iPhone will have a front-facing camera, and known a few months in advance.
Apple seriously screwed up here (while Gizmodo and Brian now have major problems, I wonder if developers jumping in on this tip will now be guilty of access to a trade secret?)
And, yet, that's not what you asked. You asked why this situation is different than what AI and ThinkSecret do. The answer, of course, is that AI and TS obey the law.
That's not really what I asked, but does bring up several other points. TS got sued and ultimately taken down for posting trade secrets. Do you support that? What if the same thing happened to AI?
Quote:
Personally, I would be much happier if people followed NDAs. I would be much happier in a world where people could be trusted to do what they say they're going to do. Sorry you don't feel that way.
A world where everyone follows the rules would be great, although very idealistic. If you want people to follow NDAs, then maybe sites like AI, TS, and such should start reporting them to Apple. Would you advocate that?
Quote:
It would NOT mean the end of AI or TS or legitimate rumor sites as you suggest. There are still lots of legal ways to obtain information without breaking an NDA. As a few examples:
...
The leaked stories are always more interesting. There is no denying that.
I actually think the comments here which highlight the slant in which the tech media has taken on this whole debacle is reflective of the values and beliefs which appear to dominate the area.
It's good that some of the posters in this thread have not been shy to point this out.
The problem isn't that they are making too much, it's that everyone else has been making so little.
Elizabeth Warren showed how screwed we are when a man today makes about $800.00 *less* than his father thirty years ago, and how a man today has to go into debt to get an education to even make that amount.
The economy is broken and the rich ownership class at the top has been sucking all the productivity and real gains of the last thirty years for themselves... the problems with the private sector definitely predated 2008-2009. It's been destroying the middle class since the early 1970s and they can no longer manufacture bubbles to maintain the illusion of growth or even sustainability.
Exactly how has the private sector destroyed the middle class? And as to your broader point about growth as an illusion you do realise I hope that growth comes from such things as mundane as buying the food you put on the table. For your sake I hope that the food is not considered illusory as well.
He is represented by a partner at K&L Gates. How can he afford that? Aren't they something like #3 on AmLaw? Bornstein was a 20 year federal prosecutor. Seems like a big gun. A big expensive gun.
K&L Gates was established by Bill "Microsoft" Gates' father. Until about a year ago, they were one of Microsoft's preferred legal providers. And expensive they are, as implied in the linked article.
Perhaps the case was taken pro bono? If so, that could imply to some people that its continuance could yield a different, if less tangible, form of benefit to The Firm and its associates.
At any rate, you raise a interesting and thought-provoking question.
Then I'm sure you include Jobs and most employees of Apple because they are one of the most liberal companies in the Valley. Give everyone a break and keep your teabag talk for the next meetup.
But surely this whole iPhone thing is Obama's fault somehow, right?
The problem isn't that they are making too much, it's that everyone else has been making so little.
Elizabeth Warren showed how screwed we are when a man today makes about $800.00 *less* than his father thirty years ago, and how a man today has to go into debt to get an education to even make that amount.
The economy is broken and the rich ownership class at the top has been sucking all the productivity and real gains of the last thirty years for themselves... the problems with the private sector definitely predated 2008-2009. It's been destroying the middle class since the early 1970s and they can no longer manufacture bubbles to maintain the illusion of growth or even sustainability.
This the most intelligent post in this entire thread.
The second is by freddych, as it is on topic and also takes his expertise in the matter into account.
The longer they leave it up, the greater the damages Apple will get. Given that iPhone sales were already slacking under the 'rumor' the true damages aren't going to be that bad. But Apple will have much more material evidence of being harmed and the deminished impact of sales.
Gizmodo hasn't taken a bite out of Apple. No. The Apple will swallow whole all of Gizmodo.
Apple would have lost sales anyway due to speculation with or without this upgrade being revealed. its a cycle that everyone is used to and it will be difficult to use that as grounds for increased damages.
First: let me say that I apologize for making this my first post. I came across this blog entry/opinion article and just had to respond to several things
Let me preface the following with this statement (which may not be true):
Brian Hogan has not yet been arrested. As such, it appears as though law enforcement do not have sufficient evidence to do so.
the following opinion is used to discuss the possible evidence that might be used to arrest or try Brian Hogan for his alleged involvement with the overall alleged crime(s) that were (or were not) committed in this case
what are the basic facts:
someone looses a phone in a bar
someone picks up the phone in a bar
someone uses the phone for a few minutes before it deactivates (using their own sim card?)
someone sits on the phone for an undetermined period of time
someone sells the phone (through however many intermediaries) to a "journalist" (the quotes are there because modern laws do not specifically mention the distinctions necessary to define an ONLINE journalist, relative to a blogger, who is NOT a journalist)
with all that said, I make the case for the grievous conflict of interest in this case
I see some major questions/issues, and here is the reasoning I use:
1)Assuming a NON-jury trial:
All of the statements made to the press are completely worthless and inadmissable in court. the only evidence that can be used against any suspect is gained during an investigation or arrest.
Any other statement is essentially garbage as far as the DA or defense is concerned and the DA will not even attempt to use these statements
assuming a jury trial:
these statements are used as circumstantial evidence, but cannot be used as definitive evidence by the jury to assign blame.
