The outing of him was ridiculous..... I mean, it possibly/probably would have happened, but Gizmodod didn't need to go HEY.... THIS IS THE GUY WHO LOST THE iPHONE >>>>>
<<<<<<<<<
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.
Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The outing of him was ridiculous..... I mean, it possibly/probably would have happened, but Gizmodod didn't need to go HEY.... THIS IS THE GUY WHO LOST THE iPHONE >>>>>
<<<<<<<<<What is wrong with you, people?
Nobody cares about suing anyone, not for real.
It's a plant!
To ratchet up the anticipation, leak a few features already found on Androids, and keep you from thinking about some of the new Androids coming out.....
Think Apple, boys and girls! Think only Apple!
Nobody cares about suing anyone, not for real.
It's a plant!
To ratchet up the anticipation, leak a few features already found on Androids, and keep you from thinking about some of the new Androids coming out.....
Think Apple, boys and girls! Think only Apple!
All this Fuss over nothing.
In reality it doesn't matter who took/found/forgot/lost the iPhone 4.
The important thing, is that they don't get make the phone a god damn micro-sim phone, and get rid of the seems. then i will be happy.
Too add, I also think, everything is going to be fine for Gizmodo, Apple cant sue them, cause Gizmodo give positive reviews, and that makes people buy apple products. As for this slip up, which may make a couple people wait to buy the iPhone 4 as a pose to buying the 3Gs now. Im sure the numbers work in favour of Apple, so if they shut Gizmodo, they'll be loosing themselves millions worth of marketing.
In reality it doesn't matter who took/found/forgot/lost the iPhone 4.
The important thing, is that they don't get make the phone a god damn micro-sim phone, and get rid of the seems. then i will be happy.
Too add, I also think, everything is going to be fine for Gizmodo, Apple cant sue them, cause Gizmodo give positive reviews, and that makes people buy apple products. As for this slip up, which may make a couple people wait to buy the iPhone 4 as a pose to buying the 3Gs now. Im sure the numbers work in favour of Apple, so if they shut Gizmodo, they'll be loosing themselves millions worth of marketing.
The outing of him was ridiculous..... I mean, it possibly/probably would have happened, but Gizmodod didn't need to go HEY.... THIS IS THE GUY WHO LOST THE iPHONE >>>>>
Yay, we agree on something. It was disgusting of them. No one else would do that.
Reply:
I do object here.
This is a prototype device for immerse testing.
It is hand made for probably 80% of the parts assembled.
It has a mechanism that allows to quickly change components to test other assemblies of varying components.
It has a value of maybe about 5 to 6 thousand dollar just in pure production cost.
The value of such device for a company like apple could be estimated to maybe 50 to 60 thousand dollar.
It's not a phone - it is a prototype.
It might not even resemble the design of anything that goes on sale later, but its innerds are valuable to a company like apple to such extend, that there is not really a number for the accounting, just a plain guess of what could have been possible in sales etc.
I am not afraid for Apple here, they'll handle that issue with care.
However, I am embarrassed about the way the one who "found" and "withheld" the device and about gizmodo.
Whereas the first might be a simple person looking forward to some extra cash might qualify as a thief the situation with gizmodo is different in two points.
The purchase of loom is not correct, neither ethically nor legally.
The worst crime they commited is to have disclosed the identity of the one who mislaid his "phone-prototype".
This is the real reckless action that embarrasses me most.
We all might disagree to some extent on certain issues, but what gizmodo did to the privacy of an individual and his rights is outrageous.
And I really hope that the victim in this case is gonna sue gizmodo and the "honest finder" for triple damage.
Gizmodo has shown them to be wholly irresponsible and unworthy. I would have no issues with them going away. I certainly do not benefit from their continued existence. I also am not in favor in Mexican Border Cartels.
Nice. Add black mail/extortion to the criminal changes. Sounds like a good plan.
Clearly you have chosen to ignore all the actual citations of law that cover why this is stealing. Not to mention basic common sense where all the normal people agree that the only reasonable thing to have done would be to give it to the bar.
He says he did that. There is no proof or evidence of that. What a prosecutor will be able to prove is the engineer who owned the phone likely called it over and over and the thief who stole it did not answer those calls. Not to mention other attempts to locate it. There will be plenty of evidence to improve the intent of this person was to steal this phone, and that the intent of Gizmodo was to purchase stolen property.
