I may have said something like "If X and Y are true, Gizmodo is probably in the clear". Obviously X and Y are open for debate.
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 may have said something like "If X and Y are true, Gizmodo is probably in the clear". Obviously X and Y are open for debate.
Multitasking! not only is he a subpar journalist he is a subpar lawyer. Nothing in the CA law would protect him from a search warrant only from charges of contempt for not disclosing a source. US law would block the search of a journalists work product but due to the fact that Chen was a participant in the crime being investigated (sale of stolen goods) that protection does not apply either.
Regardless of whether you think Gizmodo acted illegally or not, the question begs...
Why is California bankrupt again?
BINGO!
Why is California bankrupt again?
BINGO!
We have a winner.
And one wonders, has the iPhone made Commissioner Gordon's BATPHONE outdated now?
Steve Jobs seems to have his own private iPhone police force! HAHA!
If this story had not already made Apple the laughingstock of Leno & Letterman (which it already has), you can now add the entire world to the joke!
It's just amazing that the world is still talking about this ONE phone!
And it's not even going to hurt Apple as far as I can see.
It's not even a revolutionary product!
Breaking down a person's door to investigate a freaking phone theft???
HAHA!
HAHA!
Apple is going to be the laughingstock on this one in the court of public opinion regardless of what else happens in the real court.
That's a good point. If the teardown took place after they determined the Apple engineer that lost the phone, that's probably some sort crime. I'm not sure it's theft though.
I totally agree. It's quite likely that those computers contain many emails. The police probably want to see those emails in case there is an admission that the phone is likely stolen, and not simply lost.
He's a she. And she is a british trial lawyer, not licensed in the US or in California.
If there's no debate about whether or not they thought it was real, then you have no case. If they believed it was a prototype Apple device, they had a duty to contact Apple to get it returned to its rightful owner, be that Apple or not. (And OF COURSE the rightful owner is Apple.)
Indeed, if the story they tell about the drunk guy who found the phone is true, they actually had a duty to turn it over to the police from the very first second that they took possession of it, since he apparently did not make this effort. In addition, according to the story of that "drunk guy", he actually managed to get the name Gray Powell off the phone's Facebook screen, yet they apparently made no effort to contact him until AFTER the story broke.
We've already coved that it was theft. It was theft the moment the finder sold it to Giz. Go back and re-read my posts because obviously you're not astute enough to understand things the first time.
Again, the moment the finder sold the phone to Giz it became theft!
There's no question that it's a crime. And while by itself it does not constitute theft, it turns their "holding on to a device we know belongs to Apple" into theft.
Gizmodo doesn't have a leg to stand on.
A post of your's I agree with, though I'll elaborate a bit. They also want to see what photos or other "data" about the device Jason/Giz received prior to the purchase. This will go a long ways in determining the intent and verify if they would prosecuted under the law.
Some basic facts
APPLE has nothing to do with this. Apple has not filed charges. Giz flooded the media with information that implicates them in a crime and the authorities are investigating.
For people that seemed so ignorant of the law last week suddenly Gizmodo's staff are all legal experts.
APPLE has nothing to do with this. Apple has not filed charges. Giz flooded the media with information that implicates them in a crime and the authorities are investigating.
For people that seemed so ignorant of the law last week suddenly Gizmodo's staff are all legal experts.
See, I think maybe we agree. This is what I've been getting at the whole time. The police need proof that Gizmodo was aware the phone was stolen.
Not going to discuss it if you're going to be rude
Oh and you haven't? I guess that shows your lack of maturity; you can't admit when you've been wrong the whole time.
For one thing, the publishers of the Pentagon Papers--the New York Times and the Washington Post--were discovered through the clever ruse of visiting a news stand, so I would say that a search warrant would have been a tad overkill.
Second, the publishers of the Pentagon Papers benefited the country by disclosing secret information that showed government deception and secret unconstitutional acts, including the illegal carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, facts the citizenry was entitled to know.
Third, the publishers of the Pentagon Papers committed no act other than the disclosure of facts made known to them. They didn't participate in a theft, burglary, or tort in order to obtain the information they received.
Fourth, although the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn the injunctions against the publishers as being a prior restraint, there were multiple written opinions, and there was no sweeping declaration of the unbridled license of the press.
Fifth, even though the publishers were permitted to publish and never further prosecuted, Daniel Ellsberg who provided the material to Congress and to the newspapers, was indicted and charged with federal crimes carrying a penalty of more than 100 years in jail. His case never reached a jury because a mistrial was declared due to government misconduct. His only alleged wrongful act was the disclosure of government secrets.
You'd have to go a very long way to see much of a connection between the country's two leading newspapers and a principled government employee on the one hand, and someone who stole a nongovernmental cellular phone and someone who received stolen property and posted about it on the internet on the other. The overarching need of a free society to know the truth about its government's actions is not quite on par with Apple enthusiasts' need to know about forthcoming gadgets. Nonetheless, the courts probably would not enjoin Gizmodo from publishing the secrets of the 4G iPhone, although not muzzling the press is the only price our law is willing to pay to support its freedom. If the press commits a crime in order to get a story--breaks into someone's office, steals someone's briefcase, water-boards a "source" to get a scoop---all bets are off. A press pass is not a license to violate the rights of other citizens.