2) without a large amount of extra evidence that has not yet been reported to the public, the police VASTLY overstepped their legal rights.
This must, obviously, mean that there is a great deal of extra confidential evidence in this case because the police, the DA, and Apple's lawyers would never go out of their way to break the law (they have much more to lose)
and YES. without extra evidence beyond what we all know, there is OBVIOUSLY a conflict of interest with the police and the judge that issued the warrant.
a no knock warrant is not a simple thing.
there are plenty of murderers, rapists, child slavers, and hard drug dealers that get away DAILY because such search warrants are so hard to obtain without DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that ABSOLUTELY identifies a person as having been involved with the commission of a crime.
there are plenty of identity theft criminals and similar who get away in similar situations.
3) GSM phones do not broadcast their IMEI number during any communication method. indeed, it is widely claimed that tracking a phone by its IMEI number alone is "impossible"
I have this information directly from my local law enforcement (I used to work at a Cingular store).
this was the response when I inquired about tracing a stolen phone. I was told that tracking a phone by its serial number (IMEI = Serial number) is impossible.
indeed, if you put your ATT sim card into ANY OTHER GSM PHONE (unlocked/ATT, broadcasting on usable freqencies, etc) ATT will never know.
you literally have to call and tell them the new IMEI number, or else they would never know you had a different phone.
there are other obvious reasons that back up my claim (Beyond the direct proof I gave)
if it WAS possible, then Lockline (among others) would utilize this ability regularly to find stolen/lost phones
phones are not cheap. even the lowest quality phone is extremely expensive. ATT sells their phones at a huge loss and every lost/stolen phone that must be replaced by Lockline is a huge loss to them.
very few people realize this, and most complain about a $100 iPhone (even though ATT is losing as much as $400 on the phone)
they have an economic incentive to exploit any tracking ability that is possible....
but it is NOT POSSIBLE to track a phone by IMEI
4) 3G internet access does not transmit any extra hardware information that is not transmitted during idel operation or normal voice operation.
thus the fact that the suspect used facebook does not add any evidence
5) The access of the suspect's facebook account by the phone/sim card cannot be used to prove that the suspect used the phone in this way.
facebook has notoriously porous security. Facebook accounts are regularly phished.
Any argument based on this access is worthless and the DA would never use it as an argument in court (especially a DA in a place that has large amounts of identity theft problems, they are experts in understanding what can and cannot be used without question in court)
6) cellular phones can be triangulated to within a radius that is dependent on the spacing of the closest 3 ceullar towers (on the order of a mile if densely populated, and several miles if not)
GPRS can triangulate/locate the position to within a much smaller radius (on the order of several meters)
thus, knowledge of the location of the suspect at the time that the account was accessed can be used BUT ONLY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
this is PURE circumstantial evidence and is worthless in court.
6) here is the ONLY ONLY ONLY ABSOLUTE PURE REAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED IN COURT:
visual identification of the person who took the phone home from the bar by other bar patrons, and/or visual identification of the suspect by OTHER people who have been arrested or interviewed by the police
unfortunately, any visual identification of the subject by bar patrons has become a completely worthless piece of garbage now that his picture has been plastered all over the internet
I thank the author (as well as others) for adding to this (mostly because the bias is so obvious in the article, lol)
I hope Apple realizes how much they are harming their own image in the minds of technology journalists and industry insiders in this case...
Apple's image as being more in touch with their consumers' needs has been tainted by the obvious anger and frustration they have over this issue.
people have claimed that Jobs' involvement with REACT has been suspect.
it is. yes. absolutely. it would be absolutely naive and stupid to believe that the law enforcement in certain areas are not sensitive to the employers and tax payers in those locales.
it would be naive and stupid to believe that when a board of directors hears from one of their peers about a specific crime committed against him, that they would not act in his defense with all due haste.
OF COURSE the police, DA, etc are enforcing the needs of Apple.
in doing so, they are (by proxy) enforcing the needs of thousands of locals (employees), stock holders, and even non-employees who live in the same area. These non-employees depend on apple as a source of proxy employment (the grocery stores, the mechanics, the public and private utilities providers, etc)
this is not a conspiracy theory. this is common sense, and a fact, and it happens all over the world every day.
do you think that the police departments in Detroit, Pasadena, Burbank, etc (auto, defense, and defense, respectively) do not focus on similar issues of theft of intellectual property and industrial espionage?
the people they represent are heavily invested in the well being of large corporations.
BUT NONE OF THIS GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT, 2ND GUESS, ASSUME, OR OVERSTEP THE LAW!!!!!
I will wait for the specs. without a signicantly advanced processor, the iPhone 4g will fall victim to nearly instant release of the next HTC phone.
if the rumors for THAT phone are correct, the iPhone 4g would need something comparable to the dual 1.5ghz QSD8672 that is purported to be the main processor on the next HTC phone.
even a 1.3ghz with a 1 ghz DSP (a spec I have never seen) would not compare.
it just emphasizes my belief that Apple should license their software and get out of the hardware business.
imagine if they licensed their software to sony and HTC?
they would dominate. they would have a monopoly on the smartphone OS market.
