I don't get it. All these tech sites do this. Buy people's lost and found stuff and disassemble it. What's so different about Jizzmodo? I think the police should focus on real criminals instead of wasting time confiscating computers, taking away photographers' cameras, assaulting Ivy League professors for trying to get into their own homes and countless other violations.
Lost and Found, Consumer purchased products are far from R&D non-released test products valued at billions.
And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.
Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.
Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?
You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.
I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?
And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.
I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.
Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.
A loud mouth? Yes.
Stupid? No.
Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.
And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?
That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.
So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:
"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."
Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.
The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.
The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
On what grounds would a Journalist already on record with trafficking in stolen goods be protected from a warrant search?
You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.
I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?
... he would let Gray Powell introduce the iPhone at the Keynote speech this summer.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
Assuming said property can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be stolen.
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
They're f****ed.
They're going to have a hard time explaining why they paid 5 freaking thousand dollars for what looked like a Chinese knockoff without due diligence towards ascertaining how and why the seller got the unit. CA Penal Code 496 gives the prosecutor a lot of leeway even if they don't give up the seller. I do think the warrant "search and seizure" was total BS though but it doesn't absolve Gizmodo from the potential 496 trouble.
You are not going to see an actual report that says Apple officially said the phone was stolen. It doesn't work like that. That exposes Apple to liability if it is wrong.
When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.
Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.
Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
In the final analysis what does the DA going after and seizing Jason Chen's equipment really mean?
It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.
It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.
One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.
If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.
Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.
All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.
You are not going to see an actual report that says Apple officially said the phone was stolen. It doesn't work like that. That exposes Apple to liability if it is wrong.
When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.
Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.
Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.
Actually NOTHING is OBVIOUS. That is conjecture and speculation until there is proof of such.
In the meantime this could be the state of california taking matters into their own hands for the possibility of a high profile case and nothing more.
As for reports, when was the last time you 100 percent trusted what a news source gave you? I don't mean that to be joking, I mean that seriously.
There has been no corroboration from any official source that stated apple had reported the item stolen.
None.
If apple can just have someone's home searched without going on record that would validate someone else's statement in this thread and your statement implies this is possible.
Google is bad enough. Do you really want to live in a world where someone does not have the right to confront their accuser due to their accuser being able to hide behind money and (apparently) their own purchased attack dogs?
That opens a whole other avenue I would not like to contemplate, and I am sure neither would you.
About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.
Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.
It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.
In the final analysis what does the DA going after and seizing Jason Chen's equipment really mean?
It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.
It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.
One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.
If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.
Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.
All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.
It means the DA has nothing and is hoping to find something and was able to commit a judge to allowing him to undertake that search.
It's the equivalent of a wiretap and nothing more.
In your language that would also be termed as fishing (or is it phishing?)
P.S.: I should have read the rest of your post. It is actually quite apt.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
I do not agree that this was an "overreaction" by authorities with a search warrant.
And I am hoping that actions like this WILL send a message to other not -so-bright journalists that this sort of practice (theft/"finders keepers, losers weepers"/whatever you want to call it) is not acceptable.
About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.
Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.
It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.
And you still fall back on "stolen" with no proof of such allegation.
It could argue that, but I would probably lose. First, with all the Chinese knock offs floating around do you really think Gizmodo is going to pay $5, 000 for a phone that might be an iPhone? That doesn't pass the sniff test any more then me saying I didn't know the $2, 500 Macbook Pro I bought on the corner for $500 wasn't stolen until the police busted me.
Second, Gizmodo didn't have to do tests on the phone if it had enough information to suspect it had a lost Apple prototype. If it bought the phone, it suspected it was Apple's. It could have contacted Apple immediately and asked if it lost a phone. It eventually contacted Apple through proper channels. Why wait to tear the phone apart? It doesn't need to be sure it belonged to Apple, it only had to suspect it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo
gizmodo could argue that they did not know if that's really an iPhone prototype until they actually got their hands on it. And they did return it to Apple when requested. The felony's most likely for the guy who sold it.
... he would let Gray Powell introduce the iPhone at the Keynote speech this summer.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
... he would let Gray Powell introduce the iPhone at the Keynote speech this summer.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
I would really love to see that. Gray Powell had an accident that could've happened to most of us. I really feel for him and hope he comes out the other side of this for the better.
I wrote to Steve saying that he should go on stage and say, "And now, to re-introduce the iPhone 4...Gray Powell!"
Also with the previous thread, he should close the show with music by The Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?