Again do you just ignore all the discussions going on that explain why this is just wrong? He would not be charged for finding something, he would be charged for stealing it. I can't walk into the Apple Store and "find" an iPad and take it home with me.
Yeah you clearly have no understanding of the facts or the law, so I will just choose not to agree with you. Returning someone's property to them after you knowingly purchased it after it was stolen and then return it when the original owner finds out does not take you off the hook for purchasing stolen goods. It also does not get the thief off the hook for stealing it. That is not how the law works.
Yeah good samaritan. He absconded with a phone he found in a bar without telling anyone in the bar, knowingly avoided any calls from the owner fo the phone, and then offered it for sale to websites. Yeah poor wronged guy.
Seriously.. where do you people come from who think that if a thief returns stolen property when caught that they are no longer guilty. Imagine the world we would live in. I could go around stealing stuff all day, and as long as returned any items the owner called me on stealing I would never be punished.
That is NOT how the law works. How could you even think that.
Wow. You would make an awesome lawyer. That would be quite the trial. Your client would be found guilty, and you would likely be disbarred.
The law is pretty clear on all this, that is why it is not an issue. Reasonable people also agree. It is simple. All the guy had to do is turn the phone into the bar. End of story. Gizmodo should have never knowingly purchased stolen property. They should have reported it to Apple not secretly bought it. They should have told the thief to return it to Apple.
I now understand why so many young men end up in prison. The number of people in this thread who just have a fundamental lack of understanding of what is illegal and wrong seems to meet about the general prison population percentage.
One Lawyer's Perspective
Property rights are not absolute and a finder of lost goods, as well as anyone in possession, has his or her own rights to the property. I don't see any reason to suspect Gizmodo intended to deprive Apple of their property, considering they didn't know whose phone it belonged to in the first instance. Gizmodo took a risk this wasn't a fake (much debated here and elsewhere), and apparently guessed correctly. So, true title/ownership, whatever you wish to call it, was completely up in the air. As soon as Apple made their claim of better title Gizmodo gave the thing to them. Did any of you contemplate that Apple might not have ownership rights? What if the whole thing was stolen IP from Nokia?...or property of one of their engineers? There simply is no case here. Apple would have trouble even showing real damages here. These legal claims only have merit as interesting anthro/sociology regarding brand loyalty.
Property rights are not absolute and a finder of lost goods, as well as anyone in possession, has his or her own rights to the property. I don't see any reason to suspect Gizmodo intended to deprive Apple of their property, considering they didn't know whose phone it belonged to in the first instance. Gizmodo took a risk this wasn't a fake (much debated here and elsewhere), and apparently guessed correctly. So, true title/ownership, whatever you wish to call it, was completely up in the air. As soon as Apple made their claim of better title Gizmodo gave the thing to them. Did any of you contemplate that Apple might not have ownership rights? What if the whole thing was stolen IP from Nokia?...or property of one of their engineers? There simply is no case here. Apple would have trouble even showing real damages here. These legal claims only have merit as interesting anthro/sociology regarding brand loyalty.
It's just sad that there even needs to be a legal debate on this, and shows just how screwed up our legal system (or society in general) is.
To look at a case where someone found something of significant value, found the identity of the owner, yet knowingly sold it to someone else anyway and debate the legality of the act is alarming at best.
I guess there's right, there's wrong, and there's what legal professors say about it.
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.The overabundance of lawyers will be the downfall of civilization - where common sense is utterly obviated by the parsing of words.
Me, I'm heading to the bar to see how many unattended cell phones I can scoop up and flip on eBay. Apparently there's money to be made, some legal wiggle room open to exploitation, and I could use a career change. I can only hope some of you end up on my jury.
This would be a way overly elaborate hoax for a company like Apple who really doesn't need to resort to cheap tricks.
Engadget's lawyers can bet up Gizmodo's lawyers
One thing that should be noted is that we already have an opinion from qualified legal professionals. The thief was shopping the phone around and contacted Engadget. They ran it by their lawyers who said "RUN AWAY FROM THIS AS FAST AS YOU CAN".
One thing that should be noted is that we already have an opinion from qualified legal professionals. The thief was shopping the phone around and contacted Engadget. They ran it by their lawyers who said "RUN AWAY FROM THIS AS FAST AS YOU CAN".
