Everyone involved will get Probation. And what they really need is a little a**-pounding jail time so 1. they won't do it again and 2. Others will think twice about doing it in the future.
BTW that's also what is needed for the Wall Street so-called white collar crimes, too!
A new iPhone is more important than certain humans, especially criminals. Maybe their parents should have raised them better.
Well, if we have learned anything from all this... if you happen upon an iPhone laying around, better run screaming in the other direction with your hands in the air - or Apple can order your destruction.
Police forces being turned into corporate brute squads is disturbing - no matter how much stock you own.
The fact that you also have a vested interest doesn't mean that it justifies what could be called socially irresponsible endorsement of oppression. (this is a strong word, but set aside hyperbolic sentimentalities and I think you could understand what I'm reaching for; I'm not talking of fascism). If anything it means you're in the same position of bias. If one day a company that I hold stock in violates your "rights" I guess I will owe you the same apathy, and I assure you it isn't as uncommon as you may think.
It wasn't the theft of the hardware that was the concern. It was the theft of the information.. In that respect you and I consuming that information on a rumor site would be receiving that stolen information just a step or two down the line. We should all have our hands cut off.
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
Everyone involved will get Probation. And what they really need is a little a**-pounding jail time so 1. they won't do it again and 2. Others will think twice about doing it in the future.
BTW that's also what is needed for the Wall Street so-called white collar crimes, too!
Best
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
Speaking of IP theft and Wall Street, I see where that computer programmer from Goldman Sachs was sentenced to eight years in prison for his theft of code for automated trading algorithms. I have to wonder if that is making the iPhone thieves nervous at all.
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
If there were a shred of legal precedent to stand on perhaps something of what you've said would have relevance here. Since no charges have been brought against anyone it seems that your fanatical conception of "crime/criminals/theft" is without context. This isn't an issue of ethics, kiddo, law is a discernible state of practices/writings/behaviors that are not in any way correlated with your "lay down and take it" ideology, which isn't unique to you, sadly. If, however, your "lay down and take it" ideology were allowed to take shape in terms of those previously mentioned capacities you might be singing a different tune. Luckily, enough people on this forum and elsewhere are skeptical enough of your "evil corporations" (because they're just doing it for the starving children, right sport?) that there isn't much reason to fear just yet. Stay complacent, cowboy.
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
Madoff is a "distraction" at $50 billion. I'm talking $6-$10 trillion that these bozos have stolen from people and have gotten away with it. They may very well have ruined the greatest country on the planet with their greed.
The top 400 wage earners in this country made more money last year than the bottom 150 million combined. The Corporate Tax rate is 34% and yet GE paid 14% last year and Carnival paid 1%.
But go ahead and keep thinking what you are thinking, dude!
Which is exactly the problem. Apple, as a corporation, should not own the local law enforcement and be able to come down on anyone for anything in a potential criminal case.
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
I don't think that Gizmodo should be covered under any journalism protection laws. What they did is purchase stolen goods and they fully well knew what they were doing.
And this based on what? You have inside knowledge of the case, don't you?
If there were a shred of legal precedent to stand on perhaps something of what you've said would have relevance here. Since no charges have been brought against anyone it seems that your fanatical conception of "crime/criminals/theft" is without context. This isn't an issue of ethics, kiddo, law is a discernible state of practices/writings/behaviors ...
I presume that you're a licensed attorney in California. If not, how are you so certain about what the law in California is or is not?
Another case of wasting tax payer money with this stupid, ongoing investigation. The only ones making money on this are the lawyers (the bottom of the bottom suckers!).
And this based on what? You have inside knowledge of the case, don't you?
Actually everything you need to know was published on Gizmodo's site. They admitted to paying for the iPhone prototype. They admitted that they got the phone from someone who was NOT the original owner. (Just to be clear..."finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a legal defense, if you find something its not yours to keep...that IS in the law). Once they got the prototype they took it apart, photographed it, then contacted Apple about returning it. They also tried to use the return of iPhone to coerce Apple into giving Gizmodo preferential treatment for news releases. ALL of this was clearly published on Gizmodo.
I presume that you're a licensed attorney in California. If not, how are you so certain about what the law in California is or is not?
If Apple stated that they were intent on bringing charges against all responsible parties, publicity be damned, yet no charges have been brought against said parties, deductive reasoning would have it that either Apple's legal department failed at uncovering the legal precedent which existed or that precedent wasn't in existence. Which do you suppose it might be?
FWIW, legality is only a context. That context can be altered by conflicting/clarifying additions and that's essentially what landmark trials are; a recontextualization of norms based on alternative interpretations. It doesn't look like that is about to happen here, and that is the only good part of any of this.
I am not an attorney, CEO, journalist, or petty thief, for the record.
So when's the movie coming out? Seth Rogen will probably be involved, he seems to be in everything recently. By recently I mean six months ago, I've stopped watching movies since then for the most part because they're so lousy nowadays.
Comments
BTW that's also what is needed for the Wall Street so-called white collar crimes, too!
Best
A new iPhone is more important than certain humans, especially criminals. Maybe their parents should have raised them better.
Well, if we have learned anything from all this... if you happen upon an iPhone laying around, better run screaming in the other direction with your hands in the air - or Apple can order your destruction.
Police forces being turned into corporate brute squads is disturbing - no matter how much stock you own.
