Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 92
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emulator View Post


    If there was sex in there, Jobs had already censored it. Bigot hypocrites ftw. \



    1f you want to watch sex in your iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad, assuming you own one -- you are free to do so. Even Steve Jobs gave you the freedom to do that.



    Clueless? You ask HOW?



    Use your browser. Anything and everything you want to watch, if it is in the internet,except "Flash" content.



    But, I want my Apps porn!!! You, sulk and shriek and jump uo and down. And, you can too, like many were able to do. Jailbreak your mobile device and join forces with all porn-loving users to create a Porn Central.





    But, if you have any neuron still firing at the top, Steve Jobs already gave you a better solution to get the porn you want.



    Do I have to also remind you what he said?



    I am glad Steve Jobs opted from the beginning not to include porn Apps in the iTunes and Apple mobile devices ecosystem.



    This is not out of hypocritical prurience like those ministers so addicted to sex cravings in their own lives, they have to denounce everyone else practicing what they love so much. They are laden with guilt from their own sins.



    Banning porn is simply a good business strategy. It is also to spare more than likely most of the Apple mobile devices users from the ubiquity of porn sites and their intrusive and spamming ways.



    There may be more than 200K Apps now. imagine the Pandora's box that would ensue, if every porn creator decide to submit their porn app. Imagine all the the breaks that will be taken and tissue paper that would be consumed by all the extra Apple staff hired just to curate these porn Apps, if these staff happen to be like you who cannot live a day or a minute without. their porn App.



    Imagine the drop in profit margin of Apple for all these extra expenses in time and resources. Unless, of course, Steve Jobs will put the "perpendicular test" for the males and the "fluid secretions" for the "fairer sex" for the prospective porn evaluators. But, if these porn evaluators will fail the screening test, how could they really provide you the porn Apps that will make you exceed well above the basics of the "perpendicular test" or the "fluid secretions"?



    Imagine the outcry in the blogosphere, if there was ever a single porn App submitted that would not be accepted.



    OK, let us say Apple decided to take the more open approach to bow down to people like you who cannot live uness their porn is in every device they own. So, how would you like to see porn spams hijack all your search for any App? I am sure the all the other Apple mobile users would be so willing to be so invaded.



    Apple is big in the education market.
    How will they market their iPads to schools? All the porn that your teen sons and daughters were afraid to ask but dyring to know and try? The teens would love their iPads. Free thinkers that American parents are would give their sex-craven teens the freedom to explore their bodies, with their friends or Facebook buddies.



    Oh wait, most porn in the internet are now mostly free
    , because they are so ubiquitous. How to pay for them? iAds come to the rescue! Steve Jobs would love to unleash the creativity of Apple to save the porn industry.



    I could go on, but I am sure you are dying to share with us the wisdom of having porn in every platform know to mankind. How about the instant latest porn alert in the multitask?



    CGC



    N.B.

    The fact that I know a bit about the "products" and the ways of the industry is telling. But, like many people, many would likely be satisfied to have their desires not invade every toy they have.





    CGC
  • Reply 22 of 92
    goldenclawgoldenclaw Posts: 265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by masternav View Post


    Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?



    This raises some difficult issues. On one hand you have the potential dilution of the role of the journalists, due to the fact that ANYONE can be a blogger, and therefore assumed to be covered by these rights and responsibilities traditionally granted formally trained journalist writers and presenters. What are the advantages of doing this? Do the protections offered traditional journalists in their role belong to the average blogger simply because they have created, or participate in, or are labelled "journalist" by the company supporting them in blogging activity?



    Had I taken the time and effort to be formally trained as a journalist, I might have some real concerns about this - if potentially everyone can be a journalist (blogger), then there is no distinction for the role and the special rights and protections become problematic. The rights and protections assume a certain level of professionalism and adherance to standards, both industry and peer created and controlled. If anyone can assume the role of journalist de facto as a blogger, without regard to those standards and controls - the role of journalist is hopelessly compromised.



    On the other hand, is the role of journalist an artifact of an earlier "analog" society, and are the role, standards, professionalism and protections no longer valid in the current digital information age? If so, then while Chen can under these circumstances claim to be a "journalist", can he really then also claim the rights and protections of the older role that is being made invalid?







