He had Gary's contact information on Facebook, and said he was going to contact him the next morning after he sobered up a bit, which is fair, but the next morning, it was bricked, so he no longer could access his profile on the phone. And have you ever searched on Facebook for "Gary Powell"? I just did, and there are a lot of people out there with that name. So which Gary Powell on Facebook is the right Gary Powell? Until he became famous on the internet after the leak, with his face plastered all over the web, you wouldn't know which one it is.
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
He had Gary's contact information on Facebook, and said he was going to contact him the next morning after he sobered up a bit, which is fair, but the next morning, it was bricked, so he no longer could access his profile on the phone. And have you ever searched on Facebook for "Gary Powell"? I just did, and there are a lot of people out there with that name. So which Gary Powell on Facebook is the right Gary Powell? Until he became famous on the internet after the leak, with his face plastered all over the web, you wouldn't know which one it is.
Bs
That's not a good point, that's a load of BS. You're making up justifications after the fact for what was obviously underhanded/illegal. If you really cared, and if you were concerned about getting it to the correct person, you would have called the police, NOT SOLD IT.
We also know that they knew the individual that it belonged to, and never tried to contact him directly, even though they could have at the very least sent him a facebook message (as they posted his facebook profile in their cover up).
Of course this is a big deal, how are businesses going to operate and innovate if there are not consequences for "journalists" paying people to steal prototypes and and then selling them?!
That's not a good point, that's a load of BS. You're making up justifications after the fact for what was obviously underhanded/illegal. If you really cared, and if you were concerned about getting it to the correct person, you would have called the police, NOT SOLD IT.
We also know that they knew the individual that it belonged to, and never tried to contact him directly, even though they could have at the very least sent him a facebook message (as they posted his facebook profile in their cover up).
Of course this is a big deal, how are businesses going to operate and innovate if there are not consequences for "journalists" paying people to steal prototypes and and then selling them?!
Ha,
I'm going to laugh when it turns out there was no "bar guy" and instead the Apple employee sold the phone directly to Gizmodo.
I'm going to laugh when it turns out there was no "bar guy" and instead the Apple employee sold the phone directly to Gizmodo.
More BS
You're just looking for excuses now. He easily could have called the Police and let them handle it. So could have Gizmodo. This was about getting a scoop illegally and trying to cover it up afterward.
You're just looking for excuses now. He easily could have called the Police and let them handle it. So could have Gizmodo. This was about getting a scoop illegally and trying to cover it up afterward.
Next step: Apple buys Gawker and then shuts it down.
Really, this will go down in history as the sloppiest, weirdest Apple product launch ever!
I wholeheartedly agree with all this. The real problem with this issue is that we are basing all our conjectures on evidence received from only one side of the case. If Gray Powell has reported his phone stolen, and if any other evidence exists that supports his belief it was stolen (such as security footage, other witness statements) then I'd say it would change everybody's outlook dramatically.
Someone who has access to an unreleased iPhone is probably getting paid a salary that makes $5,000 look like chump change.
Six! Six Six! The Comment Of The Beast!
Hell and flamewars were spawned to be released.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s499c
It doesn't matter how they got the device, nor that they intended to return it. They willfully stole trade secrets especially in light of disassembling and documenting the device and this crime is unrelated to the fact that they purchased stolen goods.
It doesn't matter how they got the device, nor that they intended to return it. They willfully stole trade secrets especially in light of disassembling and documenting the device and this crime is unrelated to the fact that they purchased stolen goods.
I just don't understand why people can't get this? I'm no legal scholar. I an electrical engineer with common sense.....
You may not induce a crime for the sole reason of gathering information. Even as a journalist. BUT you are protected as a journalist from illegal search and seizures of your sources and information.
The 4th amendment....
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The first amendment....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Simple and beautiful.
Just look at the Pentagon Papers case. The NY Times was never charged with anything and did not have to turn over much of anything to the government. EVEN THOUGH FELONY TREASON OCCURRED by releasing TOP SECRET information to an unauthorized source. Daniel Ellsberg committed a crime but was not induced to do so by the NYT. He did it out of conscience. It was still gray area for the NYT to receive the information and the PRINT IT! But it held up in court under the 1st amendment. Turning over their sources is held up under the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.