The fact that you also have a vested interest doesn't mean that it justifies what could be called socially irresponsible endorsement of oppression. (this is a strong word, but set aside hyperbolic sentimentalities and I think you could understand what I'm reaching for; I'm not talking of fascism). If anything it means you're in the same position of bias. If one day a company that I hold stock in violates your "rights" I guess I will owe you the same apathy, and I assure you it isn't as uncommon as you may think.
It wasn't the theft of the hardware that was the concern. It was the theft of the information.. In that respect you and I consuming that information on a rumor site would be receiving that stolen information just a step or two down the line. We should all have our hands cut off.
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
Everyone involved will get Probation. And what they really need is a little a**-pounding jail time so 1. they won't do it again and 2. Others will think twice about doing it in the future.
BTW that's also what is needed for the Wall Street so-called white collar crimes, too!
Best
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
A little slap and a spank will be needed to straight things up..
Maybe that is where the sex comes in...
National secrets aren't protected why should a cell phone be?
The verdict is not out yet on that one either.
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
Speaking of IP theft and Wall Street, I see where that computer programmer from Goldman Sachs was sentenced to eight years in prison for his theft of code for automated trading algorithms. I have to wonder if that is making the iPhone thieves nervous at all.
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
If there were a shred of legal precedent to stand on perhaps something of what you've said would have relevance here. Since no charges have been brought against anyone it seems that your fanatical conception of "crime/criminals/theft" is without context. This isn't an issue of ethics, kiddo, law is a discernible state of practices/writings/behaviors that are not in any way correlated with your "lay down and take it" ideology, which isn't unique to you, sadly. If, however, your "lay down and take it" ideology were allowed to take shape in terms of those previously mentioned capacities you might be singing a different tune. Luckily, enough people on this forum and elsewhere are skeptical enough of your "evil corporations" (because they're just doing it for the starving children, right sport?) that there isn't much reason to fear just yet. Stay complacent, cowboy.
AppleZilla has spoken.
Isn't that why Maddoff is in jail? Or do we just start putting everyone in jail on Wall Street?
I think a little ass pounding time is needed for several AI posters too, the acute problem is when they don't get said time, they come here to whine about Wall Street, Apple, etc.
Madoff is a "distraction" at $50 billion. I'm talking $6-$10 trillion that these bozos have stolen from people and have gotten away with it. They may very well have ruined the greatest country on the planet with their greed.
The top 400 wage earners in this country made more money last year than the bottom 150 million combined. The Corporate Tax rate is 34% and yet GE paid 14% last year and Carnival paid 1%.
But go ahead and keep thinking what you are thinking, dude!
Prosecute the lowlifes at Gizmodo and shut down the whole useless Gawkerverse.
AppleZilla has spoken.
Well, Giz has been shut out of Apple press events since this happened so that's some form of punishment. Not enough, mind you, but still...
Which is exactly the problem. Apple, as a corporation, should not own the local law enforcement and be able to come down on anyone for anything in a potential criminal case.
And who says they do?
So crime is ok as long as it directed at these 'corporations'? Theft of information is different than physical property? Seems like you want to commiserate with the criminal element here and are "reaching" for a legal / ethical argument to support some wishy washy conspiracy nonsense. Good luck with that, maybe some honesty would be a better approach and just admit you sympathize with criminals as long as it fits into your narrative about 'evil corporations' and 'oppression'.
For the record, Apple didn't violate anybody's rights, some idiot stole a phone, sold it and went viral about it. If that's not enough to get your dumb ass arrested, what's the threshold? I'd advise you that the minute someone calls asking for their phone, car, NFL playbook, etc. back, you comply, because the next call is to the police and they won't play fantasy ideological games with you.
Well said.
I don't think that Gizmodo should be covered under any journalism protection laws. What they did is purchase stolen goods and they fully well knew what they were doing.
And this based on what? You have inside knowledge of the case, don't you?
If there were a shred of legal precedent to stand on perhaps something of what you've said would have relevance here. Since no charges have been brought against anyone it seems that your fanatical conception of "crime/criminals/theft" is without context. This isn't an issue of ethics, kiddo, law is a discernible state of practices/writings/behaviors ...
I presume that you're a licensed attorney in California. If not, how are you so certain about what the law in California is or is not?
Isn't this ancient news????
Does anybody really care, anymore????
Time to get on with life!!!!!!
And this based on what? You have inside knowledge of the case, don't you?
Actually everything you need to know was published on Gizmodo's site. They admitted to paying for the iPhone prototype. They admitted that they got the phone from someone who was NOT the original owner. (Just to be clear..."finders keepers, losers weepers" is not a legal defense, if you find something its not yours to keep...that IS in the law). Once they got the prototype they took it apart, photographed it, then contacted Apple about returning it. They also tried to use the return of iPhone to coerce Apple into giving Gizmodo preferential treatment for news releases. ALL of this was clearly published on Gizmodo.
I presume that you're a licensed attorney in California. If not, how are you so certain about what the law in California is or is not?
If Apple stated that they were intent on bringing charges against all responsible parties, publicity be damned, yet no charges have been brought against said parties, deductive reasoning would have it that either Apple's legal department failed at uncovering the legal precedent which existed or that precedent wasn't in existence. Which do you suppose it might be?
FWIW, legality is only a context. That context can be altered by conflicting/clarifying additions and that's essentially what landmark trials are; a recontextualization of norms based on alternative interpretations. It doesn't look like that is about to happen here, and that is the only good part of any of this.
I am not an attorney, CEO, journalist, or petty thief, for the record.