AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. They reported on the story. There's a huge difference, part of which has to do with what is already public info.
Okay... So what about a site printing the name of a underage girl who was assaulted by her teacher?
Same deal right? Other sites now have the green light to put her name everywhere they like?
There is a huge frenzy of public interest about future Apple products. Some of us spend far too much time speculating on these details.
The tech blogs all eagerly grab juicy rumors, and gossip regardless of the source.
This is the geek equivalent of Paparazzi chasing celebrities.
Apple itself understands this - and by keeping its bulletproof veil of secrecy, it stimulates even more interest. They hold the secrets, and the mob wants to get at them. That is the game that Apple plays.
So when an engineer got back to base with a missing phone, Apple pretty much knew what the likely outcome would be.
In the celebrity world - the actress getting out of the car with a wardrobe malfunction - can expect certain things to happen.
My guess is that Apple were delighted it took so many weeks for the information to come out. Had this broken during the iPad launch, it would have been much more damaging. Apple were probably watching the tech blogs for weeks .. expecting the worst. But with each passing week, and the closer they get to launch - and the less the damage.
The legality or otherwise of the transactions is a side-show. The information got out, and no action can change that. Apple play the secrecy game, and just once in a while they don't win.
Okay... So what about a site printing the name of a underage girl who was assaulted by her teacher?
Same deal right? Other sites now have the green light to put her name everywhere they like?
There are two issues. One is it douchebaggery? The other is it legal?
Is it douchebaggery?
I think it's douchebaggery if it promotes the name beyond the impact of the original release. In the case of the iPhone, it's not douchebaggery. There's a story here, and the impact of the original release of the name had already been played out. The negative impact for Powell was that any future employer most likely will Google him as they will with all candidates. What happened as covered by Gizmodo will show up regardless of what AI does.
In the case of the girl, you have the Google factor, but the impact beyond the original release may be more significant. It all depends. It's one thing to see that the info is easily Googled, it's another to have the information plastered all over every magazine, website and newspaper that the victim and people who know her would encounter. It may or may not be douchebaggery.
Is it legal?
Several states had passed "rape shield" laws intended to protect the victims by punishing the press that disseminated information. Most of these laws would've punished both the original source and any subsequent republishing source.
The US Supreme Court ruled these laws were unconstitutional, and that the press was free to publish any truthful information legally obtained (with restrictions that don't apply here).
States have gotten around this by simply having the police and the courts not revealing the actual names. This isn't 100% effective in preventing leaks of the names, however since there are still ways that the name could be legally obtained. Regardless of how the information was originally obtained, once it has become public information, there are no laws restricting the further publishing that wouldn't violate the constitution as already ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.
So bottom line:
Legal: Yes
Douchebaggery: No, unless it impacts the person more than what was already published.
EDIT: I meant to say "Legal: Yes for AI and anyone else publishing truthful information they legally obtained". See my previous posts for why I believe it was illegal for Gizmodo (they knowingly purchased stolen goods).
Comments
AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. They reported on the story. There's a huge difference, part of which has to do with what is already public info.
Okay... So what about a site printing the name of a underage girl who was assaulted by her teacher?
Same deal right? Other sites now have the green light to put her name everywhere they like?
The tech blogs all eagerly grab juicy rumors, and gossip regardless of the source.
This is the geek equivalent of Paparazzi chasing celebrities.
Apple itself understands this - and by keeping its bulletproof veil of secrecy, it stimulates even more interest. They hold the secrets, and the mob wants to get at them. That is the game that Apple plays.
So when an engineer got back to base with a missing phone, Apple pretty much knew what the likely outcome would be.
In the celebrity world - the actress getting out of the car with a wardrobe malfunction - can expect certain things to happen.
My guess is that Apple were delighted it took so many weeks for the information to come out. Had this broken during the iPad launch, it would have been much more damaging. Apple were probably watching the tech blogs for weeks .. expecting the worst. But with each passing week, and the closer they get to launch - and the less the damage.
The legality or otherwise of the transactions is a side-show. The information got out, and no action can change that. Apple play the secrecy game, and just once in a while they don't win.
C.
Okay... So what about a site printing the name of a underage girl who was assaulted by her teacher?
Same deal right? Other sites now have the green light to put her name everywhere they like?
There are two issues. One is it douchebaggery? The other is it legal?
Is it douchebaggery?
I think it's douchebaggery if it promotes the name beyond the impact of the original release. In the case of the iPhone, it's not douchebaggery. There's a story here, and the impact of the original release of the name had already been played out. The negative impact for Powell was that any future employer most likely will Google him as they will with all candidates. What happened as covered by Gizmodo will show up regardless of what AI does.
In the case of the girl, you have the Google factor, but the impact beyond the original release may be more significant. It all depends. It's one thing to see that the info is easily Googled, it's another to have the information plastered all over every magazine, website and newspaper that the victim and people who know her would encounter. It may or may not be douchebaggery.
Is it legal?
Several states had passed "rape shield" laws intended to protect the victims by punishing the press that disseminated information. Most of these laws would've punished both the original source and any subsequent republishing source.
The US Supreme Court ruled these laws were unconstitutional, and that the press was free to publish any truthful information legally obtained (with restrictions that don't apply here).
States have gotten around this by simply having the police and the courts not revealing the actual names. This isn't 100% effective in preventing leaks of the names, however since there are still ways that the name could be legally obtained. Regardless of how the information was originally obtained, once it has become public information, there are no laws restricting the further publishing that wouldn't violate the constitution as already ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.
So bottom line:
Legal: Yes
Douchebaggery: No, unless it impacts the person more than what was already published.
EDIT: I meant to say "Legal: Yes for AI and anyone else publishing truthful information they legally obtained". See my previous posts for why I believe it was illegal for Gizmodo (they knowingly purchased stolen goods).
the press was free to publish any truthful information legally obtained (with restrictions that don't apply here).
and therein is the rub.
Gizmodo = douches and criminals.
Giz has always been just a leecher of Engadget anyway. How else would it have heard about the "prototype" in the first place if not from Engadget?