If the girl hadn't been drinking and wearing a short tight skirt, she would never have been raped. .......... it's not the rapist's fault - it's the girl's fault.
Enough of this blaming the victim 'argument'. It makes sensible peoples' brains bleed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Details of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Saga Revealed in Search Warrant Affidavit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the girl hadn't been drinking and wearing a short tight skirt, she would never have been raped. .......... it's not the rapist's fault - it's the girl's fault.
Enough of this blaming the victim 'argument'. It makes sensible peoples' brains bleed.
I haven't been there, but have been to dozens of similar places around the country. Some of the best comfort food may be found in these places, and often high end food as well. Given the choice between a very high end restaurant and a brew-pub, I'll take a brew pub any day.
You are correct, and I have removed the unsubstantiated comment and apologized. Just getting frustrated at all of the insults being thrown at me for standing up to my opinion.
Actually, Arn, it isn't difficult to both appropriately extend protection to journalists' confidential materials and sources while simultaneously holding journalists accountable for their illegal acts by permitting reasonable searches and seizures of evidence.
Under California law there is a very specific procedure provided for searches of lawyers' offices and files. Like journalists, lawyers are entitled to certain protections from disclosure of information given to them with an expectation of confidentiality which the law respects. Accordingly, when a search warrant is executed and returned the judge appoints a special master--a lawyer who is essentially deputized by the judge--to conduct a review of the materials and to determine which items are entitled to be kept confidential. There is a process for judicial review of the master's judgement. A similar process is followed when there are claims of state secrets, trade secrets, or priest-pentinent, doctor-patient, or similar recognized privileged or protected communications or other material. As you will appreciate, these sorts of issues arise in both civil and criminal cases fairly frequently, and the law and procedure is well-understood.
I would guess the judge in San Mateo county will appoint a special master in the Chen case, and I'd be confident that irrelevant material would quickly be returned. Since Hogan and his friends had already been publicly identified prior to the issuance of the search warrant, I doubt Chen can protect any relevant evidence from discovery or disclosure by invoking a law designed to protect the confidentiality of a journalist's sources.
The broad issue of balancing society's interest in protecting reporters' sources against its interest in enforcing its laws is a fascinating one, but I believe that in the case of the Gawker defendants it will be entirely moot.
Well I am going to criticize your computer choice. You could built your own high end PC for a lot cheaper (with better interchangeable parts). Then headed over to The OSx86 project and put OS X on a separate hard drive.
Very interesting to read that "restaurant review" by Lenatti. It's pretty obvious who paid/sponsored him. It could have been written by Gawker. Everything is soft peddled re: the actions of Hogan as well as Gizmodo, and all actions by aapl are projected as unreasonable. And the bit about the potent German beer when most listed were of average ABV. Again, they're trying to blame the victim and paint the perps' actions as just slightly misguided. If you were looking at felony charges, how much $$ would you be willing to spread around for PR (not to mention that all bloggers, etc. want complete CA shield law protection). I would expect to see a lot of biased reporting for this very reason.
Hello. You seem to know a lot about this topic, so hopefully you can answer a few questions. It seems to me with all the attention the search / seizure have gotten, the DA might be trying to build their case(s) without using anything seized. They have statements from several people, computers from Hogan, and cell phones from several people. Is it possible they have most of what they need from these items? According to the affidavit, these items were surrendered voluntarily and are subject to search. Im assuming if they find emails or texts on Hogans devices between him and Chen about illegal activities they would not need Chens PCs to implicate him. What might be missing on Hogans stuff could be communication between Chen and Gawker. Do you think they would try to get that (if it exists) in other ways first so that they dont even have to search Chens computers? The fact they have not searched Chens stuff yet makes me think they will try all other avenues first to avoid 1st amendment stuff from being a factor. If his computers are never searched, does this whole point become moot? Again, I'm not a lawyer and do not know how all this works so any info you can share would be great.
I hope that we can eventually get off this "bar" vs. "restaurant" thing.
It doesn't matter. It could have been ANY PLACE.
He lost his phone. Careless or not, someone took the phone and sold it, even though he knew who it belonged to.
It doesn't matter. It could have been ANY PLACE.
He lost his phone. Careless or not, someone took the phone and sold it, even though he knew who it belonged to.
There's no question that's correct, but some are using the bar bit to suggest Powell's just as responsible (he's not) and that "restaurant review" was trying to ignore all CA law and suggest that Hogan who "ended up" with it did nothing worse than break an unwritten pub code. There's an effort to lessen the severity of what the perps actually did. They're trying to control the terminology.
I bet you're just saying that because you're working for a secret government agency, trying to fool us all into believing that there is no conspiracy here!
I also happen to believe that you may be a shapeshifter. Just saying.
Good point. Why jeopardize an entire investigation and prosecution by doing something what would SURELY get argued by Gizmodo in the courts.
As well, we have NO CLUE what has been transpiring over the past 3 weeks.
Imagine what might be on Hogans' computer. He might have e-mails between himself and Chen. He might also have e-mails between himself and OTHER tech bloggers.