We ardent supporters of the freedom of the press need to be very careful about just what sort of behavior we argue should be protected. If unscrupulous "journalists" use the privilege as a sword instead of as a legitimate shield to fulfill a public trust, it won't be long before an angry public and its lawmakers abolish the privilege entirely.
It's easy to make it sound innocent and rosy when you start from flawed reasoning. Leaving aside the fact that stolen car analogies aren't a good comparison, and I'd still say all 3 of these hypothetical scenarios are setting up a straw man, since they all have the assumption that the only underlying intention is to return the car to one's friend. Consider the following:
- If the finder had handed the phone over to Gray or the police rather than selling it (that shouldn't take more than a day) this would be a non-issue.
- We are led to believe that Gray and the finder (or Gizmodo employees) are not well-acquainted. Gizmodo didn't purchase the phone out of goodwill for Apple they wanted a scoop bad enough to risk paying for it and taking a legal risk.
- You'd be much closer to the mark if the car in question were actually a secret unreleased prototype. This thread has argued there's a difference between that and a normal phone.
- Rather than a couple of hours, what if you held onto the car for a few weeks, to give you time to take it apart and put it back together, and all the while the true owner was frantically searching for their car?
- In addition to pictures of the car, let's say you also publicly mocked and pilloried the owner for losing possession of his car (e.g. dropping his keys) in the first place.
Hmmm, Gizmodo is starting to look like an endless fountain of charity and goodwill, ain't they?
Call it theft or what you will, but their actions certainly weren't benevolent and well-intentioned at the core. Claiming otherwise is foolish.
The thing is they already have the proof. They are only going to determine if prosecution is warranted.
For instance you could be driving you car and accidentally kill a pedestrian. You killed somebody and could be charged with various crimes ranging from manslaughter to 1st degree murder depending on the circumstances. The DA could chose not to prosecute you at all if they felt it was warranted.
There are a lot of factors that will ultimately decide if prosecution moves forward. Only the DA will know what they want to see to "force" their hand.
It's easy to make it sound innocent and rosy when you start from flawed reasoning. Leaving aside the fact that stolen car analogies aren't a good comparison, and I'd still say all 3 of these hypothetical scenarios are setting up a straw man, since they all have the assumption that the only underlying intention is to return the car to one's friend. Consider the following:
- If the finder had handed the phone over to Gray or the police rather than selling it (that shouldn't take more than a day) this would be a non-issue.
- We are led to believe that Gray and the finder (or Gizmodo employees) are not well-acquainted. Gizmodo didn't purchase the phone out of goodwill for Apple they wanted a scoop bad enough to risk paying for it and taking a legal risk.
- You'd be much closer to the mark if the car in question were actually a secret unreleased prototype. This thread has argued there's a difference between that and a normal phone.
- Rather than a couple of hours, what if you held onto the car for a few weeks, to give you time to take it apart and put it back together, and all the while the true owner was frantically searching for their car?
- In addition to pictures of the car, let's say you also publicly mocked and pilloried the owner for losing possession of his car (e.g. dropping his keys) in the first place.
Hmmm, Gizmodo is starting to look like an endless fountain of charity and goodwill, ain't they?
Call it theft or what you will, but their actions certainly weren't benevolent and well-intentioned at the core. Claiming otherwise is foolish.
Agreed. Bad intentions? Sure. I don't think you can flatly state that Gizmodo necessarily acted illegally though. It will depend on what other information comes out in the coming days.
This event will be a vague memory this Christmas season when the iPad is selling like hotcakes. It's easy to live in the present, but that doesn't mean that it tells us anything about the future.Regardless of whether you think Gizmodo acted illegally or not, the question begs...
Why is California bankrupt again?
BINGO!
We have a winner.
And one wonders, has the iPhone made Commissioner Gordon's BATPHONE outdated now?
Steve Jobs seems to have his own private iPhone police force! HAHA!
If this story had not already made Apple the laughingstock of Leno & Letterman (which it already has), you can now add the entire world to the joke!
It's just amazing that the world is still talking about this ONE phone!
And it's not even going to hurt Apple as far as I can see.
It's not even a revolutionary product!
Breaking down a person's door to investigate a freaking phone theft???
HAHA!
Apple is going to be the laughingstock on this one in the court of public opinion regardless of what else happens in the real court.
While taking pictures of the outside of the phone may be one thing, but what about the guts of the phone? Since the product hasn't been released yet to the public, are the guts, which were photographed and shown to the public, covered by copyright laws and such?
.
.
Yup see my post earlier. I really think this is what the police are investigating. Not just purchasing stolen goods...