    I am formally trained as a journalist. Despite what the law may say, someone who keeps a blog is keeping a journal in the strictest sense of the word. If you keep a journal, you are a journalist.



    HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics. Being a journalist does not mean you can commit felonies whenever you feel like it. Jason Chen committed felonies when he paid for stolen property (stolen as defined by California law), when he divulged trade secrets online, and when he disassembled and damaged valuable equipment.



    I'm not sure the discussion on whether or not he is a journalist even matters. If you commit a crime, you should be punished.
  • Reply 23 of 92
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    As has been said (only) a few times by others, I think it's very dangerous for any profession to be told it's above the law, and I hope very much that's not what will happen here.



    However you fall on the "Is a blogger a journalist" divide, what was going on here was not journalism, was not ethical, and was not in service of the public good. It was simply a matter of illegally buying and then publishing one company's trade secrets for purely personal profit.
  • Reply 24 of 92
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    Rest assured, there was no sex. These are BLOGGERS we are talking about!





    The girl friend who ratted them out is definitely not get any now.
  • Reply 25 of 92
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post


    I am formally trained as a journalist. Despite what the law may say, someone who keeps a blog is keeping a journal in the strictest sense of the word. If you keep a journal, you are a journalist.



    HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics. Being a journalist does not mean you can commit felonies whenever you feel like it. Jason Chen committed felonies when he paid for stolen property (stolen as defined by California law), when he divulged trade secrets online, and when he disassembled and damaged valuable equipment.



    I'm not sure the discussion on whether or not he is a journalist even matters. If you commit a crime, you should be punished.



    btw, there was the abject stupidity of it all as well, by assidously logging their activity in Gizmodo as well, and then retro-editing their entries to try and reduce their culpability.



  • Reply 26 of 92
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Jason Chen will soon find himself sharing a jail cell with Ben Dover.
  • Reply 27 of 92
    Oh my god people, this whole journalism tangent people are clinging to is ridiculous. It is theft pure and simple and being a journalist doesn't abstain you from it. No jury is going to buy it. The California law that protects journalists I'm sure doesn't apply when theft is involved. The spirit of the law at least. Gizmodo will be reamed.
  • Reply 28 of 92
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,072member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by masternav View Post


    try. Look how quickly your knuckles drag on the floor, and you descend into trolldom. A transformation that would challenge Industrial Light and Magic in it's swiftness and completeness.



    We need a new sitcom on the order of upcoming "$%&* my Dad says" Let's call it, oh I don't know, how about "$%^& trolls say". They think they're making a cute, sarcastic, biting comment when it is, in fact, just $%^&.
  • Reply 29 of 92
    jccjcc Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Yes they can!!!!



    They can use the taser!!!! the taser!!!!!



    Don't tase me bro!!!
  • Reply 30 of 92
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,072member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksmith22 View Post


    Oh my god people, this whole journalism tangent people are clinging to is ridiculous. It is theft pure and simple and being a journalist doesn't abstain you from it. No jury is going to buy it. The California law that protects journalists I'm sure doesn't apply when theft is involved. The spirit of the law at least. Gizmodo will be reamed.



    And when the criminal proceedings are underway the next hit for Gizmodo will be the multi-million dollar civil damage suit Apple will surely pursue.
  • Reply 31 of 92
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    Jason Chen will soon find himself sharing a jail cell with Ben Dover.



    It's doubtful that Jason Chen will spend any time behind bars. If the D.A.'s office presses charges, it will likely be settled out of court resulting in fines (trust me, San Mateo County likes money) and a sojourn with the Sheriff's work program.



    Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.
  • Reply 32 of 92
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....



    EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?

    and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc

    If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scottw62 View Post


    I think what may end up coming into play is Gizmodo's offer of basiclly a bounty for anyone that got the a new iPhone. If the DA can prove a link between the person that "found" it and the person that bought it, it may make there case a little stronger. What we don't know is if the guy in the bar knew it was a new phone. If he did, and that is a big if, and they can prove he knew it was valuable, it could be bad news for all involved. Apple has taken the stance that it was stolen under the law, and the "finder" did not have a right to sell it, and Gizmodo did not have a right to buy it / tear it apart. Asking Apple to prove it was theirs and then posting that fact maybe crossed the line also. This is going into a gray area with people blogging online. I don't think the protection applies here since we have evidence (his own posts) that he was in fact in possesion of a lost / stolen product. Claiming he did not know if it was "real" will be a hard sell, since it had that real nice Apple on the back.



