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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it might involve people running gawker. No one knows for sure who paid the money etc. This week will be very interesting.
I'm also guessing Gizmodo does't hand over $5000 to every guy off the street claiming to have the next generation hot gadget. They knew what it was but didn't care how it was obtained or who they destroyed in posting it.
That's the point. People here are hypocrites. They slam Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Gawker... Every company that isn't Apple. They "forget" that Apple is only interested in the same thing as these other companies: Money.
Nothing wrong with that. Just don't be a hypocrite.
It's not just a phone. It isn't just a phone that got lost, and stolen. It's trade secrets. But even 10,000 would be consider serious.
At the same time, it could serve as an example to other sites, to beware of buying potentially stolen property taking it apart and posting it publicly for everyone to see.
Everyone involved had a chance to do the correct and legal thing. The guy who found the phone, thought he could make $5k off it, so he really didnt try that hard to return it. Maybe he did, but he picked every route that could fail, knowing that he could have just submitted a police report. But submitting one would mean he might have to let go of the phone, and therefore lose out on making some money out of it. Summary, there might be 100s of things he could have done to return the phone, if he's lazy he could have skipped to the last thing by just calling the police, and filing it as lost and stolen and be done with it -- if he really really had true intentions.
Gizmodo, could also have done the right thing. They could have just say no, because purchasing stolen property was against state law, (they should know this), and even if they were curious and wanted to burn $5k to buy the devices, they didnt have to publish it right away either. But the idea of geting traffic and hits was too tempting. I'm even sure Apple would have rewarded them $5k, or more to compensate them if they approach apple first about returning the device.
Even if the device was not taken seriously, Gizmodo could have also filed a police report first on a potential stolen device, or get their lawyer to review the situation and contact Apple's lawyer about returning the device. etc. I mean, if they REALLY wanted to return the device, they could have. There are free routes to use that would have assure they got Apple's attention on how serious the matter was.
But temptation was too strong. Especially the attention and traffic they will generate. They try to do the bare minimal and possibly set it up to fail so they wouldn't have to return it right away without first being able to publish it; thinking that they could do it and not have any basklash. Who knows?
None of this is true or factual... it's just mumbo jumbo theory. But in news reporter should be hold accountable to make every effort of doing the legal thing. they should show good intent all the way through and show they exhausted all means of returning anything stolen or lost. At the end of the day, they could have publish a story that they had the lost iphone, and provide some opinion of it, without revealing anything and return the item to the rightful owner (or the police if the owner could not be located or convinced), and be done with it.
I dont know what gizmodo done and their intend. The facts show what they didnt do. (this goes to the fellow who found the iphone too). Summary, there's probably a 100 different things Gizmodo could have done to get this phone back to the rightful owner prior to publishing it as 'possibly a real iphone'; but they could have just spoke with the police and be done with it.
No matter what, going to the police was something that was never done.
You just have to speculate why? My 2 cents. police = no $5k; police = no story.
So no one wanted to go that route.
Instead everyone wanted to look for loopholes and feign ignorance, 'I've done everything right that I could thought off, no one wanted it, so i didnt know I couldn't do it'.
gizmodo has already proven they knew of CA laws quite well.
At the same time, it could serve as an example to other sites, to beware of buying potentially stolen property taking it apart and posting it publicly for everyone to see.
Everyone involved had a chance to do the correct and legal thing. The guy who found the phone, thought he could make $5k off it, so he really didnt try that hard to return it. Maybe he did, but he picked every route that could fail, knowing that he could have just submitted a police report. But submitting one would mean he might have to let go of the phone, and therefore lose out on making some money out of it. Summary, there might be 100s of things he could have done to return the phone, if he's lazy he could have skipped to the last thing by just calling the police, and filing it as lost and stolen and be done with it -- if he really really had true intentions.
Gizmodo, could also have done the right thing. They could have just say no, because purchasing stolen property was against state law, (they should know this), and even if they were curious and wanted to burn $5k to buy the devices, they didnt have to publish it right away either. But the idea of geting traffic and hits was too tempting. I'm even sure Apple would have rewarded them $5k, or more to compensate them if they approach apple first about returning the device.
