Um. No. The Law just doesn't "move on". A Crime was committed and it will be handled by the system. And we all know if this was Google you wouldn't dismiss this. But because it's apple. Your all for it to be ignored.
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
Um. No. The Law just doesn't "move on". A Crime was committed and it will be handled by the system. And we all know if this was Google you wouldn't dismiss this. But because it's apple. Your all for it to be ignored.
Or is Apple to blame for allowing Gray to take it off-campus? Or is Steve Jobs to blame for approving him to carry a pre-release phone? Or is Gil Amelio to blame for purchasing NeXT thus causing Steve Jobs to return to Apple? See how this "blame-train" works? You just keep riding until you get to a station that you despise the most.
I was taught that libel is defamation in a more substantial or persistence form, while libel was more ephemeral, especially as speech. Reading versus hearing is not the touchstone, I don't think, since sign language, semaphore, Morse code, and other fleeting forms of communication are clearly libel.
Our little exchange here, though, is a little tougher to characterize: we have the quick give and take without much reflection (less for some posts than for others) that is a characteristic of libel, but since these posts are archived for a fairly long time, they also have some characteristics of slander.
My own view is that the damage inflicted by libel was, at Common Law, deemed to be the more serious because of its persistent nature. I'll admit that there probably not--at least I hope there are not--an awful lot of people who go paging through old posts about what this iPod thing is going to be all about, but nonetheless, I'm more inclined to consider defamation in an internet post concerning a named person (rather than bad-mouthing someone who is anonymous here) to be libel.
I haven't cited a case since I haven't immediate access to legal research tools right now, and, besides, why spoil an interesting discussion with bothersome things like controlling precedent. (In any case, even black letter law doesn't seem to affect the expressed opinions of a surprising number of apparently non-lawyer posters.)
I'm very interested in the views others may have, even if they do insist on bringing statute books and appellate courts into it.
The case has just begun my friend. EFF may say "illegal search", but this drama has just started. The case isn't closed sir.
Theft is not journalism. Fencing stolen property is not journalism. Even if you blog about it in journalistic style, it is not journalism. It's theft, with a trail of written evidence... ie; a poster boy for the stupid criminals parade.
The victims of the crime (the engineer and Apple) are not to blame. We do not know if the engineer (the one you refer to as a 'jerk off') left the phone on the stool - all we know is that is what Gizmodo has claimed that their source claimed. That proves zip. Even if he did leave it there, the person who 'found' it committed a crime by keeping it... then compounded his crime by selling it.
Where is the evidence this guy was drunk? Not that it's relevant. If you steal from someone who is sober or drunk, your crime has not changed, just your ease at getting away with it has.
Apple is not going after 'the little guy' here. Chen is not an innocent party. He KNEW he was buying something that did not rightfully belong to the person who sold it to him.
Making up your own news is not journalism - even if you're first to press... it's called being an ass and it will likely get Chen probation, if not jail time.
Yes, Apple will sell a 'crap load' of phones - but their competition has a 2-3 month head start on both R&D and marketing that Gizmodo handed them on a silver platter. Gizmodo fenced stolen property - across state lines. They violated Apple's intellectual property rights by publicly exposing Apple's trade secrets months before a product launch.
Apple doesn't need to 'grow a pair' - Chen needs to grow - UP. Gizmodo is an unprofessional outfit that puts a stench and blemish upon true journalists and journalism.
The victims of the crime (the engineer and Apple) are not to blame. We do not know if the engineer (the one you refer to as a 'jerk off') left the phone on the stool - all we know is that is what Gizmodo has claimed that their source claimed. That proves zip. Even if he did leave it there, the person who 'found' it committed a crime by keeping it... then compounded his crime by selling it.
Where is the evidence this guy was drunk? Not that it's relevant. If you steal from someone who is sober or drunk, your crime has not changed, just your ease at getting away with it has.