First: let me say that I apologize for making this my first post. I came across this blog entry/opinion article and just had to respond to several things
Let me preface the following with this statement (which may not be true):
Brian Hogan has not yet been arrested. As such, it appears as though law enforcement do not have sufficient evidence to do so.
the following opinion is used to discuss the possible evidence that might be used to arrest or try Brian Hogan for his alleged involvement with the overall alleged crime(s) that were (or were not) committed in this case
what are the basic facts:
someone looses a phone in a bar
someone picks up the phone in a bar
someone uses the phone for a few minutes before it deactivates (using their own sim card?)
someone sits on the phone for an undetermined period of time
someone sells the phone (through however many intermediaries) to a "journalist" (the quotes are there because modern laws do not specifically mention the distinctions necessary to define an ONLINE journalist, relative to a blogger, who is NOT a journalist)
with all that said, I make the case for the grievous conflict of interest in this case
I see some major questions/issues, and here is the reasoning I use:
1)Assuming a NON-jury trial:
All of the statements made to the press are completely worthless and inadmissable in court. the only evidence that can be used against any suspect is gained during an investigation or arrest.
Any other statement is essentially garbage as far as the DA or defense is concerned and the DA will not even attempt to use these statements
assuming a jury trial:
these statements are used as circumstantial evidence, but cannot be used as definitive evidence by the jury to assign blame.
2) without a large amount of extra evidence that has not yet been reported to the public, the police VASTLY overstepped their legal rights.
This must, obviously, mean that there is a great deal of extra confidential evidence in this case because the police, the DA, and Apple's lawyers would never go out of their way to break the law (they have much more to lose)
and YES. without extra evidence beyond what we all know, there is OBVIOUSLY a conflict of interest with the police and the judge that issued the warrant.
a no knock warrant is not a simple thing.
there are plenty of murderers, rapists, child slavers, and hard drug dealers that get away DAILY because such search warrants are so hard to obtain without DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that ABSOLUTELY identifies a person as having been involved with the commission of a crime.
there are plenty of identity theft criminals and similar who get away in similar situations.
3) GSM phones do not broadcast their IMEI number during any communication method. indeed, it is widely claimed that tracking a phone by its IMEI number alone is "impossible"
I have this information directly from my local law enforcement (I used to work at a Cingular store).
this was the response when I inquired about tracing a stolen phone. I was told that tracking a phone by its serial number (IMEI = Serial number) is impossible.
indeed, if you put your ATT sim card into ANY OTHER GSM PHONE (unlocked/ATT, broadcasting on usable freqencies, etc) ATT will never know.
you literally have to call and tell them the new IMEI number, or else they would never know you had a different phone.
there are other obvious reasons that back up my claim (Beyond the direct proof I gave)
if it WAS possible, then Lockline (among others) would utilize this ability regularly to find stolen/lost phones
phones are not cheap. even the lowest quality phone is extremely expensive. ATT sells their phones at a huge loss and every lost/stolen phone that must be replaced by Lockline is a huge loss to them.
very few people realize this, and most complain about a $100 iPhone (even though ATT is losing as much as $400 on the phone)
they have an economic incentive to exploit any tracking ability that is possible....
but it is NOT POSSIBLE to track a phone by IMEI
4) 3G internet access does not transmit any extra hardware information that is not transmitted during idel operation or normal voice operation.
thus the fact that the suspect used facebook does not add any evidence
5) The access of the suspect's facebook account by the phone/sim card cannot be used to prove that the suspect used the phone in this way.
facebook has notoriously porous security. Facebook accounts are regularly phished.
Any argument based on this access is worthless and the DA would never use it as an argument in court (especially a DA in a place that has large amounts of identity theft problems, they are experts in understanding what can and cannot be used without question in court)
6) cellular phones can be triangulated to within a radius that is dependent on the spacing of the closest 3 ceullar towers (on the order of a mile if densely populated, and several miles if not)
GPRS can triangulate/locate the position to within a much smaller radius (on the order of several meters)
thus, knowledge of the location of the suspect at the time that the account was accessed can be used BUT ONLY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
this is PURE circumstantial evidence and is worthless in court.
6) here is the ONLY ONLY ONLY ABSOLUTE PURE REAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED IN COURT:
visual identification of the person who took the phone home from the bar by other bar patrons, and/or visual identification of the suspect by OTHER people who have been arrested or interviewed by the police
unfortunately, any visual identification of the subject by bar patrons has become a completely worthless piece of garbage now that his picture has been plastered all over the internet
I thank the author (as well as others) for adding to this (mostly because the bias is so obvious in the article, lol)
I hope Apple realizes how much they are harming their own image in the minds of technology journalists and industry insiders in this case...
Apple's image as being more in touch with their consumers' needs has been tainted by the obvious anger and frustration they have over this issue.
people have claimed that Jobs' involvement with REACT has been suspect.
it is. yes. absolutely. it would be absolutely naive and stupid to believe that the law enforcement in certain areas are not sensitive to the employers and tax payers in those locales.
it would be naive and stupid to believe that when a board of directors hears from one of their peers about a specific crime committed against him, that they would not act in his defense with all due haste.
