Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,497member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vatdoro View Post


    "The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience."



    I've watched the whole Gizmodo clip, and read the initial "quick and dirty transcript". I heard SJ call Chen a journalist, but I never heard him question whether he was a journalist. And I never heard the crowd gasp.



    Are you just making that up?



    BTW, I personally don't think Chen is a journalist, and I doubt SJ does either.



    I never heard gasps either. Sounds like a dramatic retelling to favor bloggers.
  • Reply 62 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,497member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.



    http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm



    Journalist's shield laws may not apply, but freedom of speech still does, which includes criticism, satire and mocking public figures, so long as there is no slander or libel involved. Criminal acts are not protected.
  • Reply 63 of 92
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Judge Lance Ito.
  • Reply 64 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,497member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    The girl friend who ratted them out is definitely not get any now.



    She's the only one who acted in a sensible manner!
  • Reply 65 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,497member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post


    I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!



    Anyone need a perscription??



    I don't believe you have a girlfriend.
  • Reply 66 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I don't believe you have a girlfriend.



    touche!!
  • Reply 67 of 92
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I have followed the whole story...thank you......Just because i post soemthing you don't agree with don't attack me personally...thanks.



    The poster I quoted said it had an Apple logo on it so it should have been returned to Apple. That just because it had an Apple logo ownership had been defined by that logo.

    That was what I was commenting about. Not that it was stolen or any other point. The other facts i was not disputing.....



    I did not recognize the irony in your commentary.
  • Reply 68 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post


    I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!



    Anyone need a perscription??



    Not from a doctor that thinks it's perscription when it should be prescription.
  • Reply 69 of 92
    stormjstormj Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.



    http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm



    The law is quite clear, but you cited a New Jersey case that is only of possible persuasive value in California, but which is not binding on California courts. There is a California case on point that is much more liberal in its interpretation of what a journalist is that is binding.



    So, it's clear enough. Just not in the way you think. Maybe you shouldn't rely on Google for all of your knowledge.



    In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a "journalist" or not. It's not a carte blanche to commit crimes. The shield laws do not extend to a journalist's own criminal conduct, which is also a matter decided by California law.



    That explains why Chen's lawyer agreed to this process. It will give his client a modicum of privacy and will ensure that irrelevant private matters don't enter the record, but the notion of some huge all encompassing immunity was always totally false.
  • Reply 70 of 92
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    I can't wait to see a link on Apple's home page:



    "The story of Jason Chen's shit. An Apple Exclusive."





    I thought this was funny enough to deserve another look. From http://topherchris.com/post/551530253:



  • Reply 71 of 92
    echosonicechosonic Posts: 456member
    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?



    ...the role of the journalists, due to the fact that ANYONE can be a blogger...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...



    ...formally trained as a journalist...if potentially everyone can be a journalist (blogger)...anyone can assume the role of journalist de facto as a blogger...standards and controls - the role of journalist is ...





    "Journalists" are everything that is wrong with modern media. They are a foul despicable bunch, who deserve no respect whatsoever.



    All journalists are bloggers. Self-appointed, self-important keepers of some holy tradition that began in the 1930s when WHearst realized that by coloring his reporters' articles with particular phrases and detail in or out of context, he could sway public opinion about the subjects of the article.



    That is when "Reporting" died, and "Journalism" was born.



    Reporters get my respect. Report the facts. Nothing more, nothing less.



    Bloggers and "journalists" are a dime a dozen, and the former are sometimes worth reading. The latter never are.
  • Reply 72 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Its a misdemeanor charge at best. What Chen paid will not dictate the phone's value. He put a price on the story not what he thought a useless phone was worth. So at what value do you put? The sum of its parts, how much it cost Apple to build, how much Apple sells it to Att for, or how much would it cost a consumer? I highly doubt that Apple will sue Giz, they wouldn't gain much and will be perceived as a bully. It seemed like SJ is satisfied with whatever the DA decides to do and leave it at that.
  • Reply 73 of 92
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Its a misdemeanor charge at best. What Chen paid will not dictate the phone's value. He put a price on the story not what he thought a useless phone was worth. So at what value do you put? The sum of its parts, how much it cost Apple to build, how much Apple sells it to Att for, or how much would it cost a consumer? I highly doubt that Apple will sue Giz, they wouldn't gain much and will be perceived as a bully. It seemed like SJ is satisfied with whatever the DA decides to do and leave it at that.



