What if your career is seriously damaged by the event, and the whole world knows your name by now?
And what if you knew some guys profited big from it (including publishing your name on the net), when they know your full name?
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.
EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if your career is seriously damaged by the event, and the whole world knows your name by now?
And what if you knew some guys profited big from it (including publishing your name on the net), when they know your full name?
That made me wonder if the employee has a civil case against anyone. I'm not sure since the info looks factual.
The information "looks" factual, but how do we know?
Gizmodo did not interview the bartender or the engineer to double check the story on how the iPhone was lost.
What if the phone was really stolen? Do you think the thief would say "I stole the phone"? Of course he would make up a story on how he found it in a bar on the barstool. Then the engineer may have a case to sue Gizmodo in civil court.
Who knows what Apple is Thinking...
Who knows what Apple is Thinking, its also unrealistic to say that "they are at fault for loosing a prototype" this is victim-blaming.
The events that have ensued does not in anyway show irresponsibility on Powell's side, it shows however that a moment of vulnerability did occur, and if Powell was entrusted with a prototype it wasn't for his taste in good beer, he must of shown he was capable of carrying such a task, all of us have at some point have made a mistake or forgotten a thing or two, some big some small, that does not merit Gizmodo or anyone to take such liberties, now they are crying fowl over what is proceeding?!
Wether Apple looks good or not it in this case they still need to follow the procedures alloted to them by law, companies observe these issues and how they unfold and need to feel confident that proper action is always taken, specially with corporate espionage looming everywhere.
There are very few or no ways that you can tie a police favoritism to a corporation unless you do the type of journalism Gizmodo only wishes they could do. If anyone here does not want to be in a state of powerlessness such as the one Chen or Gizmodo are experiencing then be responsible! avoid this type of reckless behavior.
Another fact is that Apple did not send the famous prototype-retrieval letter to the world, they sent it to Gizmodo and it was Gizmodo who published it to the world yet again! and thus continuing to somehow uplift themselves with a smug shine which shows that in reality they are self-serving and have poor journalistic principles.
Who knows what Apple is Thinking, its also unrealistic to say that "they are at fault for loosing a prototype" this is victim-blaming.
The events that have ensued does not in anyway show irresponsibility on Powell's side, it shows however that a moment of vulnerability did occur, and if Powell was entrusted with a prototype it wasn't for his taste in good beer, he must of shown he was capable of carrying such a task, all of us have at some point have made a mistake or forgotten a thing or two, some big some small, that does not merit Gizmodo or anyone to take such liberties, now they are crying fowl over what is proceeding?!
Wether Apple looks good or not it in this case they still need to follow the procedures alloted to them by law, companies observe these issues and how they unfold and need to feel confident that proper action is always taken, specially with corporate espionage looming everywhere.
There are very few or no ways that you can tie a police favoritism to a corporation unless you do the type of journalism Gizmodo only wishes they could do. If anyone here does not want to be in a state of powerlessness such as the one Chen or Gizmodo are experiencing then be responsible! avoid this type of reckless behavior.
Another fact is that Apple did not send the famous prototype-retrieval letter to the world, they sent it to Gizmodo and it was Gizmodo who published it to the world yet again! and thus continuing to somehow uplift themselves with a smug shine which shows that in reality they are self-serving and have poor journalistic principles.
Actually you would be considered a thief for taking the money depending on your state. Most states require money found to be turned in to the local authorities, though some have requirements of the amount of money so you would be wise to consult your local state law. Often however if you turn the money into the local authorities they hold it for a set amount of time and if no one comes forward to claim it it is given to you as the finder (most states after 30 days) as long as you provide the police with your information. If a person shows up and claims it, providing information that would prove it as being theirs they get it back.
Stealing is taking anything that you know does not belong to you. There are some countries and states where finding an item does equate to ownership but in this particular case since the incident happened in California it is governed by the laws of that state.
please .. his career wasn't damaged .. he was vaulted into his 15+ minutes infamy by the whole thing .. I'd even expect Jobs to joke about it when he does the big reveal later next month
am i missing something, or are we just talking about a phone
Are you serious?
Please create your own blog and voice your opinion on that engineer in your blog, so the whole world would know and your mother would be proud of you.
If the alleged crime is clearly irrelevant to the journalism (say, shooting someone) then that makes sense. If the alleged crime was committed during the journalistic activities, that's a harder call, especially for such unclear crimes (purchasing possibly stolen goods for journalistic purposes and waiting two weeks to return them). I myself don't want a system where journalistic protections can be evaded if you can find just the right crime the journalist committed in pursuit of his journalism. After all, the guy still has to go to court; he just gets a subpoena rather than a warrant.
This reminded me of when I was in high school. I found like $80 on the floor in the hallway. I turned it in to the office and the person was able to retrieve it. I was put in the paper for it
I wonder what jonhaxor would have done? WWJHD?
Anyhow, it is just common courtesy to turn the money in. What if that was all the money that person had? I suppose we should just say "that's your fault for losing it."
Why does this matter? The law is the law.
And yet, the author of this article did not hesitate in posting an image of the new iPhone to go along with the story. Image courtesy of Gizmodo.
What if you shoot someone during the journalistic activities?
A crime is a crime. The shield laws makes "not revealing the source" not a crime. It does not excuse other crimes.