Except of course for the laws of the state of California that expressly define the duties of someone who finds lost property. (CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082) and the relevant part of the penal code that defines failing to make those reasonable efforts as a theft (CAL. PEN. CODE § 485). The situation is not as open to interpretation as you might think. In California the founder has no rights to the property valued at over $250 until after it is held by the police for 90 days and then an advertisement is run in a local newspaper for an additional 7 days:
Are you suggesting the finder complied with all of these relevant laws?
Actually, the thief didn't return the stolen property. He sold it. The buyer returned the stolen property. After dismantling and milking it for every page hit possible, of course.
the CEO going to jail would be nice. Unfortunately it is unlikely to see jail time for purchasing stolen property. Too many drug violators in prison, so not enough room.
Gizmodo is not the only site that was offered the phone. Engadget has not said anything specifically but it is fairly clear they were also offered this device for sale.
Since you know it is stolen, you might feel morally obligated to do something like that. Also if you want to maintain a relationship with Apple you would consider what the beneficial thing to do is. What you most likely would not do is pay $5000 for it and then start taking it apart, and then post about it on your website.
Doesn't matter. People lose things. It is not a crime to lose things. It is a crime to steal things.
What happens to him for losing the phone is a separate issue, and has absolutely no bearing on the string of crimes the thief and gizmodo committed.
Doesn't matter. You are making a judgment call that is not yours to make. if you are not going to trust the bar that is fine. The alternative is to take it to the police. This guy never took it to the police, and avoided the owner of the phone trying to get it back. He did not even tell the bar that he found it. It would be one thing if he told the bar I am going to give it to the police and give his information so at least the owner could get it...
But stealing the phone because you don't trust bartenders is not the call to make. That is called bad judgment.
Wow you justify everything. You just take it to closest police station and drop it off. They would tell you to do that when you contact them. Police have procedures for handling this stuff. They would not just tell you to keep it. You go down and turn it in, fill out some paperwork and if nobody claims it in a certain period of time they give it to you legally.
You don't just steal it.
You take it to the police department you lazy git!
You don't call 911 and have them come get it.So you never tried to call your own phone or go back to the places you might have lost it and asked for it? I have lost a phone before too. Normal people will call their phone, and go back and try to find it. Just like the Apple Engineer did in this case.
That is why you give it to the bar or at least tell them about it. I see your problem now, you live in a world where you think everyone shares your illogical views. So you don't bother to turn it in, because you yourself would never check or even try to find your lost phone. Just understand that is abnormal behavior. That is why the first part of your post is so whacked.
Reasonable would be determined by a judge or jury. Most normal people would see reasonable be giving it to the bar or turning it into the police. Reasonable would not be dodging phone calls from the owner and then trying to sell the phone for thousands of dollars.
Says himself. There is all kinds of witnesses and evidence to prove he didn't talk to the bar staff, and that he likely ignored phone calls from the actual owner. So his word against actual evidence. Most people would not find what you listed above as a reasonable effort.
Right it just proves they knowingly purchased stolen property.
Just the facts, Ma'am.
You are right - the instant he "found" it he committed no crime. But most U.S. States have laws regarding mislaid property. Here's the relevant excerpts from California Code regarding found property and what to do with it (and how, in this case, it became a "theft").
CA Civ. Code Section 2080:2080. Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is
thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. [IN ENGLISH - YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK UP THE IPHONE, BUT ONCE YOU DO YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE OWNER]
Section 2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. [IN ENGLISH, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHOSE IPHONE IT IS, AND IT COSTS MORE THAN $100, YOU MUST TURN IT OVER TO THE POLICE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KEEP OR SELL IT.]
Section 2080.2 - TO SUM UP, THIS SECTION SAYS THAT AFTER 90 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY, YOU CAN CLAIM THE ITEM, UNLESS IT COSTS MORE THAN $250, IN WHICH CASE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PUBLISH IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION THAT IT HAS FOUND THE ITEM AND WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE HANDING IT OVER TO THE FINDER.
California Penal Code
485. One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft. [IN ENGLISH, THE "FINDER" STOLE THE IPHONE. SEE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 2080.1 ABOVE WHICH PRESCRIBES, BY STATUTE, THE EFFORTS THAT MUST BE MADE.]