Apple is not going after 'the little guy' here. Chen is not an innocent party. He KNEW he was buying something that did not rightfully belong to the person who sold it to him.
Making up your own news is not journalism - even if you're first to press... it's called being an ass and it will likely get Chen probation, if not jail time.
Yes, Apple will sell a 'crap load' of phones - but their competition has a 2-3 month head start on both R&D and marketing that Gizmodo handed them on a silver platter. Gizmodo fenced stolen property - across state lines. They violated Apple's intellectual property rights by publicly exposing Apple's trade secrets months before a product launch.
Apple doesn't need to 'grow a pair' - Chen needs to grow - UP. Gizmodo is an unprofessional outfit that puts a stench and blemish upon true journalists and journalism.
It hasn't gone to court yet, therefore no one is proven wrong yet. There's loop holes to counter everything. That's what being a lawyer is.
... said Voice of Reason who, like broken record or Cupertino bot, infinitely loops the call for some journalist's "blood" his master Stevo desires so much...
Comon man
Yes, we are looking at this news from different angles and have entirely different opinions but there is no trolling here...
You might love Apple with passion but please understand that some of us Mac users on forums don't necessarily come under "fan-boi" banner and can see where this company is going and what it is doing lately - with this particular case being just latest example...
I became Mac user as refuge from M$ world of horror just to find that lately Apple is behaving in such way to make M$ look like innocent little puppy!
It is horror and yes I hate it - with equal amount of passion as you appear to love it...
1700 posts
I have enjoyed reading these 1700+ posts. Lots of good and bad points. I do have an opinion and that is what it is an opinion, It takes a Judge to get a warrant. No one has been charged with anything yet, that takes evidence hence the warrant. Apple does not control the Judge or DA. And there was a path for them to get the iPhone legally but in that wait there would have been no story at the end. If they are charged with a crime and I suspect they will be a jury still must determine guilt. Just thoughts and observations.
I have enjoyed reading these 1700+ posts. Lots of good and bad points. I do have an opinion and that is what it is an opinion, It takes a Judge to get a warrant. No one has been charged with anything yet, that takes evidence hence the warrant. Apple does not control the Judge or DA. And there was a path for them to get the iPhone legally but in that wait there would have been no story at the end. If they are charged with a crime and I suspect they will be a jury still must determine guilt. Just thoughts and observations.
I became Mac user as refuge from M$ world of horror just to find that lately Apple is behaving in such way to make M$ look like innocent little puppy!
So Let me ask you this then. If a prototype Xbox was obtained by someone and sold to Gizmodo and there was legal action would you still have that same view?
Or if it was the google tablet would you still have that same view? Why is it that if this happens to other companies then Legal action would be okay. But because it's apple nothing is suppose to happen? And if you can answer that great. But if you can't it would show you are biased and anti-apple
Where did you find this quote???????? I am pretty sure they never said that. quotation marks are used when you quote someone, not when you put words in their mouth.
Agreed. Revelation78 has shown time and again that he is not to be taken seriously on this topic.
... said Voice of Reason who, like broken record or Cupertino bot, infinitely loops the call for some journalist's "blood" his master Stevo desires so much...
Comon man
Yes, we are looking at this news from different angles and have entirely different opinions but there is no trolling here...
You might love Apple with passion but please understand that some of us Mac users on forums don't necessarily come under "fan-boi" banner and can see where this company is going and what it is doing lately - with this particular case being just latest example...
I became Mac user as refuge from M$ world of horror just to find that lately Apple is behaving in such way to make M$ look like innocent little puppy!
It is horror and yes I hate it - with equal amount of passion as you appear to love it...
I have a news flash for you. I loathe Apple. That's not what's being discussed. The ONLY role Apple plays in this, is that they are the owner of the property that was stolen. They aren't the ones prosecuting.
Be it Apple, Microsoft, HTC, Google, me or even you who has their property taken, sold to someone, has personal details revealed and publicated, IS WRONG. You are seriously lacking a brain to comprehend what happened, what is happening in the investigation, and where it will lead.
