Those aside, if the law officers entered the premises before the warrant was served, it may weaken the case. However, the US Supreme Court has loosened the rules on gathering or seizure of evidence, or legitimate confession.
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?
I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.
This is a criminal investigation, not civil. i.e. this isn't being done on Apple's behest. Its the police who are investigating it.
Why? Because someone may have broken the law and stole an Apple prototype and then sold it to 2-bit trash?
2-bit trash? Even Steve himself loves (loved) Gizmodo.
It's so funny to read things on one site that's not quite as 'Pro-Apple' as this one, and then turn and read the comments on this site, which are a stark contrast. It's like watching the Democrats and Republicans debate back and forth.
Apple may be within their right to go after Giz for this (insider information leaked knowingly is illegal in California), but they might not look too good in the press for being so damn secretive...
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?
you do realize Apple has no control over what the police do do you?
Oh btw a crime occurred, something was stolen. This is a felony investigation.
This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.
This has nothing to do with journalism. It has to do with buying stolen property.
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?
Please spare me the delusions... What I am able to put together is that a prototype was likely stolen and sold to some sleazebag journalist wannabes. This is not about the rich influencing the law... rather the law being broken and justice (if warranted) being served.
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.
Are you for real?
At least the printed press adhere to vague journalistic standards. Bloggers, and tech bloggers in particular, have no such standards. Never trust what they say.
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?
Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Although I think this action is a very bad thing for All of the blog-news sites... I found this with a super fast google search...
Quote:
"Search warrants must generally be served in the daytime unless good cause can be shown for a nighttime execution. "Night" is defined in statute as being between 2200 and 0630"
So the whole 'day/night' issue doesn't really come into play.
I can see that the usually zombies are all celebrating but lets look at the broader implications here... Do we really want the COPS or FEDS breaking in the doors of people reporting the news simply because they found a story and reported it?
Perhaps Gizmodo should have turned in the device to the police and then in due time bough the same #*%&*( 'stolen' item LEGALLY (since the cops are the ones doing the selling).
... but not before the publication wrote numerous stories about the device and revealed the name of the engineer who allegedly lost the device.
I have no understanding of why they revealed his name to the world. As he didn't feel bad already. The rest, I can understand. The urge for being the first to reveal a new Apple gadget. I wouldn't have gone there but I totally understand it.
2-bit trash? Even Steve himself loves (loved) Gizmodo.
It's so funny to read things on one site that's not quite as 'Pro-Apple' as this one, and then turn and read the comments on this site, which are a stark contrast. It's like watching the Democrats and Republicans debate back and forth.
I could care less if Steve Jobs loves Giz... I personally believe they are entirely irrelevant. Maybe you should lose some of your assumptions about others here.
Quote:
Apple may be within their right to go after Giz for this (insider information leaked knowingly is illegal in California), but they might not look too good in the press for being so damn secretive...
I think most people understand and accept the concept of trade secrets.
Comments
"It is all part of Apple's carefully scripted PR"
"The Police Department is in Steve Jobs pocket."
Those aside, if the law officers entered the premises before the warrant was served, it may weaken the case. However, the US Supreme Court has loosened the rules on gathering or seizure of evidence, or legitimate confession.
CGC
and the beer.
Sweet music to my ears...
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?
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
You are swearing off apple products because someone stole an Apple prototype?
I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.
This is a criminal investigation, not civil. i.e. this isn't being done on Apple's behest. Its the police who are investigating it.
Why? Because someone may have broken the law and stole an Apple prototype and then sold it to 2-bit trash?
2-bit trash? Even Steve himself loves (loved) Gizmodo.
It's so funny to read things on one site that's not quite as 'Pro-Apple' as this one, and then turn and read the comments on this site, which are a stark contrast. It's like watching the Democrats and Republicans debate back and forth.
Apple may be within their right to go after Giz for this (insider information leaked knowingly is illegal in California), but they might not look too good in the press for being so damn secretive...
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?
you do realize Apple has no control over what the police do do you?
Oh btw a crime occurred, something was stolen. This is a felony investigation.
This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.
This has nothing to do with journalism. It has to do with buying stolen property.
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?
Please spare me the delusions... What I am able to put together is that a prototype was likely stolen and sold to some sleazebag journalist wannabes. This is not about the rich influencing the law... rather the law being broken and justice (if warranted) being served.
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
??
Because people who buy stolen property are your heros?
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.
Are you for real?
At least the printed press adhere to vague journalistic standards. Bloggers, and tech bloggers in particular, have no such standards. Never trust what they say.
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?
Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Although I think this action is a very bad thing for All of the blog-news sites... I found this with a super fast google search...
"Search warrants must generally be served in the daytime unless good cause can be shown for a nighttime execution. "Night" is defined in statute as being between 2200 and 0630"
So the whole 'day/night' issue doesn't really come into play.
I can see that the usually zombies are all celebrating but lets look at the broader implications here... Do we really want the COPS or FEDS breaking in the doors of people reporting the news simply because they found a story and reported it?
Perhaps Gizmodo should have turned in the device to the police and then in due time bough the same #*%&*( 'stolen' item LEGALLY (since the cops are the ones doing the selling).
http://www.ehow.com/how_5137713_buy-...s-legally.html
Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5137713_buy-...s-legally.html
... but not before the publication wrote numerous stories about the device and revealed the name of the engineer who allegedly lost the device.
I have no understanding of why they revealed his name to the world. As he didn't feel bad already. The rest, I can understand. The urge for being the first to reveal a new Apple gadget. I wouldn't have gone there but I totally understand it.
2-bit trash? Even Steve himself loves (loved) Gizmodo.
It's so funny to read things on one site that's not quite as 'Pro-Apple' as this one, and then turn and read the comments on this site, which are a stark contrast. It's like watching the Democrats and Republicans debate back and forth.
I could care less if Steve Jobs loves Giz... I personally believe they are entirely irrelevant. Maybe you should lose some of your assumptions about others here.
Apple may be within their right to go after Giz for this (insider information leaked knowingly is illegal in California), but they might not look too good in the press for being so damn secretive...
I think most people understand and accept the concept of trade secrets.