OF COURSE the police, DA, etc are enforcing the needs of Apple.
in doing so, they are (by proxy) enforcing the needs of thousands of locals (employees), stock holders, and even non-employees who live in the same area. These non-employees depend on apple as a source of proxy employment (the grocery stores, the mechanics, the public and private utilities providers, etc)
this is not a conspiracy theory. this is common sense, and a fact, and it happens all over the world every day.
do you think that the police departments in Detroit, Pasadena, Burbank, etc (auto, defense, and defense, respectively) do not focus on similar issues of theft of intellectual property and industrial espionage?
the people they represent are heavily invested in the well being of large corporations.
BUT NONE OF THIS GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT, 2ND GUESS, ASSUME, OR OVERSTEP THE LAW!!!!!
Another intelligent and informed post.
Hell must be freezing over because the IQ of this site is slowly raising.
AI isn't outing the guy. They're reporting on what was revealed by Wired and CNET.
Also, this is much different from outing the engineer. In both cases, outing wasn't illegal, but outing the engineer was definitely a douche move by Gizmodo. Wired and CNET are reporting on a public case and didn't break any laws to do so. The finder was going to be named at some point due to his own unethical actions.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
All of what I have said is based on the claims of Gizmodo and Hogan himself.
It's best to put people with no logic skills on ignore. If the poster cannot differentiate between what Giz did by "outing" Powell, and what other news organizations are doing by naming Hogan, then he clearly cannot reason very well. Just ignore him.
It's best to put people with no logic skills on ignore. If the poster cannot differentiate between what Giz did by "outing" Powell, and what other news organizations are doing by naming Hogan, then he clearly cannot reason very well. Just ignore him.
Intelligence would show that if you knew the court system, jury trials, sequestering of juries and that entire procedure, you would not have made the above comment.
the legal system doesn't work on logic and neither does the appropriation of a law degree.
Hell must be freezing over because the IQ of this site is slowly raising.
Funny I thought exactly the opposite. Most of the opinions in that post were the typical emotional-based opinions of sympathizing with a person supposedly "oppressed" by a big faceless corporation.
Amazingly little real content in the huge post at all.
We have a tempest in a teapot because some people think that a company has no ethical rights to ask for protection of the law and report stolen property when it is as "insignificant as a cell phone". It's simple. A dude found a phone in a bar, he kept it after he got the owners information. That alone could be enough to get a conviction for theft. Dude eventually sold the kept phone for $5000, that alone could turn the conviction into a felony. A journalist/organization bought something they knew wasn't the sellers, that is quite simply accepting stolen property. Gawker even did this after they publicly offered a bounty for exactly this type of item. That's a possible enhancement for conspiracy.
Why hasn't anyone been charged yet, Gawker can be considered a journalism site, which means the prosecutors need to be VERY careful to not screw it up. Being a journalist doesn't give anyone permission to break the law, and sets up a whole bunch of other wickets the police have to go through so the evidence doesn't get thrown out in trial. The case itself is pretty open and shut with regard to the finder, but there is value in not charging the finder yet, and the finder's lawyer knows this too, read on.
This case isn't about Apple anymore so much as a successful conviction in the public limelight makes the prosecutor CA Attorney General election material. Take it to the bank, the prosecutor wants Gawker as a company and Chen's heads on a platter and unless his team makes a procedural error they will get them. The finder's lawyer is already publicly positioning a strategy to get leniency, the logical next step in that is rolling over and testifying against Gawker/Chen for "using and abusing his client" in a game of corporate subterfuge to get the scoop.
My problem with Gizmodo's stories is they had the info, FaceBook page and other things at least a week before posting the info and when Chen's house was raided on a FRIDAY evening but they don't say anything until mid Monday. I call all this behavior fishy and don't trust any of their stories.
First was their childless CES prank that got kick out of CES for good and now this "scoop". These children need none of my internet clicks and I pray that someday someone will take these people to task for their checkbook journalism and childless pranks.
... Most of the opinions in that post were the typical emotional-based opinions of sympathizing with a person supposedly "oppressed" by a big faceless corporation.
Amazingly little real content in the huge post at all.
... A dude found a phone in a bar, he kept it after he got the owners information. That alone could be enough to get a conviction for theft. Dude eventually sold the kept phone for $5000, that alone could turn the conviction into a felony. A journalist/organization bought something they knew wasn't the seller's, that is quite simply accepting stolen property. Gawker even did this after they publicly offered a bounty for exactly this type of item. That's a possible enhancement for conspiracy... Gawker can be considered a journalism site, which means the prosecutors need to be VERY careful to not screw it up. ... a game of corporate subterfuge to get the scoop.
Clearly and succinctly stated, substantial, germane, insightful... good post!
My problem with Gizmodo's stories is they had the info, FaceBook page and other things at least a week before posting the info and when Chen's house was raided on a FRIDAY evening but they don't say anything until mid Monday. I call all this behavior fishy and don't trust any of their stories.
First was their childless CES prank that got kick out of CES for good and now this "scoop". These children need none of my internet clicks and I pray that someday someone will take these people to task for their checkbook journalism and childless pranks.
Why would they need children to accompany them while they are pranking someone?
it just emphasizes my belief that Apple should license their software and get out of the hardware business. imagine if they licensed their software to sony and HTC? they would dominate. they would have a monopoly on the smartphone OS market.