496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in
the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor,
punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year. [IN ENGLISH, THE PURCHASER OF THE STOLEN IPHONE MAY FACE UP TO A YEAR IN PRISON. GIVEN THAT GIZMODO SAYS IT KNEW HOW THIS IPHONE WAS ACQUIRED, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY DEFENSE TO THE "KNOWLEDGE" TEST - GIVEN THAT THE LAW REGARDS THE FACTS OF HOW THE "FINDER" ACQUIRED THE IPHONE AS THEFT.]
Hope this helps for all who don't want to speculate regarding the law.
You are right - the instant he "found" it he committed no crime. But most U.S. States have laws regarding mislaid property. Here's the relevant excerpts from California Code regarding found property and what to do with it (and how, in this case, it became a "theft").
CA Civ. Code Section 2080:2080. Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is
thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. [IN ENGLISH - YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK UP THE IPHONE, BUT ONCE YOU DO YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE OWNER]
Section 2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. [IN ENGLISH, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHOSE IPHONE IT IS, AND IT COSTS MORE THAN $100, YOU MUST TURN IT OVER TO THE POLICE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KEEP OR SELL IT.]
Section 2080.2 - TO SUM UP, THIS SECTION SAYS THAT AFTER 90 DAYS IN POLICE CUSTODY, YOU CAN CLAIM THE ITEM, UNLESS IT COSTS MORE THAN $250, IN WHICH CASE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PUBLISH IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION THAT IT HAS FOUND THE ITEM AND WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE HANDING IT OVER TO THE FINDER.
California Penal Code
485. One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft. [IN ENGLISH, THE "FINDER" STOLE THE IPHONE. SEE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 2080.1 ABOVE WHICH PRESCRIBES, BY STATUTE, THE EFFORTS THAT MUST BE MADE.]
496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in
the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor,
punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year. [IN ENGLISH, THE PURCHASER OF THE STOLEN IPHONE MAY FACE UP TO A YEAR IN PRISON. GIVEN THAT GIZMODO SAYS IT KNEW HOW THIS IPHONE WAS ACQUIRED, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY DEFENSE TO THE "KNOWLEDGE" TEST - GIVEN THAT THE LAW REGARDS THE FACTS OF HOW THE "FINDER" ACQUIRED THE IPHONE AS THEFT.]
Hope this helps for all who don't want to speculate regarding the law.
They should be arrested for purchasing stolen property and for mail fraud. Apple has nothing to do with it, it is a federal case now. They have three years to gather evidence and prosecute. Sleep well, thieves.
The engineer has a decent defamation case as well.
The engineer has a decent defamation case as well.
The law in *California* is pretty clear about this type of situation, but ... it really does require a complaint by the injured party (Apple). Apple has now formally stated that it owns the device, and as far as I know, received it back.
Gizmodo behaved really, really irresponsibly by purchasing and *dissecting* a proprietary, non-released device AND posting it on a public blog for everyone, including Apple's competitors, to view. As much as we all wanted to see that info, we don't have a right to it. It's very similar to corporate espionage.
Gizmodo might have thought that this was all worth it, given the huge surge of hits to their site, the interviews, and general public interest. But if Apple wants to, it can make Gizmodo/Gawker hurt like a pretty newbie in a prison cell. But my guess is that they won't do anything until the device is released. At that time, Apple can either ignore the whole situation or make Gizmodo a poster child for the Wrath of Jobs. They could do this now, too, but the timing would be off, only attracting more attention to the stolen device.
IMHO, this affair has actually helped keep interest in the 4G iPhone - but it could have gone horribly wrong. And the douche who 'found' the phone knew very well that he had an ethical obligation to either hand the phone over to the bar owner or supply his contact info. This type of non-ethical behavior is usually barred by any ethical company.
Gizmodo behaved really, really irresponsibly by purchasing and *dissecting* a proprietary, non-released device AND posting it on a public blog for everyone, including Apple's competitors, to view. As much as we all wanted to see that info, we don't have a right to it. It's very similar to corporate espionage.
Gizmodo might have thought that this was all worth it, given the huge surge of hits to their site, the interviews, and general public interest. But if Apple wants to, it can make Gizmodo/Gawker hurt like a pretty newbie in a prison cell. But my guess is that they won't do anything until the device is released. At that time, Apple can either ignore the whole situation or make Gizmodo a poster child for the Wrath of Jobs. They could do this now, too, but the timing would be off, only attracting more attention to the stolen device.