  • Reply 33 of 92
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Steve Jobs summed it more succinctly:

    Quote:

    ?When this whole thing with Gizmodo happened, I got a lot of advice from people that said you?ve got to just let it slide. ?You shouldn?t go after a journalist because they bought stolen property and tried to extort you.? And I thought deeply about this, and I concluded the worst thing that could happen is if we change our core values and let it slide. I can?t do that. I?d rather quit.?



    No one must hide under the mantle of "Freedom of the Press" only to break the spirit and essence of the law. As he said, let the court system take its course and decide what is to be the verdict.



    However we view Steve Jobs, it is difficult not to see that he pretty much followed what his code dictates.



    CGC
  • Reply 34 of 92
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post


    Steve Jobs summed it more succinctly:





    No one must hide under the mantle of "Freedom of the Press" only to break the spirit and essence of the law. As he said, let the court system take its course and decide what is to be the verdict.



    However we view Steve Jobs, it is difficult not to see that he pretty much followed what his code dictates.



    CGC



    I do agree with your assessment of Job's answer to the Gizmodo/Chen question -- he is clearly what he is in terms of his code, and does not waver. That is truly admirable and deserves great respect. I say this as someone who has been (and still firmly is), since this story broke, on the side of "Apple should let it go."
  • Reply 35 of 92
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post




    HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics.





    Not to go off on a tangent or sound pedantic, but I'll bet Jayson Blair also took courses in ethics. I am not sure what that amounts to, one way or another.
  • Reply 36 of 92
    goldenclawgoldenclaw Posts: 265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.



    This I doubt. Since they started blogging in a garage, it will be easy enough for them to get re-established and because of this experience they will have no problem finding an audience.



    Let us not forget that Gizmodo has gotten an explosion of publicity and page hits as a result of this situation. They've profited. It will be interesting to see how a significant money award in a court case (or settlement) would cause things to play out.
  • Reply 37 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    How is he a journalist?? Does that mean everyone who creates/writes on a blog is now a journalist??

    And even journalists aren't allowed to steal.. the guy new exactly what he had and sold it to Gizmodo instead of returning it. It doesn't matter if he was Anderson Cooper, he's still not allowed to steal.
  • Reply 38 of 92
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....



    EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?

    and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc

    If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....



    reducing a point to an absurd level. Yep. Can you be any more obtuse about this - did you not even follow a miniscule amount of what happpened in this case at all???



    The guy - according to his own comments - took the phone accidentally left behind by the engineer, took it home checked it out enough to get the engineers name, claims he called Apple support to find out who it belongs to, and then sold it to the highest bidder. He did not take it back to the bar, which would be the logical first place for the engineer to look for it (and where he called several times to find out if anyone had turned it in).



    I mean geez dude. Try to keep up with the batting lineup here. We are way downstream from anywhere your comments would make any logical sense whatsoever.

  • Reply 39 of 92
    psych_guypsych_guy Posts: 458member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    All this Gizmodo/Chen stuff is pretty irrelevant, anyway. The reporting of has already moved on to places like Vietnam and Portugal. Short of bringing the entire value chain back home -- which cannot happen -- there's nothing that Apple or California or its police/judges can do going forward.



    It isn't irrelevant. They possibly broke the law in California and they'll be investigated, charged if warranted and tried. We'll see what justice, if any, is meted out.



    I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.
  • Reply 40 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....



    EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?

    and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc

    If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....



    Its not about returning it to who made it.. its about returning it to its rightful owner. This wasn't a store bought product, it was a piece of prototype equipment that belonged to apple.



    There is nothing random or coincidental about this. This guy new EXACTLY what he had which is proven by the fact that he went straight to gizmodo with a dollar figure. And considering his job is assentially to find out about new gizmos and be the first to blog about them, I would also personally find it a pretty hard sell that it was actually left behind and this was the guy that just happened to find it..
Sign In or Register to comment.