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
BS, they paid $5k knowing full well that it was probably a prototype and then used it for their own gain.
No. An Apple employee lost a brand new, unreleased, much anticipated multi million dollar product. Giz then paid a large sum of money for it from someone who was clearly not the owner or an Apple employee, in the almost FULL knowledge that it was he new iPhone.
You need to remember that Giz is a tech blog and watches out for sneak peeks etc over the entire GLOBE. There have been pics of roughly this design before Giz got their ands on it.
They then took it apart as far as they could without damaging it, thus admitting their knowledge of the phones identity, and posted the images all over the internet. They then ask Apple for a letter officially asking for the item back and post that as well shouting SCOOP!!!!
The DA is not wasting tax dollars. Its just putting some of the BILLIONS of tax dollars Apple has given them to use on behalf of Apple. Imagine how bankrupt CA would be if Apple moved out
I would say a member of the Giz staff went to bar and left their collectively shared brain cell behind. Unlike Apple no one has noticed its missing
Hope the get screwed into the ground or overstepping the mark
So this is mere politics is what you're saying... SMH
So paying money for something means you know exactly what that something is? They were investigating what it was. Meaning, they did'nt know what it was.
So if they paid $5 than it would of been ok but since they paid $5000 its not ok? All that tells me is that they take their work seriously and wanted to get to the bottom of a lost phone that had an apple logo on it. It could of been a fake, how would they have known?
.
Holly crap!
Who ever thinks this is about some iToy is missing the point!
This entire news item is about all of us and about our freedom.
This in fact is direct attack on us and should be taken personally!
If REACT did not respond to complaints from the 25 members of the steering committee, there would be no point of it existing. Stop Apple hating and being paranoid long enough to allow your brain to try and clearly process a few thoughts
X2
You have absolutely no idea what a police state is. It is extremely likely that wherever you live is much closer to being a police state than the US. Words mean things, start trying to use them appropriately.
The warrant was signed at 7:00PM and they went directly to his house. He works from home. Even if I accepted your premise that they should have tried to go when he was at home, 8:00pm seems like a reasonable time to expect someone to be at home, as reasonable as any other time. This post (like every single one of your other ones btw), is just another ridiculous reach into the land of absurdity.
You are the only person on earth who thinks there is some case for Gizmodo to sue Apple. Please enlighten us all with your brilliant legal mind.
I can only say one thing ...
X2
You should go to gizmodo.com and read every story under the iphone4 tag. Nearly everyone of them gloats about how they got Apple's secret.
Let's get back to facts. Wait, we don't know them yet.
But, the law may be easier to discern since both the federal and state of California constitutions protect the press and freedom of expression.
Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (1994), is a legal case that has relevance here. One of the issues involved a computer "publisher" and the execution of a search warrant instead of a subpoena. In the court's decision, the court quoted from the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa: "Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee,in connection with the investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper,broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . . ." I am sure some of you recall this case and remember the outcome. The court held: "the government
could and should have requested Steve Jackson as chief operating officer
of the corporation to cooperate and provide the information available
under the law. The Secret Service's refusal to return information and
property requested by Mr. Jackson and his lawyers in Dallas and Austin
constituted a violation of the statute."
The lesson is that the D.A. will get his investigation, but they already made a mistake and it may be costly.
But, the law may be easier to discern since both the federal and state of California constitutions protect the press and freedom of expression.
Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (1994), is a legal case that has relevance here. One of the issues involved a computer "publisher" and the execution of a search warrant instead of a subpoena. In the court's decision, the court quoted from the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa: "Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee,in connection with the investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper,broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . . ." I am sure some of you recall this case and remember the outcome. The court held: "the government
could and should have requested Steve Jackson as chief operating officer
of the corporation to cooperate and provide the information available
under the law. The Secret Service's refusal to return information and
property requested by Mr. Jackson and his lawyers in Dallas and Austin
constituted a violation of the statute."
The lesson is that the D.A. will get his investigation, but they already made a mistake and it may be costly.
$5000=Knowledge and intent. But it makes no difference since they took it apart anyway and found out.
Theft of trade secrets plain and simple. Before they published the story they knew it was the genuine article and stole it's secrets before returning it to apple.
Not applicable since they are investigating Chen and Gizmodo for committing a felony, the shield law protects their sources, it does not shield them from their own illegal activities.
It means they knew it was Apple's property. That's all that matters. It could have been a prototype from two years ago. It make no difference.
F#&% Apple and the freak that is Steve Jobs...
a year ago a made i semi-switch to apple out of curiosity about the platform, not so impressed so far..
they are full of it, especially considering that 80% of the company's success is based on open source and open development and variations on it..
now if i was the person who found it, i would secretly get in touch with Nokia , THC (even google) and sell it to them for a lot more than 5000$ ...the device will never see the light, and this news would never happen...
a year ago a made i semi-switch to apple out of curiosity about the platform, not so impressed so far..
they are full of it, especially considering that 80% of the company's success is based on open source and open development and variations on it..
now if i was the person who found it, i would secretly get in touch with Nokia , THC (even google) and sell it to them for a lot more than 5000$ ...the device will never see the light, and this news would never happen...
I'm not sure how your complaint equates to theft of Apple's property.
Do you know how much Apple gave back to open source projects, especially to FreeBSD?
Judging by your posts you have an uncanny ability to 'read into' whilst not being able to actually read. Or are you just playing devils advocate whilst eating popcorn?
Gaby Darbyshire seems to suffer the same affliction. Section 1070 of the Evidence Code covers a journalist not divulging of sources and/or information. NOT receipt of or purchase of stolen goods
Reporters and Journalists?
Reporters and Journalists? Gizmodo?
Who the heck are they kidding? That's an insult to real reporters and real journalists!
Real reporters and real journalists don't steal someone else's property. Real reporters and real journalists check and double check their sources and their information BEFORE publishing it.
If Gizmodo wants to consider themselves real journalists, then abide by guidelines of real journalists!
There are plenty of websites that would qualify as true reporters and journalists. Gizmodo ain't one.
What they did to Apple was bad, but what they did to Gray Powell was inexcusable. I hope Apple takes these guys down.
If the EFF backs Gizmodo, then I lose all respect for the EFF!
Reporters and Journalists? Gizmodo?
Who the heck are they kidding? That's an insult to real reporters and real journalists!
Real reporters and real journalists don't steal someone else's property. Real reporters and real journalists check and double check their sources and their information BEFORE publishing it.
If Gizmodo wants to consider themselves real journalists, then abide by guidelines of real journalists!
There are plenty of websites that would qualify as true reporters and journalists. Gizmodo ain't one.
What they did to Apple was bad, but what they did to Gray Powell was inexcusable. I hope Apple takes these guys down.
If the EFF backs Gizmodo, then I lose all respect for the EFF!
As per CA law, if it's lost and sold by someone who found it, it's officially stolen goods.
Who's to say that Apple didn't report it stolen?
Gizmodo knew it wasn't legally available for sale - the gambled and will likely lose.
BTW, the only people saying it was lost is Gizmodo - even so they knew the engineers name (Gray Powell) and made no effort to return it until after they'd posted several articles.
Who's to say that Apple didn't report it stolen?
Gizmodo knew it wasn't legally available for sale - the gambled and will likely lose.
BTW, the only people saying it was lost is Gizmodo - even so they knew the engineers name (Gray Powell) and made no effort to return it until after they'd posted several articles.
Oh give me a break, we haven't had "real journalism" in this country since the Cronkite era