Or Apple could continue to not license their software and sell more smartphones than Sony and HTC combined, and make far more profit per phone to boot.
Comments
Apple seriously screwed up here (while Gizmodo and Brian now have major problems, I wonder if developers jumping in on this tip will now be guilty of access to a trade secret?)
And, yet, that's not what you asked. You asked why this situation is different than what AI and ThinkSecret do. The answer, of course, is that AI and TS obey the law.
That's not really what I asked, but does bring up several other points. TS got sued and ultimately taken down for posting trade secrets. Do you support that? What if the same thing happened to AI?
Personally, I would be much happier if people followed NDAs. I would be much happier in a world where people could be trusted to do what they say they're going to do. Sorry you don't feel that way.
A world where everyone follows the rules would be great, although very idealistic. If you want people to follow NDAs, then maybe sites like AI, TS, and such should start reporting them to Apple. Would you advocate that?
It would NOT mean the end of AI or TS or legitimate rumor sites as you suggest. There are still lots of legal ways to obtain information without breaking an NDA. As a few examples:
...
The leaked stories are always more interesting. There is no denying that.
It's good that some of the posters in this thread have not been shy to point this out.
The problem isn't that they are making too much, it's that everyone else has been making so little.
Elizabeth Warren showed how screwed we are when a man today makes about $800.00 *less* than his father thirty years ago, and how a man today has to go into debt to get an education to even make that amount.
The economy is broken and the rich ownership class at the top has been sucking all the productivity and real gains of the last thirty years for themselves... the problems with the private sector definitely predated 2008-2009. It's been destroying the middle class since the early 1970s and they can no longer manufacture bubbles to maintain the illusion of growth or even sustainability.
Exactly how has the private sector destroyed the middle class? And as to your broader point about growth as an illusion you do realise I hope that growth comes from such things as mundane as buying the food you put on the table. For your sake I hope that the food is not considered illusory as well.
He is represented by a partner at K&L Gates. How can he afford that? Aren't they something like #3 on AmLaw? Bornstein was a 20 year federal prosecutor. Seems like a big gun. A big expensive gun.
K&L Gates was established by Bill "Microsoft" Gates' father. Until about a year ago, they were one of Microsoft's preferred legal providers. And expensive they are, as implied in the linked article.
Perhaps the case was taken pro bono? If so, that could imply to some people that its continuance could yield a different, if less tangible, form of benefit to The Firm and its associates.
At any rate, you raise a interesting and thought-provoking question.
Then I'm sure you include Jobs and most employees of Apple because they are one of the most liberal companies in the Valley. Give everyone a break and keep your teabag talk for the next meetup.
But surely this whole iPhone thing is Obama's fault somehow, right?
The problem isn't that they are making too much, it's that everyone else has been making so little.
Elizabeth Warren showed how screwed we are when a man today makes about $800.00 *less* than his father thirty years ago, and how a man today has to go into debt to get an education to even make that amount.
The economy is broken and the rich ownership class at the top has been sucking all the productivity and real gains of the last thirty years for themselves... the problems with the private sector definitely predated 2008-2009. It's been destroying the middle class since the early 1970s and they can no longer manufacture bubbles to maintain the illusion of growth or even sustainability.
This the most intelligent post in this entire thread.
The second is by freddych, as it is on topic and also takes his expertise in the matter into account.
The rest is rubbish.
The longer they leave it up, the greater the damages Apple will get. Given that iPhone sales were already slacking under the 'rumor' the true damages aren't going to be that bad. But Apple will have much more material evidence of being harmed and the deminished impact of sales.
Gizmodo hasn't taken a bite out of Apple. No. The Apple will swallow whole all of Gizmodo.
Apple would have lost sales anyway due to speculation with or without this upgrade being revealed. its a cycle that everyone is used to and it will be difficult to use that as grounds for increased damages.
Let me preface the following with this statement (which may not be true):
Brian Hogan has not yet been arrested. As such, it appears as though law enforcement do not have sufficient evidence to do so.
the following opinion is used to discuss the possible evidence that might be used to arrest or try Brian Hogan for his alleged involvement with the overall alleged crime(s) that were (or were not) committed in this case
what are the basic facts:
someone looses a phone in a bar
someone picks up the phone in a bar
someone uses the phone for a few minutes before it deactivates (using their own sim card?)
someone sits on the phone for an undetermined period of time
someone sells the phone (through however many intermediaries) to a "journalist" (the quotes are there because modern laws do not specifically mention the distinctions necessary to define an ONLINE journalist, relative to a blogger, who is NOT a journalist)
with all that said, I make the case for the grievous conflict of interest in this case
I see some major questions/issues, and here is the reasoning I use:
1)Assuming a NON-jury trial:
All of the statements made to the press are completely worthless and inadmissable in court. the only evidence that can be used against any suspect is gained during an investigation or arrest.
Any other statement is essentially garbage as far as the DA or defense is concerned and the DA will not even attempt to use these statements
assuming a jury trial:
these statements are used as circumstantial evidence, but cannot be used as definitive evidence by the jury to assign blame.
2) without a large amount of extra evidence that has not yet been reported to the public, the police VASTLY overstepped their legal rights.