Imagine if Hogan has been talking. He might tell what his 3 conversations with Chen entailed. And, whether Chen had access to the phone on more than 1 occasion and whether Chen believed that the phone was a prototype or the real deal.
Well I am going to criticize your computer choice. You could built your own high end PC for a lot cheaper (with better interchangeable parts). Then headed over to The OSx86 project and put OS X on a separate hard drive.
OUCH...that really hurts...lol
Sorry my friend, I love my windows, gaming abilities and all the other things associated with my Windows Laptops and PC's! I also love my iPhone and all the great things it does for me.
However, I will never buy any form of Mac computer and the only way I would ever use one is "maybe" if it was given to me. I do not subscribe to all the hype about Macs but will agree that they are good for some aspects of computing while PC's are good at others. Each has their own and I have made my choice and stand by it.
I have built PC's but not laptops as it is pretty difficult to get the limited options in to place and functional. Thus is why I purchased what I did and use it very effectively in my gaming and photography/video endeavors.
I am glad that you are satisfied with the tools of your life and as much as you love your Macs, I love my PC's
I'm afraid I'd just be guessing about what may be happening in this case, but my experience is that prosecutors and investigators often prefer to have as much evidence as they can obtain, even when it may be redundant. I imagine they are motivated by a concern that one piece of evidence may be ruled inadmissible, or that the witness may not appear in court, or may be hopelessly impeached, etc. (Sometimes, perversely, it works to the defendant's advantage when his lawyer can seize upon even tiny discrepancies among multiple pieces of evidence of the same fact.)
So, just guessing, I'd say the delay is more likely due to the parties determining their strategies, and perhaps having informal meetings with the judge to mediate an agreed-upon process for reviewing the seized materials, perhaps even with briefs being solicited by the judge. I'm assuming that were there hearings on motions or other more formal proceedings they would have been publicly reported.
I think it less likely that the D.A. has decided that he doesn't need the materials obtained through the warrant, although I certainly appreciate your reasoning for a contrary decision.
My guesses could be ridiculously wrong if the case is being treated much less seriously than I think it is, but with the case receiving all this publicity I would think the judge and the parties are going to give this their full attention. There are, however, some local lawyers who have posted on these threads whose comments would be much more informed than mine.
Thanks for your reply. You raise some really good points. It will be intresting to see how this plays out.
I didn't say they would or wouldn't have a lose of sales. I was simply stating his numbers were wrong and if there was a lose, provided the proper numbers.
In a way, you are right, they are glad they didn't buy the stolen iPhone. But you make it sound like they almost bought it. I think they just thought clearly about the situation, and they figured out that doing what Gizmodo did would mightily upset Apple (which isn't a problem in itself as long as you don't do anything against the law), and that it would mean handling stolen goods and all other kind of illegal activities - and upsetting Apple _and_ giving them the means to really, really hurt you is not a good idea.
Re: the "Powell was just as/more/completely responsible!!" assertion...
OK. Fine. For the sake of argument, let's assume that, when Powell lost the phone, he had a BAC of .30 and was snorting cocaine off of a hooker's back while wearing shoes made from the skins of orphaned, blind kittens.
...how would this affect the criminal case in the slightest? From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter whether he was healing lepers or eating infants when he lost the phone. It still isn't OK for Hogan to keep it and then sell it or for Gizmodo to buy it and then take it apart.
OK. Fine. For the sake of argument, let's assume that, when Powell lost the phone, he had a BAC of .30 and was snorting cocaine off of a hooker's back while wearing shoes made from the skins of orphaned, blind kittens.
...how would this affect the criminal case in the slightest? From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter whether he was healing lepers or eating infants when he lost the phone. It still isn't OK for Hogan to keep it and then sell it or for Gizmodo to buy it and then take it apart.
As others have already told you, none of these things were known for sure. And how exactly would "revealed in the OS 4 code" be known to ANYONE apart from a few geeks like us that hang out on tech sites. Also, calling design 'not a feature' is just plain ignorant. A huge part of the population would put design in their personal top 3 of features.
You are infering FAR too much from your geek/nerd background. Most people are not tech guys and have no idea about iPhone release cycles and had no idea about the assumed/discussed feature of the new model until the story of the prototype made it into mainstream media.
As if Apple wouldn't have gotten the exact same publicity at launch of the 4G model.... instead the stir occured much too early. As a consequence less people buy the 3G/3GS models, which means they will have manufactured too many of them and not enough 4G models. Also they will make more money on 3G/3GS models they sell now compared to 4G models sold in 6 weeks, since the new model is more expensive to make but sold at the same price.
Nobody cares if you are convinced, it's basic business and PR 1+1.
And how about the negative publicity, e.g. on the Daily Show? Do you choose to simply ignore that because it doesn't fit into your line of argument?
Apple may have had enough time to adjust 3G/3GS production so there won't be a warehouse of unsold phones. I don't know if they can do much about a greater shortage of June's new
I've wondered how to minimize the damage. Continuing the original production plan means all the losses are Apple's and AT&T's. Cutting production affects the manufacturing chain.