Ok I just did some research and:
1. Bloggers aren't part of the protected class in the shield law:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
2. The shield law still wouldn't apply because most likely the subject of the investigation is Chen/Gizmodo/Gawker and even if they were found to be Journalists, the shield law's main intent is to protect the press from divulging sources by search. Not the protect the journalists themselves if they have committed a crime. In this case, either purchasing stolen property or divulging trade secrets or both.
1. Bloggers aren't part of the protected class in the shield law:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
2. The shield law still wouldn't apply because most likely the subject of the investigation is Chen/Gizmodo/Gawker and even if they were found to be Journalists, the shield law's main intent is to protect the press from divulging sources by search. Not the protect the journalists themselves if they have committed a crime. In this case, either purchasing stolen property or divulging trade secrets or both.
Isn't it kind of hard to prove that Gizmodo bought the phone with the intention of returning it to Apple? Especially after they had confirmed that it was an iPhone prototype, yet made no effort to return it to them until Apple had sent a letter demanding it's return? Gizmodo as "Tech Journalists" would have had known the proper procedures to contact the appropriate people to return the device.
As for the search and seizure, it was legal based on that there was a warrant and the search began before 10pm. Said warrant may be turn out to have been issued incorrectly, and there for all information gained from it would not be admissible in court.
As for the search and seizure, it was legal based on that there was a warrant and the search began before 10pm. Said warrant may be turn out to have been issued incorrectly, and there for all information gained from it would not be admissible in court.
Foundation of Foxes Believes Search and Seizure of Eggs in Henhouse to be Perfectly Legal
International Sisterhood of Hens Believes Raid on Henhouse Wholly Illegal and Immoral
International Sisterhood of Hens Believes Raid on Henhouse Wholly Illegal and Immoral
This reminded me of when I was in high school. I found like $80 on the floor in the hallway. I turned it in to the office and the person was able to retrieve it. I was put in the paper for it
I wonder what jonhaxor would have done? WWJHD?
Anyhow, it is just common courtesy to turn the money in. What if that was all the money that person had? I suppose we should just say "that's your fault for losing it."
Why does this matter? The law is the law.
there's 30 people on the sidewalk .. who am i going to turn the money over to? .. "oh yeah thanks .. why yes i did lose $25"
don't get me wrong - i'm all for doing the right thing .. it's just that sometimes the lines are a little fuzzy and you can't just simply apply a universal "X" is the right thing to do
in this particular case - the issue seems more to be about evading apple's super secrecy to get a story out to people more than hungry to eat it up .. what's the difference between this and a national enquirer style rag or TMZ with somewhat questionable paparazzi photos or videos
In a Wash Post piece from last June, Gawker's Nick Denton said they are NOT journalists.
"We don't seek to do good," says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. "We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
Now, of course, he'll wrap himself in the Constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101822.html
"We don't seek to do good," says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. "We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
Now, of course, he'll wrap himself in the Constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101822.html
"Just the right crime"? An interesting cellphone is interesting. Buying a stolen one so you can profit directly from owning it? Not exactly stretching the "don't buy stolen stuff" law there.
Buying drugs to get into a crackhouse and document it for a newspaper is one thing. Buying stolen goods and blogging about it for profit is a loooooooonnnnnggg ways from that.
What's next: every dumbass criminal who buys a stolen stereo and then twitters about it gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? Supposing he has no job other than tweeting and blogging? He will be committing exactly the same crime as Chen did: buying something illegal and then telling people how interesting it was. If you believe that is fair and legal, please post the address of any exotic vehicles you may own that do not have alarm systems. I would like to pay your vehicles a visit and not contravene the law.
Further, what other laws are you exempt from if you blog about your crimes? How about if a Gawker journalist drugs Miley Cyrus, ****s her, then blogs about it? There you go: a crime committed in the process of obtaining journalistic information. Your concept is absurd.
The laws are there to deter people from thieving (or supporting thievery) for personal gain. Chen did *exactly* that and he is getting nailed for it. As he should.
What does "seeking to do good" have to do with journalism? Journalists are narcissists not saviors of humanity. They want attention and awards and recognition. They are not doing anonymous good deeds.
Thats not a good example 25 dollars is relatively insignificant. Many people probably wouldn't bother reporting it. Plus your example is on a sidewalk, not a store. Let me fix it for you:
What if I was at a restaurant or store and found a camera/a laptop/a wallet/a phone/a nice jacket or watch/a purse/300 dollars that had, and instead of leaving it/notifying the business/leaving my contact info/ taking it to a police station/telling the company who made it and keeps track of it, I decided to keep it? Especially if I found out later it was worth more, and I still didn't do any of those?
BTW calling AppleCare about an unreleased product isn't trying to return it.
Would that be theft to you? cause you can mix and match those and they are all theft. Finding a cellphone at a bar is different than finding 20 bucks on the ground.
I found a wallet on the ground, in a parking lot the other day. But I didn't take it until I facebooked the owner that I had it, with my cellphone number. And all I looked at was a debit card.I didn't keep it, and I sure as hell didn't find out it was a celebrity wallet and then sell it to TMZ.
The city of New York's law enforcement agencies puts $25 dollars lost on the street at the bottom of priorities.
The city of New York's law enforcement agencies puts a multi-billion dollar future phone product at the top of it's priorities.