    As a prototype, its value would easily be in the millions.
  • Reply 74 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    As a prototype, its value would easily be in the millions.



    It's not some super secret spy satellite we're talking about. A judge will see it simply as it was a phone that was useless. It was newsworthy, and you might argue that you don't consider Giz a bonafide news outlet but once the story broke just about EVERY legitimate news outlet reported on it including AI. What Giz did was absolutely wrong but Chen will most likely get special consideration because of his intent and no prior criminal record. BTW Apple has been having a hard time keeping these super secret "worth millions" iPhones under wraps. They're popping up all over the place now, which can only help Giz's cause.
  • Reply 75 of 92
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    I watched as much of that interview as could on YouTube and Jobs comes as a very thoughtful, serious and focused individual....he doesn't seen to want to let this one go!



    I would hate to be on his bad side!



    Hope we can get a link to the video for the entire interview



    The truth is, he can't let it go now. He might decide to let Gawker/Gizmodo off the civil suit, but once the investigation begins, it ends in no charges or charges. If Steve Jobs said, "No, stop!", the D.A. would find that amusing but irrelevant.
  • Reply 76 of 92
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc.



    If the DA is trully interested in trying Chen he can argue the shield law does not apply, but if they are just looking to use the evidence collected against they guy who sold the phone, or looking to turn it over to Apple to use in a civil case against Gizmodo, the DA violated the shield law.



    First, all this says is, "I don't know squat about journalism." CNN? I might put that on the level of Gawker these days. But both coast's Times are actual newspapers. Read some more, and read less sensationalist bullshit.
  • Reply 77 of 92
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post


    Wow. Scared of spiders as well?



    The deadly, venomous kind? Yes.
  • Reply 78 of 92
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stormj View Post


    The law is quite clear, but you cited a New Jersey case that is only of possible persuasive value in California, but which is not binding on California courts. There is a California case on point that is much more liberal in its interpretation of what a journalist is that is binding.



    So, it's clear enough. Just not in the way you think. Maybe you shouldn't rely on Google for all of your knowledge.



    In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a "journalist" or not. It's not a carte blanche to commit crimes. The shield laws do not extend to a journalist's own criminal conduct, which is also a matter decided by California law.



    That explains why Chen's lawyer agreed to this process. It will give his client a modicum of privacy and will ensure that irrelevant private matters don't enter the record, but the notion of some huge all encompassing immunity was always totally false.



    The relevant case is in California, and it says bloggers ARE journalists. So now, Think Secret is free to... Hey, what happened to Think Secret?



    The case has NOTHING to do with journalism or what anybody wrote. It is a case of theft, pure and simple. We'll see how it goes.



    Chen's lawyer, I'm quite sure, did not "agree" to this procedure. The judge decided. I'm quite sure, from things said before, that he was going to argue that the shield law applied, and therefore the DA would have to return all the matter seized, and the DA would then send a request for specific information. The JUDGE said, no, that doesn't apply, but since I agree there may be irrelevant personal information and research for irrelevant news items here too, we'll have a special master searching the drive (I'd bet this includes searches for recent erasures, no?) for relevant communications, etc.
  • Reply 79 of 92
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    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?



    it doesn't matter if they are or they are not. THe laws in question are about forcing a journalist to give up information about a source. They are not about protecting someone, even a journalist, from the penalties of criminal activity. And in California finding something lost and not making a genuine effort to return it is considered theft and thus Gizmodo paying money for the phone was buying stolen property. And then there is the issue of trade secrets which could come into large play since they openly called it a prototype of an Apple device.



    Had Mr Chen taken the photos etc and posted them saying they were form a reliable source, he could use Shield Laws. But he didn't, and he bragged about buying the phone (which he later tried to recant to 'buying the story') and at a level that places it in felony range. Oops.
  • Reply 80 of 92
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    People, people, people! Have some perspective here. The real criminal is Steve Jobs and lucrative corporation Apple!



    Shields law, finders keepers, etc.



    Protect the "little" guy Gizmodo, porn on iPhone, etc., etc..
Sign In or Register to comment.