I would like to apologize for my previous post. I was indeed trolling and I did get a little rise -
While Gray Powell should have taken better care of the prototype, accidents do happen. California law C.S.2080 requires that the finder of lost property with a value over $100.00 has the duty to return it to the owner, if known, or to a police station, if not known. It was apparently established by all parties from the onset that the property belonged to Apple. Hogan, by failing to return it to Apple or to the police, then effectively stole the property. By seeking a buyer, he further established his knowledge of the owner and of the value of the property. This was with full intent. Chen likewise had full knowledge of the ownership of the property and did indeed buy stolen property with full knowledge and intent of what he was doing. Hogan and Chen did, by California law, commit felonies in their actions. The publishing of photos by Gizmodo might (or might not) be protected by the 1st Amendment - assuming that they can effectively distance themselves from Chen. This may not be easy due to Lam's e-mails and letter request. Also, did Lam (as editor of Gizmodo) reimburse Chen? Buying stolen property is not protected by any amendment. Gizmodo's actions and those of Hogan are not legally, ethically or morally acceptable.
With regard to damages, it might be difficult for Apple to determine and show the damages as a result of Gizmodo's actions. It makes sense that people might wait for the next version, thereby hurting current sales. But we've all known that there was going to be a 4G iPhone coming out this summer. all the details weren't known, but we all knew it would be a little different and better. The same was true of the 3G and 3GS models. So Apple has a history of sales prior to and after the release of a new model. Making the extrapolation to current figures is a relatively simple process. Gizmodo's effect can be determined. Except.... prior releases had no real competition. Blackberry and Palm and that was about it. Now there's Droid and other smartphones that have cut into Apple's business. Gizmodo might argue that any drop in sales are related to the release of Droid and other smartphones rather than their photos. That might be an effective argument.
In any event, Gizmodo could be effective driven out of business fighting a lawsuit brought be Apple. If Steve Jobs wants the heads of Gizmodo on a stick, he'll get them. Will he want to send a message to others who would look to do the same thing? Or play the forgiving CEO? I think I might vote for sending a message.
While Gray Powell should have taken better care of the prototype, accidents do happen. California law C.S.2080 requires that the finder of lost property with a value over $100.00 has the duty to return it to the owner, if known, or to a police station, if not known. It was apparently established by all parties from the onset that the property belonged to Apple. Hogan, by failing to return it to Apple or to the police, then effectively stole the property. By seeking a buyer, he further established his knowledge of the owner and of the value of the property. This was with full intent. Chen likewise had full knowledge of the ownership of the property and did indeed buy stolen property with full knowledge and intent of what he was doing. Hogan and Chen did, by California law, commit felonies in their actions. The publishing of photos by Gizmodo might (or might not) be protected by the 1st Amendment - assuming that they can effectively distance themselves from Chen. This may not be easy due to Lam's e-mails and letter request. Also, did Lam (as editor of Gizmodo) reimburse Chen? Buying stolen property is not protected by any amendment. Gizmodo's actions and those of Hogan are not legally, ethically or morally acceptable.
With regard to damages, it might be difficult for Apple to determine and show the damages as a result of Gizmodo's actions. It makes sense that people might wait for the next version, thereby hurting current sales. But we've all known that there was going to be a 4G iPhone coming out this summer. all the details weren't known, but we all knew it would be a little different and better. The same was true of the 3G and 3GS models. So Apple has a history of sales prior to and after the release of a new model. Making the extrapolation to current figures is a relatively simple process. Gizmodo's effect can be determined. Except.... prior releases had no real competition. Blackberry and Palm and that was about it. Now there's Droid and other smartphones that have cut into Apple's business. Gizmodo might argue that any drop in sales are related to the release of Droid and other smartphones rather than their photos. That might be an effective argument.
In any event, Gizmodo could be effective driven out of business fighting a lawsuit brought be Apple. If Steve Jobs wants the heads of Gizmodo on a stick, he'll get them. Will he want to send a message to others who would look to do the same thing? Or play the forgiving CEO? I think I might vote for sending a message.
I don't see this as a question of vengeance or mercy. It's a question of protecting your company's valuable IP and upholding the law.
"You can steal our secret stuff, tear it apart, and post photos of it on a prominent website for profit, we don't mind" is not an acceptable message to send. Period.
As an AAPL shareholder, I hope the law is upheld, the seller and buyer (Chen and anyone above him who knew of the deal and approved it) of the phone see harsh penalties, and Apple bleeds every dime (and then some) out of Gawker made from this ridiculous charade.
And I would support this action regardless of the victim. RIM, Google, even *shudder* Microsoft. A crime is a crime and the size of the victim is irrelevant.
I'm sure the Apple haters will cry "Nazi scum" when the hammer of the law finally comes crashing down, but then again the Apple haters cry "Nazi scum" no matter what Apple does these days. *shrug*
The crime itself is repulsive, but even more so is the juvenile way in which Gizmodo milked the story eight ways from Sunday and rubbed Apple's face in it (including throwing the unlucky field testing engineer under the bus) every step of the way. Their bravado was truly astounding.