This must, obviously, mean that there is a great deal of extra confidential evidence in this case because the police, the DA, and Apple's lawyers would never go out of their way to break the law (they have much more to lose)
and YES. without extra evidence beyond what we all know, there is OBVIOUSLY a conflict of interest with the police and the judge that issued the warrant.
a no knock warrant is not a simple thing.
there are plenty of murderers, rapists, child slavers, and hard drug dealers that get away DAILY because such search warrants are so hard to obtain without DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that ABSOLUTELY identifies a person as having been involved with the commission of a crime.
there are plenty of identity theft criminals and similar who get away in similar situations.
3) GSM phones do not broadcast their IMEI number during any communication method. indeed, it is widely claimed that tracking a phone by its IMEI number alone is "impossible"
I have this information directly from my local law enforcement (I used to work at a Cingular store).
this was the response when I inquired about tracing a stolen phone. I was told that tracking a phone by its serial number (IMEI = Serial number) is impossible.
indeed, if you put your ATT sim card into ANY OTHER GSM PHONE (unlocked/ATT, broadcasting on usable freqencies, etc) ATT will never know.
you literally have to call and tell them the new IMEI number, or else they would never know you had a different phone.
there are other obvious reasons that back up my claim (Beyond the direct proof I gave)
if it WAS possible, then Lockline (among others) would utilize this ability regularly to find stolen/lost phones
phones are not cheap. even the lowest quality phone is extremely expensive. ATT sells their phones at a huge loss and every lost/stolen phone that must be replaced by Lockline is a huge loss to them.
very few people realize this, and most complain about a $100 iPhone (even though ATT is losing as much as $400 on the phone)
they have an economic incentive to exploit any tracking ability that is possible....
but it is NOT POSSIBLE to track a phone by IMEI
4) 3G internet access does not transmit any extra hardware information that is not transmitted during idel operation or normal voice operation.
thus the fact that the suspect used facebook does not add any evidence
5) The access of the suspect's facebook account by the phone/sim card cannot be used to prove that the suspect used the phone in this way.
facebook has notoriously porous security. Facebook accounts are regularly phished.
Any argument based on this access is worthless and the DA would never use it as an argument in court (especially a DA in a place that has large amounts of identity theft problems, they are experts in understanding what can and cannot be used without question in court)
6) cellular phones can be triangulated to within a radius that is dependent on the spacing of the closest 3 ceullar towers (on the order of a mile if densely populated, and several miles if not)
GPRS can triangulate/locate the position to within a much smaller radius (on the order of several meters)
thus, knowledge of the location of the suspect at the time that the account was accessed can be used BUT ONLY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
this is PURE circumstantial evidence and is worthless in court.
6) here is the ONLY ONLY ONLY ABSOLUTE PURE REAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED IN COURT:
visual identification of the person who took the phone home from the bar by other bar patrons, and/or visual identification of the suspect by OTHER people who have been arrested or interviewed by the police
unfortunately, any visual identification of the subject by bar patrons has become a completely worthless piece of garbage now that his picture has been plastered all over the internet
I thank the author (as well as others) for adding to this (mostly because the bias is so obvious in the article, lol)
I hope Apple realizes how much they are harming their own image in the minds of technology journalists and industry insiders in this case...
Apple's image as being more in touch with their consumers' needs has been tainted by the obvious anger and frustration they have over this issue.
people have claimed that Jobs' involvement with REACT has been suspect.
it is. yes. absolutely. it would be absolutely naive and stupid to believe that the law enforcement in certain areas are not sensitive to the employers and tax payers in those locales.
it would be naive and stupid to believe that when a board of directors hears from one of their peers about a specific crime committed against him, that they would not act in his defense with all due haste.
OF COURSE the police, DA, etc are enforcing the needs of Apple.
in doing so, they are (by proxy) enforcing the needs of thousands of locals (employees), stock holders, and even non-employees who live in the same area. These non-employees depend on apple as a source of proxy employment (the grocery stores, the mechanics, the public and private utilities providers, etc)
this is not a conspiracy theory. this is common sense, and a fact, and it happens all over the world every day.
do you think that the police departments in Detroit, Pasadena, Burbank, etc (auto, defense, and defense, respectively) do not focus on similar issues of theft of intellectual property and industrial espionage?
the people they represent are heavily invested in the well being of large corporations.
BUT NONE OF THIS GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT, 2ND GUESS, ASSUME, OR OVERSTEP THE LAW!!!!!
I will wait for the specs. without a signicantly advanced processor, the iPhone 4g will fall victim to nearly instant release of the next HTC phone.
if the rumors for THAT phone are correct, the iPhone 4g would need something comparable to the dual 1.5ghz QSD8672 that is purported to be the main processor on the next HTC phone.
even a 1.3ghz with a 1 ghz DSP (a spec I have never seen) would not compare.
it just emphasizes my belief that Apple should license their software and get out of the hardware business.
imagine if they licensed their software to sony and HTC?
they would dominate. they would have a monopoly on the smartphone OS market.