Well if the police did it and a judge signed off on the warrant than it must be ok.......oh wait, that isn't true at all. Why do you think crap gets thrown out at trial? Because it was an improper search/seizure which may or may not include an improperly issued warrant.
The point I was trying to make is that the judge is the one that authorized the warrant, not Apple. Whether the seized evidence will be admissible in court is still a huge legal battle to be had.
I'll be delighted. Anyone who says that writing about your crimes and publishing your story someplace, even if you hide the identity of one of the involved people, gives you blanket protection from search warrants is wrong. A reporter who steals a briefcase to get a story, or breaks into someone's office, or who tortures someone to coerce him into revealing facts the journalist will report, is not immune from search warrants. A press pass is not a license to steal, nor a license to conceal evidence tending to prove that the reporter has committed any other crime.
It may be appropriate in certain circumstances for the judge to appoint a Special Master to review the materials and to redact in some appropriate way anything that is protected by the statute. There is just such a process specifically in the California code for when an attorney's office is searched. There is a crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, and sometimes the evidence of a crime is mixed in with protected attorney-client communications. The remedy is to have a neutral party turn the unprotected evidence over to law enforcement, and withhold the protected property. There is a process for resolving any disputes.
In my own opinion, it would be extreme for anyone to conclude that the identity of the iPhone thief is protected as a news source, but that is another discussion, and not especially relevant to the question of how to balance the rights of reporters with the need to discover evidence of crime the reporter is very strongly suspected of having committed.
The point is that the position taken by the EFF (an otherwise admirable and respected organization) that there is blanket immunity from search warrant is wrong, and I am confident that it won't be very long before they and others realize that the legitimate rights of the press can be well protected without over-extending that protection so as to insulate a criminal reporter from detection, prosecution, and conviction.
And by the way, this is a discussion about serious topics about which reasonable people can disagree. Please don't confuse it with a football game.
You are wrong. Apple plays rather important role in this. We just learned that "The criminal investigation into the purported theft of an apparent iPhone prototype came at the request of Apple Inc., police said Tuesday.".
In addition Apple is on the steering committee of REACT which raided Jason Chen's house.
I dont think he is talking about that. I think he is talking about the fact that even if he knew who had his phone the cops would not go breaking down that person's door. Correct?
My opinion would be unchanged in any case...
I hate big corporations who are thinking, acting and ultimately influencing me personally with their draconian acts and attitudes!
This raid on journalist's home / office was direct attack on freedom of press and therefore myself (yes I take attack on freedom of press personally)...
To make myself perfectly clear - I am all for law and fair play!
If law was broken by Giz by all means they need to pay for it...
However, authorising draconian neo-nazi like RAID on guy's house and seizing his equipment without even priory confirming legality of such action is horrible and very scary to say at least... hence me saying that I hope it bounces back right into their corporate faces (although I doubt it will happen)
No, they're the ones filing the complaint that got the ball on the search warrant rolling. Don't get me wrong, Apple has the right to do that.
Some people here make it look like the police took it upon themselves to investigate the mysterious case of the stolen iPhone that has long been reunited with its legal owner. This isn't murder, you know.
Ofc it came from them...
Only fan-boiz could think it came from someone else or thin frekn air
Ofc it came from them...
Only fan-boiz could think it came from someone else or thin frekn air
Apple does not have the ability to initiate a criminal investigation. That is up to the police. No one here has denied that Apple can ask the police to look into it, but the decision to move forward is up to the police. Not Apple.
This story was only published an hour ago, so I was unaware. It still falls to the DA to prosecute a crime, as it is the law. I'm trying to be objective as possible, and it was the judge's call. There'll no doubt be a lengthy legal battle about it.
Isn't the DA elected? You don't think if you had Apple in your back yard and you were in an elected position you would ask "How high" when they told you to jump????????