Even if the device was not taken seriously, Gizmodo could have also filed a police report first on a potential stolen device, or get their lawyer to review the situation and contact Apple's lawyer about returning the device. etc. I mean, if they REALLY wanted to return the device, they could have. There are free routes to use that would have assure they got Apple's attention on how serious the matter was.
But temptation was too strong. Especially the attention and traffic they will generate. They try to do the bare minimal and possibly set it up to fail so they wouldn't have to return it right away without first being able to publish it; thinking that they could do it and not have any basklash. Who knows?
None of this is true or factual... it's just mumbo jumbo theory. But in news reporter should be hold accountable to make every effort of doing the legal thing. they should show good intent all the way through and show they exhausted all means of returning anything stolen or lost. At the end of the day, they could have publish a story that they had the lost iphone, and provide some opinion of it, without revealing anything and return the item to the rightful owner (or the police if the owner could not be located or convinced), and be done with it.
I dont know what gizmodo done and their intend. The facts show what they didnt do. (this goes to the fellow who found the iphone too). Summary, there's probably a 100 different things Gizmodo could have done to get this phone back to the rightful owner prior to publishing it as 'possibly a real iphone'; but they could have just spoke with the police and be done with it.
No matter what, going to the police was something that was never done.
You just have to speculate why? My 2 cents. police = no $5k; police = no story.
So no one wanted to go that route.
Instead everyone wanted to look for loopholes and feign ignorance, 'I've done everything right that I could thought off, no one wanted it, so i didnt know I couldn't do it'.
gizmodo has already proven they knew of CA laws quite well.
Well someone has to be indicted before they can even be eligible for conviction so way ahead of the story there. Conceivably everyone involved in the conspiracy to buy stolen property could be indicted. Obviously that isn't everyone at Gizmodo, but probably the owner & editor.
They have and will continue to determine what is art and what is obscene. Happens all the time.
And they have before ruled on what is journalism and what isn't. I'm excited more about the precedent this case will set than what happens to the douchebags at Gizmodo.
Read the Gizmodo Article:
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers
In short these protections extend to online journalists after O'Grady V Superior Court
Except that this isn't about a protecting a source but rather that they committed an illegal act. Your precedent does not apply.
did you even read this post? it clearly shows that this was legally theft even if the phone was lost in the beginning. see the RED part.
One more thing that popped up: Why is everybody slamming Gizmodo while many sites, including THIS one, were very eager and happy to link to and repost the stories and show the photographs that Gizmodo made? Isn't that a bit hypocritical as well?
Is MacRumors an accessory to being sleazy?
Is MacRumors an accessory to being sleazy?
You're trying to prove that Giz is right because Apple is also in the wrong. Who cares? Why do people keep making the mistake of assuming one side is right and one side is wrong? In this case, both sides are wrong. Apple was wrong for allowing a highly coveted item out into the field without proper security, and Giz was totally wrong for buying an item that they only paid top dollar for because it was Apple's (and not the person's who they paid $$$ to).
If you lose your laptop on a train, you made a mistake. It's your fault. You were wrong in allowing it to be lost.
However, that doesn't mean that anyone can simply take it, know it's not theirs, sell it on craigslist and/or publish the contents of your laptop on the internet. That's wrong as well.
TrueCrypt can hide that data is present on a harddrive. Put on a small dummy OS installation on a small partition and with TrueCrypt, no one could know or access the main OS data, despite the efforts any law enforcement software.
Seems like they're looking for any material that can be used in a smear campaign. Make an example of Gawker so it will deter anyone else from doing this in the future.
I don't agree with how Apple are handling it.
Because apple did not email gizmodo again but more importantly IT WAS NOT ON THE LIST OF WHAT WAS SEIZED!!! There was one iphone on the list of what the police took but it was clearly his iphone because it was a 16 gb iphone and it was never revealed what the capacity of the prototype is.
Gizmodo deserves the grief. Not only did they pay for stolen goods, but blabbered over the internets the whole story on how the phone was obtained for all to read. That was particularly dumb.
And I'm sure outing the name of the Apple employee just pissed off Apple even more.
Gizmodo got giddy like a freshman high school girl. Couldn't control themselves.
And I'm sure outing the name of the Apple employee just pissed off Apple even more.
Gizmodo got giddy like a freshman high school girl. Couldn't control themselves.