are willing to pay for it, link number three, they acknowledge that the finder knew who the Apple engineer who lost the prototype by looking at his facebook account the very night the guy/girl found the lost iPhone, link number four, they posted the Apple engineer's name all over the web as the one who lost the prototype but not the name of the finder. I am no lawyer, but the way Gizmodo handled it, it will looked like they have something to hide and the authorities are curious about it .
Yes but none of what you mentioned is illegal for a media outlet. They can pay for stories and they do all the time. Take a video or snapshot of something interesting you may get paid for it. Now knowingly accepting stolen merchandise is likely not covered even for media outlets as there has to be a limit to ethics.
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 don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
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?
Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property
Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.
I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. However, you're also free to keep checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo
Funny how the search was news to Chen when he arrived after going out to dinner, and yet there was still a "1 page doc pertaining to the invalidity of the search warrant" signed by Gawkers lawyer in "room 1"...
Let's see how long before Gizmodo change this story...
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that Apple most likely knew already that the phone was lost by Gray. It would be impossible to believe that Apple fired up Giz one day, looked at photos of their phone and then started wondering where it is. Whatever discipline meted out should have been dispensed during the month or so between the loss and the scoop. I would guess any connection between giz and gray's fate is less than what many are making it out to be.
I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.
Comments
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.
It's not Gizmodo VS Apple.
This is for catching the guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.
1. There's a law.
2. Someone breaks it.
3. The authorities investigate.
4. Charges are filed.
5. A trial is held.
6. A verdict is rendered.
7. The verdict is carried out.
And NONE of this requires the active participation of Apple or Steve Jobs!
As an Apple stockholder, I hope the law rips Gizmodo a new one.
Awww.
That's the funniest shit I've seen today, but?
Awwwww.
No matter how you slice it Gizmodo really dropped the ball on this.
Maybe we'll see the Apple conspiracy theorists now chime in that this was also a Gawker conspiracy to profit from suing their attorney for malpractice.
You mean iphone 9g will act as a HOVER BOARD!?
Yawn. He considers himself a geek?
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.
You forget option
6) Gizmodo is composed of paparazzi or yellow journalism minded twit brains who wanted to publish a story no matter what and played dumb in the hope they would get away with being Homer Simpson level stupid.
Actually now I think about it, Homer Simpson is smarter.
meh. Who cares really. We got what we wanted out of it, and iphone 4g is just a few months away anyways. It's not like Apple's 2015 model got out or something REALLY damaging.
You mean iphone 9g will act as a HOVER BOARD!?
But you have to buy two as well as the Nike+++++++ attachments for your shoes. That's where get cha!
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!
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
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.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
Gizmodo needs a lawyer so they can continue to play the "I don't know it's stolen" card.
I am sure the lawyers are reviewing each and every blog posts about the iPhone G4 at the moment.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
What people don't understand is this, Gizmodo themselves were the ones that created this chain of events that led to the authorities in California to seize, Jason Chen's computers. Link number one, they showed the lost iPhone prototype in their possession by showing pictures of it in their website, Link number two, they admitted that they paid a large amount of money to the finder and btw, they were noted to actively looking for someone who can provide them with the existence of the 4 gen iPhone and are willing to pay for it, link number three, they acknowledge that the finder knew who the Apple engineer who lost the prototype by looking at his facebook account the very night the guy/girl found the lost iPhone, link number four, they posted the Apple engineer's name all over the web as the one who lost the prototype but not the name of the finder. I am no lawyer, but the way Gizmodo handled it, it will looked like they have something to hide and the authorities are curious about it .
Yes but none of what you mentioned is illegal for a media outlet. They can pay for stories and they do all the time. Take a video or snapshot of something interesting you may get paid for it. Now knowingly accepting stolen merchandise is likely not covered even for media outlets as there has to be a limit to ethics.
+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 don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
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?
Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property
Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.
I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. However, you're also free to keep checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo
Let's see how long before Gizmodo change this story...
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
For once I must agree with him.
Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that Apple most likely knew already that the phone was lost by Gray. It would be impossible to believe that Apple fired up Giz one day, looked at photos of their phone and then started wondering where it is. Whatever discipline meted out should have been dispensed during the month or so between the loss and the scoop. I would guess any connection between giz and gray's fate is less than what many are making it out to be.
I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.