Comments
I don't get it. All these tech sites do this. Buy people's lost and found stuff and disassemble it. What's so different about Jizzmodo? I think the police should focus on real criminals instead of wasting time confiscating computers, taking away photographers' cameras, assaulting Ivy League professors for trying to get into their own homes and countless other violations.
Lost and Found, Consumer purchased products are far from R&D non-released test products valued at billions.
Nice to see a sound another well written observations in this thread.
Really?:
http://volokh.com/2010/01/03/the-fir...ments-of-fact/
That was a two second search.
It basically describes a precedent of 1st amendment rights and knowingly false statements of fact.
Though it is not the same circumstance it shows there is precedence, so lets just stop waving that little carrot around, shall we?
And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.
Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.
Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?
You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.
I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?
And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.
I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.
Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.
A loud mouth? Yes.
Stupid? No.
Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.
And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?
That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.
So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:
"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."
Classic!
Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.
The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.
The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
On what grounds would a Journalist already on record with trafficking in stolen goods be protected from a warrant search?
You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.
I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?
So, basically, you know nothing.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
Assuming said property can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be stolen.
Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.
However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.
They're f****ed.
They're going to have a hard time explaining why they paid 5 freaking thousand dollars for what looked like a Chinese knockoff without due diligence towards ascertaining how and why the seller got the unit. CA Penal Code 496 gives the prosecutor a lot of leeway even if they don't give up the seller. I do think the warrant "search and seizure" was total BS though but it doesn't absolve Gizmodo from the potential 496 trouble.
When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.
Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.
Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.
It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.
One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.
If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.
Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.
All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.
You are not going to see an actual report that says Apple officially said the phone was stolen. It doesn't work like that. That exposes Apple to liability if it is wrong.
When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.
Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.
Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.
Actually NOTHING is OBVIOUS. That is conjecture and speculation until there is proof of such.
In the meantime this could be the state of california taking matters into their own hands for the possibility of a high profile case and nothing more.
As for reports, when was the last time you 100 percent trusted what a news source gave you? I don't mean that to be joking, I mean that seriously.
There has been no corroboration from any official source that stated apple had reported the item stolen.
None.
If apple can just have someone's home searched without going on record that would validate someone else's statement in this thread and your statement implies this is possible.
Google is bad enough. Do you really want to live in a world where someone does not have the right to confront their accuser due to their accuser being able to hide behind money and (apparently) their own purchased attack dogs?
That opens a whole other avenue I would not like to contemplate, and I am sure neither would you.
So, basically, you know nothing.
About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.
Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.
It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.
In the final analysis what does the DA going after and seizing Jason Chen's equipment really mean?
It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.
It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.
One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.
If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.
Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.
All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.
It means the DA has nothing and is hoping to find something and was able to commit a judge to allowing him to undertake that search.
It's the equivalent of a wiretap and nothing more.
In your language that would also be termed as fishing (or is it phishing?)
P.S.: I should have read the rest of your post. It is actually quite apt.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
I do not agree that this was an "overreaction" by authorities with a search warrant.
And I am hoping that actions like this WILL send a message to other not -so-bright journalists that this sort of practice (theft/"finders keepers, losers weepers"/whatever you want to call it) is not acceptable.
About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.
Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.
It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.
And you still fall back on "stolen" with no proof of such allegation.
One step forward, two steps back.....
Second, Gizmodo didn't have to do tests on the phone if it had enough information to suspect it had a lost Apple prototype. If it bought the phone, it suspected it was Apple's. It could have contacted Apple immediately and asked if it lost a phone. It eventually contacted Apple through proper channels. Why wait to tear the phone apart? It doesn't need to be sure it belonged to Apple, it only had to suspect it did.
gizmodo could argue that they did not know if that's really an iPhone prototype until they actually got their hands on it. And they did return it to Apple when requested. The felony's most likely for the guy who sold it.
... he would let Gray Powell introduce the iPhone at the Keynote speech this summer.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
That would be too much!
... he would let Gray Powell introduce the iPhone at the Keynote speech this summer.
Steve Jobs:
"Ladies & Gentleman- Gray Powell [wild applause] As Gray Powell walks out on stage with the new iPhone 4G , Steve welcomes him with a beer; they toast. [wild applause]
I would really love to see that. Gray Powell had an accident that could've happened to most of us. I really feel for him and hope he comes out the other side of this for the better.
I wrote to Steve saying that he should go on stage and say, "And now, to re-introduce the iPhone 4...Gray Powell!"
Also with the previous thread, he should close the show with music by The Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?