First: let me say that I apologize for making this my first post. I came across this blog entry/opinion article and just had to respond to several things
Let me preface the following with this statement (which may not be true):
Brian Hogan has not yet been arrested. As such, it appears as though law enforcement do not have sufficient evidence to do so.
the following opinion is used to discuss the possible evidence that might be used to arrest or try Brian Hogan for his alleged involvement with the overall alleged crime(s) that were (or were not) committed in this case
what are the basic facts:
someone looses a phone in a bar
someone picks up the phone in a bar
someone uses the phone for a few minutes before it deactivates (using their own sim card?)
someone sits on the phone for an undetermined period of time
someone sells the phone (through however many intermediaries) to a "journalist" (the quotes are there because modern laws do not specifically mention the distinctions necessary to define an ONLINE journalist, relative to a blogger, who is NOT a journalist)
with all that said, I make the case for the grievous conflict of interest in this case
I see some major questions/issues, and here is the reasoning I use:
1)Assuming a NON-jury trial:
All of the statements made to the press are completely worthless and inadmissable in court. the only evidence that can be used against any suspect is gained during an investigation or arrest.
Any other statement is essentially garbage as far as the DA or defense is concerned and the DA will not even attempt to use these statements
assuming a jury trial:
these statements are used as circumstantial evidence, but cannot be used as definitive evidence by the jury to assign blame.
2) without a large amount of extra evidence that has not yet been reported to the public, the police VASTLY overstepped their legal rights.
This must, obviously, mean that there is a great deal of extra confidential evidence in this case because the police, the DA, and Apple's lawyers would never go out of their way to break the law (they have much more to lose)
and YES. without extra evidence beyond what we all know, there is OBVIOUSLY a conflict of interest with the police and the judge that issued the warrant.
a no knock warrant is not a simple thing.
there are plenty of murderers, rapists, child slavers, and hard drug dealers that get away DAILY because such search warrants are so hard to obtain without DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that ABSOLUTELY identifies a person as having been involved with the commission of a crime.
there are plenty of identity theft criminals and similar who get away in similar situations.
3) GSM phones do not broadcast their IMEI number during any communication method. indeed, it is widely claimed that tracking a phone by its IMEI number alone is "impossible"
I have this information directly from my local law enforcement (I used to work at a Cingular store).
this was the response when I inquired about tracing a stolen phone. I was told that tracking a phone by its serial number (IMEI = Serial number) is impossible.
indeed, if you put your ATT sim card into ANY OTHER GSM PHONE (unlocked/ATT, broadcasting on usable freqencies, etc) ATT will never know.
you literally have to call and tell them the new IMEI number, or else they would never know you had a different phone.
there are other obvious reasons that back up my claim (Beyond the direct proof I gave)
if it WAS possible, then Lockline (among others) would utilize this ability regularly to find stolen/lost phones
phones are not cheap. even the lowest quality phone is extremely expensive. ATT sells their phones at a huge loss and every lost/stolen phone that must be replaced by Lockline is a huge loss to them.
very few people realize this, and most complain about a $100 iPhone (even though ATT is losing as much as $400 on the phone)
they have an economic incentive to exploit any tracking ability that is possible....
but it is NOT POSSIBLE to track a phone by IMEI
4) 3G internet access does not transmit any extra hardware information that is not transmitted during idel operation or normal voice operation.
thus the fact that the suspect used facebook does not add any evidence
5) The access of the suspect's facebook account by the phone/sim card cannot be used to prove that the suspect used the phone in this way.
facebook has notoriously porous security. Facebook accounts are regularly phished.
Any argument based on this access is worthless and the DA would never use it as an argument in court (especially a DA in a place that has large amounts of identity theft problems, they are experts in understanding what can and cannot be used without question in court)
6) cellular phones can be triangulated to within a radius that is dependent on the spacing of the closest 3 ceullar towers (on the order of a mile if densely populated, and several miles if not)
GPRS can triangulate/locate the position to within a much smaller radius (on the order of several meters)
thus, knowledge of the location of the suspect at the time that the account was accessed can be used BUT ONLY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
this is PURE circumstantial evidence and is worthless in court.
6) here is the ONLY ONLY ONLY ABSOLUTE PURE REAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED IN COURT:
visual identification of the person who took the phone home from the bar by other bar patrons, and/or visual identification of the suspect by OTHER people who have been arrested or interviewed by the police
unfortunately, any visual identification of the subject by bar patrons has become a completely worthless piece of garbage now that his picture has been plastered all over the internet
I thank the author (as well as others) for adding to this (mostly because the bias is so obvious in the article, lol)
I hope Apple realizes how much they are harming their own image in the minds of technology journalists and industry insiders in this case...
Apple's image as being more in touch with their consumers' needs has been tainted by the obvious anger and frustration they have over this issue.
people have claimed that Jobs' involvement with REACT has been suspect.
it is. yes. absolutely. it would be absolutely naive and stupid to believe that the law enforcement in certain areas are not sensitive to the employers and tax payers in those locales.
it would be naive and stupid to believe that when a board of directors hears from one of their peers about a specific crime committed against him, that they would not act in his defense with all due haste.