IMHO, this affair has actually helped keep interest in the 4G iPhone - but it could have gone horribly wrong. And the douche who 'found' the phone knew very well that he had an ethical obligation to either hand the phone over to the bar owner or supply his contact info. This type of non-ethical behavior is usually barred by any ethical company.
...
"The guy" is unconnected to Giz, so why should Giz (or even their parent company Gawker and all the other great sister-sites like Lifehacker) be faulted for "The guy" removing it from the bar?
Ok it's sketchy as to the legality of the PURCHASE; but "they" and "The guy" are separate parties.
So "they" should not be held accountable for "the guy's" actions.
I for one don't want to see Lifehacker disappear. The site is WAY more useful than any mere 'rumor' site.
Just to be 100% clear:
Purchasing stolen goods is a crime in California. "Purchasing stolen goods" is defined roughly as not having a "reasonable" belief that the goods you are buying are not stolen.
So, you go to the store and see an iPhone packaged up and buy it, but it happens that the store manager had stolen a shipment of iPhones, you are not guilty of buying stolen property.
If you go to some guy on the corner and he offers you an iPhone without packaging and which has been remotely bricked, your liability is firmly entertwined with his: if he stole that, you had no reasonable belief that he had it legitimately, and so you are guilty of buying stolen property.
Extenuating circumstances: Gizmodo knew that the device was not something that this random person would have, because they know the industry and know that such a device is not out there. Gizmodo paid a 2400% markup from standard retail for the device ($200 device being fenced for $5000), and so can not legitimately state that they thought the device was a black-market knock-off. These details make a conviction on these CRIMINAL charges more likely, not less.
Note that the criminal charges may cause one or more Gizmodo employees jail time and hefty fines to the State of California. They aren't what really troubles Gawker Media, though (corporations can not be jailed for grossly illegal activities).
Then, on to the civil charges, where the burden of proof is significantly lower. This is where Gizmodo could end up being put out of business. If Apple wants to, they can go after Gawker with a very hefty war chest, and frankly they have an incredibly solid case. The question really is if the damages get figured in the compensatory range (which goes to how much damage to Apple's potential iPhone 4 and 3GS profits were made by Gawker's actions) or in the punitive range (which would seek to stop any tabloid from inciting criminal activity of this sort).
IMHO, there's a good chance that Apple will not press criminal charges against Denton et al, both because of the time constraints involved (it would need to happen now, which would bring more publicity and more damage to Apple's iPhone 4/3GS sales) and because they don't gain anything from the criminal prosecution (except perhaps as ammunition in the civil case). On the other hand, there's a very good chance they'll instigate a civil case this fall, after the real iPhone 4 has been announced and additional publicity will not damage them further. At that point, I expect they'll be going for the jugular. To not do so allows the industry of "money for Apple secrets" to thrive, which is a major negative for the company.
I expect to see Gawker put on a more vigorous defense than ThinkSecret, because they have better financial backing. In the end, though, they were far more egregious in their acts, and the ThinkSecret ruling acts as strong precedent here.
If you do not see a case against Gawker come out this fall, 90% chance that Apple and Gawker reached a silent agreement here. I don't see that as being a likely scenario, though.
This is why the guy is dumb. Besides being a criminal, I suspect he could have gotten a lot more money from Nokia or some other company that makes cellphones/mobile devices, than a tech web site.
To all the Trolls I've snubbed, before...
To all of the:
-It's just a phone...
-Why are there 15 pages about this...
-People have nothing better to do...
-Why are we still talking about this....
and other various pointless troll posts,
Yes, you're so much cooler than the rest of us, and we all know it, so please just go and let us waste our time as we see fit without further useless, non-discussion-enhancing brain-droppings on your part.
I, for one, find the discussion fascinating, both as a discussion, and as a way of seeing how law and common-sense stacks up against uninformed personal reaction.
or: Trolls... ****. THX-BYE!!
To all of the:
-It's just a phone...
-Why are there 15 pages about this...
-People have nothing better to do...
-Why are we still talking about this....
and other various pointless troll posts,
Yes, you're so much cooler than the rest of us, and we all know it, so please just go and let us waste our time as we see fit without further useless, non-discussion-enhancing brain-droppings on your part.
I, for one, find the discussion fascinating, both as a discussion, and as a way of seeing how law and common-sense stacks up against uninformed personal reaction.
or: Trolls... ****. THX-BYE!!