It depends.... Is Gizmodo considered Journalism? I personally think it's just a junk site and not journalism. But that's just my opinion.
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
It depends.... Is Gizmodo considered Journalism? I personally think it's just a junk site and not journalism. But that's just my opinion.
Okay then, let me see all your stuff, personal and all, while I pocket some of the more valuable items! @_@
Power to the people!
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I still disagree. None of us (unless, arguably, we have shares in Apple) has any right to know anything about Apple's forthcoming products, whereas every resident of a country has a right to know how its government operates. Take a look at the principles of the Freedom of Information act in the UK. There are of course exceptions to this distinction. If companies are operating unlawfully (dumping toxic waste for example) this would be fair game for journalism and which, when exposed, would be in the public interest. But we are not talking about Apple having broken any laws, we are talking about trade secrets, and I think Apple should be allowed to keep them.
Ill just leave this here....
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291232
....precedent
"Since most states have shield laws, a journalist is able to refuse to name sources in certain circumstances, but the New Jersey appeals court declined to find bloggers as journalists and found Hale could not use the shield law."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291232
....precedent
"Since most states have shield laws, a journalist is able to refuse to name sources in certain circumstances, but the New Jersey appeals court declined to find bloggers as journalists and found Hale could not use the shield law."
Fundamentally, I agree with you, but within the context of what is considered acceptable journalism now generally, I don't see that Jason Chen has done anything that warrants him being singled out for punishment against others. I would agree that reporting in general should be reigned in many respects though. Too much of it is purely about invading privacy for the sake of embarrassment/humiliation without providing any public benefit.
They illegally withheld their property until Apple provided them with something of value to them. (a document they could post to the web) It pretty much fits the definition.
Are you kidding? Don't you believe that Chen doesn't know what he did was wrong himself. He bought a prototype, shot and displayed it just to bring acclaim to his site. Of course he was aware that Apple would not allow that to be done. He knew that this was property of Apple's, therefore was engaging in a crime by paying somebody else 5000. for it. And the posting of that video did a lot of harm to Apple, so truly he has to be held accountable.
I agree. The speculation and rumours are all part of the anticipation and excitement and they went and ruined it.
Grinchmodo.
Going back to the video tape analogy that you made, the argument can still be made that they were purchasing the opportunity to examine it. It's obvious that they wouldn't have intended to keep it. The written request was of no material value beyond paper and ink.
Purchasing stolen goods sure warrants it to me. If he isn't punished doesn't that promote the fact that you can steal anything that the public finds interesting and sell it to the media and be protected by shield laws. That would mean if I don't get caught stealing an item I have a safe way to profit from it. That does not lead to fewer thefts.
Websters Dictionary defines a journalist as "a writer or editor for a news medium".
Jason Chen is a journalist, by definition. He works out of his home, which makes his home a newsroom, of sorts. The fact that California law enforcement raided his home is not only disturbing, its also a possible violation of state and federal law protecting journalists. Furthermore, new reports indicate that Apple sits on the steering committee of the REACT (Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team), the team that raided Chen's home. Don't know the validity of the source but it's disturbing, if true.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone Gizmodo's actions. I'm just not sure law enforcement was acting within the law. This is a case worth watching as it moves through the U.S. legal process.
![[DL]](/data/avatars/m/410/410081.jpg?1266785706){kind=avatar}
I don't think you can call Gizmodo a news site. IMO, Chen not a journalist. He's an electronics enthusiast, and a cog in a marketing mechanism.
That's great they are being prosocuted... Receiving stolen property. It's about time people start realizing how easy it is to actually break a law and just because you think your gizmodo or mac rumors or anyone else... your not immune!
After 5 years of following this website, I'm finally moved to post. The anti-government attacks in this chain is completely out of touch with reality.
Fact: Gizmodo published an offer to pay for an item/activity that in all likeliness would have taken an illegal act to acquire/perform.
Would anyone like to start citing case law on this type of activity? Anyone who makes a public offer to pay someone to commit an illegal act for their benefit doesn't deserve any protections.
Fact: Gizmodo published an offer to pay for an item/activity that in all likeliness would have taken an illegal act to acquire/perform.
Would anyone like to start citing case law on this type of activity? Anyone who makes a public offer to pay someone to commit an illegal act for their benefit doesn't deserve any protections.
Heh...
But if Gizmodo is incorporated and we apply the dumb-*** law the supreme court upheld saying corps. are people, it could mean prison for those computers... maybe even death.
Not really as by definition Gizmodo is not a news medium as 90% or more of its posts are just repeating what others have said. Researching and investigating new information is not there intent. They only seek to gather other sites works and aggregate them for profit. Google is not a news medium and neither is Gizmodo.
A writer is not by definition a journalist and a journalist is not by definition a writer.
Paper and ink have nothing to do with it. Possesion is 9/10's of the law regardless WHAT your intentions were. Intent has nothing to do with this situation because it's a physical item. Now the act of murder is a different thing because intention is relevant.
I said this about two hundred posts ago, but it seems the trade-secret issue died a little and we are talking more about the issue if some sort of theft occurred. I'd like to hear about this potential trade secret infraction as I think this is potentially the most serious infraction in this mess...
Curious...Has anyone spelled out the trade secrets that were divulged?
Are the pictures of the device and what they revealed considered trade secrets?
Someone suggested that now a rival company can imitate the design before Apple releases there phone...I suggested that the design could be copyrighted and furthermore its difficult to know if this phone is even going to be the final prototype so we can't be sure this is a final design....but I guess thats where it gets sticky with it being a potential "trade secret"
Curious...Has anyone spelled out the trade secrets that were divulged?
Are the pictures of the device and what they revealed considered trade secrets?
Someone suggested that now a rival company can imitate the design before Apple releases there phone...I suggested that the design could be copyrighted and furthermore its difficult to know if this phone is even going to be the final prototype so we can't be sure this is a final design....but I guess thats where it gets sticky with it being a potential "trade secret"