OF COURSE the police, DA, etc are enforcing the needs of Apple.
in doing so, they are (by proxy) enforcing the needs of thousands of locals (employees), stock holders, and even non-employees who live in the same area. These non-employees depend on apple as a source of proxy employment (the grocery stores, the mechanics, the public and private utilities providers, etc)
this is not a conspiracy theory. this is common sense, and a fact, and it happens all over the world every day.
do you think that the police departments in Detroit, Pasadena, Burbank, etc (auto, defense, and defense, respectively) do not focus on similar issues of theft of intellectual property and industrial espionage?
the people they represent are heavily invested in the well being of large corporations.
BUT NONE OF THIS GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT, 2ND GUESS, ASSUME, OR OVERSTEP THE LAW!!!!!
Another intelligent and informed post.
Hell must be freezing over because the IQ of this site is slowly raising.
AI isn't outing the guy. They're reporting on what was revealed by Wired and CNET.
Also, this is much different from outing the engineer. In both cases, outing wasn't illegal, but outing the engineer was definitely a douche move by Gizmodo. Wired and CNET are reporting on a public case and didn't break any laws to do so. The finder was going to be named at some point due to his own unethical actions.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
All of what I have said is based on the claims of Gizmodo and Hogan himself.
It's best to put people with no logic skills on ignore. If the poster cannot differentiate between what Giz did by "outing" Powell, and what other news organizations are doing by naming Hogan, then he clearly cannot reason very well. Just ignore him.
It's best to put people with no logic skills on ignore. If the poster cannot differentiate between what Giz did by "outing" Powell, and what other news organizations are doing by naming Hogan, then he clearly cannot reason very well. Just ignore him.
Intelligence would show that if you knew the court system, jury trials, sequestering of juries and that entire procedure, you would not have made the above comment.
the legal system doesn't work on logic and neither does the appropriation of a law degree.
I love watching people speak before thinking.
It's called comedy and sitcoms.
Another intelligent and informed post.
Hell must be freezing over because the IQ of this site is slowly raising.
Funny I thought exactly the opposite. Most of the opinions in that post were the typical emotional-based opinions of sympathizing with a person supposedly "oppressed" by a big faceless corporation.
Amazingly little real content in the huge post at all.
We have a tempest in a teapot because some people think that a company has no ethical rights to ask for protection of the law and report stolen property when it is as "insignificant as a cell phone". It's simple. A dude found a phone in a bar, he kept it after he got the owners information. That alone could be enough to get a conviction for theft. Dude eventually sold the kept phone for $5000, that alone could turn the conviction into a felony. A journalist/organization bought something they knew wasn't the sellers, that is quite simply accepting stolen property. Gawker even did this after they publicly offered a bounty for exactly this type of item. That's a possible enhancement for conspiracy.
Why hasn't anyone been charged yet, Gawker can be considered a journalism site, which means the prosecutors need to be VERY careful to not screw it up. Being a journalist doesn't give anyone permission to break the law, and sets up a whole bunch of other wickets the police have to go through so the evidence doesn't get thrown out in trial. The case itself is pretty open and shut with regard to the finder, but there is value in not charging the finder yet, and the finder's lawyer knows this too, read on.
This case isn't about Apple anymore so much as a successful conviction in the public limelight makes the prosecutor CA Attorney General election material. Take it to the bank, the prosecutor wants Gawker as a company and Chen's heads on a platter and unless his team makes a procedural error they will get them. The finder's lawyer is already publicly positioning a strategy to get leniency, the logical next step in that is rolling over and testifying against Gawker/Chen for "using and abusing his client" in a game of corporate subterfuge to get the scoop.
First was their childless CES prank that got kick out of CES for good and now this "scoop". These children need none of my internet clicks and I pray that someday someone will take these people to task for their checkbook journalism and childless pranks.
... Most of the opinions in that post were the typical emotional-based opinions of sympathizing with a person supposedly "oppressed" by a big faceless corporation.
Amazingly little real content in the huge post at all.
... A dude found a phone in a bar, he kept it after he got the owners information. That alone could be enough to get a conviction for theft. Dude eventually sold the kept phone for $5000, that alone could turn the conviction into a felony. A journalist/organization bought something they knew wasn't the seller's, that is quite simply accepting stolen property. Gawker even did this after they publicly offered a bounty for exactly this type of item. That's a possible enhancement for conspiracy... Gawker can be considered a journalism site, which means the prosecutors need to be VERY careful to not screw it up. ... a game of corporate subterfuge to get the scoop.
Clearly and succinctly stated, substantial, germane, insightful... good post!
My problem with Gizmodo's stories is they had the info, FaceBook page and other things at least a week before posting the info and when Chen's house was raided on a FRIDAY evening but they don't say anything until mid Monday. I call all this behavior fishy and don't trust any of their stories.
First was their childless CES prank that got kick out of CES for good and now this "scoop". These children need none of my internet clicks and I pray that someday someone will take these people to task for their checkbook journalism and childless pranks.
Why would they need children to accompany them while they are pranking someone?
Just curious.
Dan
I wanted to add:
...snip...
it just emphasizes my belief that Apple should license their software and get out of the hardware business. imagine if they licensed their software to sony and HTC? they would dominate. they would have a monopoly on the smartphone OS market.
Or Apple could continue to not license their software and sell more smartphones than Sony and HTC combined, and make far more profit per phone to boot.