The government was able to bring charges up against Daniel Ellsberg but totally botched the prosecution. It did not stop them from charging people with crimes. They just could not gather the information from the NY Times.
So no! You you may be charged for anything if you are an accessory. But the government cannot raid your offices and rip through everything without "Probable Cause" which requires a subpoena. This ensures the information they collect is only related to the case at hand and the person who is being searched has been able to respond to the request in a court of law.
What don't you understand? I'm confused.
Chuck
very true.
and it's not apple vs. gizmodo here.
every high tech company from computers to biotech has a strong interest that the state sends a strong message to bloggers. all these companies are afraid that if gizmodo gets away bloggers will violate trade secrets all the time. so the DA is certainly under high pressure to make a good case against gizmodo and hit them really hard.
if they can't get to gizmodo because of shield laws they will try to go after chen as an individual.
thinksecret did a lot less and had eventually stop releasing rumors. unless gizmodo finds a loophole they and chen as an individual are in deep trouble.
Now, explain why you believe that this case differs not one iota from the Pentagon Papers case. Then explain why Bartnicki and DVDCCA v Brunner may indicate that the law is not as black and white as you would apparently like it to be (thank god).
While the iPhone 4G is a salacious story, it is very different from "accurate and newsworthy" items protected under 1st amendment disclosure. It's not like Chen was revealing how Apple stole the 2008 elections.
1. If you believe, for for one second, that GIZ did not examine that phone thoroughly and be very sure it was indeed an Apple prototype BEFORE asking Gawker for $5000 to buy it then your logic board is faulty.
2. GIZ, by their on admission, purchased the phone from someone that DID NOT own it. They knew (again by their own admission) who the rightful owner was and had to know before they bought the phone (the phone was already bricked when they first saw it)
3. I have seen repeatedly stated here about GIZ needs to counter sue or Apple shouldn't be suing GIZ. Apple hasn't sued ANYONE. The police are investigating the POSSIBILITY of criminal activity.
4. No charges have been filed against anyone, yet.
5. The judge that signed the warrant obviously felt there was "cause". That it was questioned is not unusual.
I am going to leave this thread alone now. To many posters that haven't followed from the beginning and read all the posts, links, and facts.
That's fair. However, I think it's a little irresponsible to take their story at face value.
I suggest we refer to him as - Acquirer under uncertain circumstances
So says Gizmodo
So says Gizmodo. They really don't know and took the dude's word for it. All they knew he could have slipped a roofie into the Apple employee's drink. Gizmodo is just taking HIS word for the events.
Then you just think if anyone how posts on the internet is a journalists? Then you have no standards for information gathering.
When Gawker media finally spoke to a lawyer and decided to get the most SHOCK value. Besides you have to ask Gizmodo why they waited until Monday to report the police raid when the incident happen on the previous Friday.
Gawker media is lower than the Weekly world news because at least the weekly world news doesn't pretend to be something they are not, journalists.
You take their word for it. That in my book makes you gullible.
So anyone that looses anything should be fired, publicly humiliated & never trusted again. How draconian of you.
No, you have it backwards and please in the future use capital letters when starting new sentences.
So buying known hot goods is OK as long as one writes on the net is good in your opinion?
This was not Apple but the local police task force. Keep the two separate unless you think Apple affects local laws in California
That is the word of someone who has fenced stolen property. Same as the kid at Disneyland who pickpocketed my iPhone, made two dozen calls, text'ed their friends about their new iPhone, and played with all the apps then claimed that all along they meant to find out who it belonged to.
People like you are just ******s.
According to Gizmodo they reported about an unknown device found in a bar. (1) Did they steal, unlawfully obtain access to or through a relationship of trust and confidence gain access to the device. (2) Where enough measures taken to protect the trade secret considering it was left in a bar.
The person who found it should "within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police" if the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property (2080.1), which he didn't do. But after it came in Gizmodos procession the owner did claim the property.