Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
*groan*

They bought a stolen device from a person not affiliated with apple.

Knowing it hasn't been released, they only made an effort to contact apple and gray powell only AFTER they had posted several articles on the device.

They smeared the engineer (Gray Powell) by alleging he lost the device; that's not journalism.

Gizmodo must have thought that by repeating, "it was lost, not stolen" enough times, the police wouldn't come after them.

Also, they made no real effort to return it - an apple lawyer had to go on record before gizmodo would return it.

They bought a tech device of unknown origin to investigate it and report on it (as is their job) and returned it to it's owner. They didn't sell it, keep it or lie about it.

That's hardly a nefarious act like some people are trying to make it out to be.

I would love to see the skeletons in the closets of all the people screaming "CRIMINALS!!!" the loudest. Me thinks they doth protest too much.
 
Internet lawyer #1: Gizmodo committed a crime!
Internet lawyer #2: No they didn't!
Internet lawyer #1: Yes they did!
Internet lawyer #2: No they didn't!
Internet lawyer #1: 500 page essay on the correct interpretation of "reasonable effort".

Where do you find the energy?

The issue with this story is that even if Apple has the law on their side 110%, it doesn't mean it makes them look good. In the end they may come out looking like Metallica post-Napster, which is an enormous loss for a company that spent decades and billions on projecting an image as a cool company.
 
There are 24 other tech companies of REACT's steering committee.

REACT's purpose:

"new types of crime directly tied to our increasingly computer-oriented economy and widespread use of the Internet."

Not just internet fraud; considering the unique nature of the iphone 4g (prototype) and the amount gizmodo paid, it's obvious why REACT got involved.

If anything stinks to high heaven, it's gizmodo's lame excuses.

Hopefully soon, Jason Chen will be behind bars wearing a a new pinstripe suit.

Apple asked for the phone and it was given back. I think the fact that state police have reacted in such a heavy-handed manner and that Apple sit on the steering committee for REACT, which is supposed to be primarily to prevent internet fraud, stinks to high heaven.

Not so many years ago, I'd have probably been found guilty of being an Apple fanboy, but quite frankly I'm extremely disappointed in the increasingly arrogant and neurotic manner with which Apple conducts itself. This isn't the first time that this has happened, what was the name of the blog that was forced to be shut down when the editor got a leak of the the Mac Mini specs a couple of years ago? Then there's the brutal way that they've dealt with Adobe, both wrt Flash and more recently locking out Adobe's iPhone development tools, when Adobe software was what kept the Mac going during Apple's lean years.

I still use Apple computers because I'm used to them and I like them, but my (perhaps it was always inappropriate) sense of loyalty has gone. Given that Windows is looking a lot more credible in its latest incarnation, Apple are going to have to do something pretty special to win out on my next computer purchase.
 
I despise the US legal system. They did a wrongful act, and because they are "journalist" they get off scotch free?!?! Seriously?!?! That is so disgustingly wrong!!!!!!!!
 
Internet lawyer #1: Gizmodo committed a crime!
Internet lawyer #2: No they didn't!
Internet lawyer #1: Yes they did!
Internet lawyer #2: No they didn't!
Internet lawyer #1: 500 page essay on the correct interpretation of "reasonable effort".

Where do you find the energy?

The issue with this story is that even if Apple has the law on their side 110%, it doesn't mean it makes them look good. In the end they may come out looking like Metallica post-Napster, which is an enormous loss for a company that spent decades and billions on projecting an image as a cool company.

I personally think Apple looks good trying to protect their future security. I don't know what the heck you are thinking.... Gizmodo should be shut down for this unlawful act.
 
Actually, it's not really any different from journalists receiving leaked government documents: those documents are the property of the government, but it's accepted in the interests of newsworthiness. Why should Apple be any different?

Also, given that they gave the phone back, it could be argued that they were paying for the opportunity to see the phone and examine it rather than theft.
 
I really hope they give Crapmodo a good jolting with an iron rod from the back. They went too far with this. Page hits = ad views = money. Lots of it.
 
Apple asked for the phone and it was given back. I think the fact that state police have reacted in such a heavy-handed manner and that Apple sit on the steering committee for REACT, which is supposed to be primarily to prevent internet fraud, stinks to high heaven.

Not so many years ago, I'd have probably been found guilty of being an Apple fanboy, but quite frankly I'm extremely disappointed in the increasingly arrogant and neurotic manner with which Apple conducts itself. This isn't the first time that this has happened, what was the name of the blog that was forced to be shut down when the editor got a leak of the the Mac Mini specs a couple of years ago? Then there's the brutal way that they've dealt with Adobe, both wrt Flash and more recently locking out Adobe's iPhone development tools, when Adobe software was what kept the Mac going during Apple's lean years.

I still use Apple computers because I'm used to them and I like them, but my (perhaps it was always inappropriate) sense of loyalty has gone. Given that Windows is looking a lot more credible in its latest incarnation, Apple are going to have to do something pretty special to win out on my next computer purchase.

So if you spent years and money money money on something, then someone else goes, steals that something out from under you, and then publishes it on the internet in a so unprofessional way, you wouldn't press charges either?

Exactly.
 
Actually, it's not really any different from journalists receiving leaked government documents: those documents are the propertly of the government, but it's accepted in the interests of newsworthiness. Why should Apple be any different?

Because it wasn't a document!!! It was an actual thing and no one cares that the government loses a paper. So many of those go through each day it's not even funny. Seriously. APple only comes out with an iPhone, ONCE PER YEAR!! I'd say that's a big difference.
 
Exactly. It's really sad (in a sad way, not sarcastic) when a great organization like EFF contends that what Gizmodo did was "journalism." EFF is no better than Gizmodo here... they obviously want in on this for page clicks and PR.

It's funny how no one was putting down Gizmodo when they broke the story. Now that apples panties are in a bunch their fangirls panties are too. What's the big deal??? If you blame giz and the man who found the phone, blame yourself as well because(by that logic) if you read the story or looked at the pics you're just as guilty.
 
The CA shield law in no way prevents a search warrant from being issued or carried out. In fact the CA law only deals with protecting the reporter from contempt charges for not revealing a source. If he had hidden his computers they could not compel him to turn them over.

Federal laws do protect journalist's work product from search warrants but not when the reporter is a participent in the crime being investigated unless the crime is contempt for not providing the information itself.

Chen has admitted publicly to purchasing stolen property. Should he really be surprised when the police show up.
 
Because it wasn't a document!!! It was an actual thing and no one cares that the government loses a paper. So many of those go through each day it's not even funny. Seriously. APple only comes out with an iPhone, ONCE PER YEAR!! I'd say that's a big difference.

I don't agree, especially given that the item was returned to Apple immediately and without duress upon request.
 
It's funny how no one was putting down Gizmodo when they broke the story. Now that apples panties are in a bunch their fangirls panties are too. What's the big deal??? If you blame giz and the man who found the phone, blame yourself as well because(by that logic) if you read the story or looked at the pics you're just as guilty.

Honestly, how could you not have read it or looked at pictures at least? It's everywhere, even on TV Good Morning America. Seriously, if anybody doesn't know about this by now, then they live in a hole or are just not connected at all with technology.
 
So if you spent years and money money money on something, then someone else goes, steals that something out from under you, and then publishes it on the internet in a so unprofessional way, you wouldn't press charges either?
I for one certainly would.
But if I had ..err.. got drunk and left in on a barstool, I think the moral compass swings a little in the other direction.

Yes?

I am not saying that no crime was committed. Just that in most people's eyes, the culpability in this case is a little different between this incident and an outright robbery.

C.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.