Sidebar Sidebar
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

Mark Booth said:
If you pick up something of significant value that doesn't belong to you, make little attempt to return it to the rightful owner, and then sell the item for $5,000 profit, you are a THIEF!
Click to expand...
Again he hasn't been charged nor has it been established that a crime has been committed. It's odd that you're banging on about "how we don't know the full story" yet you're more than willing to condemn a young man as a thief.

Mark Booth said:
You'll excuse me if I don't automatically believe the story of a someone of low moral character.
Click to expand...
LOL you're really worked up over this :D!
wired said:
He has been working part time at a church-run community center giving swimming lessons to children and volunteered at a Chinese orphanage last year while he was enrolled in a study-abroad program.

“He also volunteers to assist his aunt and sister with fundraising for their work to provide medical care to orphans in Kenya,” his attorney says
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-finder/
Click to expand...
Low moral character indeed.
 
.Andy said:
Low moral character indeed.
Click to expand...

I saw what his attorney said. Ted Bundy's attorney could truthfully state that Bundy was active in his local church. But Bundy eventually confessed to killing 30 people.

I'm not remotely suggesting that Hogan is a murder or that he should be treated like one. But it is firmly my opinion that he IS a thief and of low moral character. Anyone with even a modicum of personal honor would have turned that iPhone over the bar, to the police, or driven it 20 miles to Apple's headquarters and dropped it off.

Mark
 
A Pittarelli said:
hopefully they are just doing it for the press and drop the charges when the iphone 4g comes out
Click to expand...
Playing such a game would be an incredible waste of law enforcement time and taxpayers money. The whole episode is absolutely absurd from the start. It's probably too late for this to have an reasonable conclusion.

Mark Booth said:
I saw what his attorney said. Ted Bundy's attorney could truthfully state that Bundy was active in his local church. But Bundy eventually confessed to killing 30 people.

I'm not remotely suggesting that Hogan is a murder or that he should be treated like one. But it is firmly my opinion that he IS a thief and of low moral character. Anyone with even a modicum of personal honor would have turned that iPhone over the bar, to the police, or driven it 20 miles to Apple's headquarters and dropped it off.

Mark
Click to expand...
LOL it just gets better and better :D! First you claim indignantly that we don't know the full story and can't possibly draw conclusions and in the same breath hypocritically call an individual involved a "thief" (with caps lock on repeatedly!) and of "low moral character" who is lacking "a modicum of personal honour". Not only do you have a problem with caps lock but also with hyperbole lock as well :p!
 
Originally Posted by wired
He has been working part time at a church-run community center giving swimming lessons to children and volunteered at a Chinese orphanage last year while he was enrolled in a study-abroad program.

“He also volunteers to assist his aunt and sister with fundraising for their work to provide medical care to orphans in Kenya,” his attorney says
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-finder/
Click to expand...

.Andy said:
Low moral character indeed.
Click to expand...

Errr... if you believe that, then I wouldn't Google the phrase "church worker guilty" if I were you. ;)
 
alan27inla said:
I said it before and I'll say it again. Gizmodo will cease to exist one year from today. The minute they put that first picture of the iphone prototype on their site they basically signed their demise.
Click to expand...

Good! I can't stand the a$$hole!! I know people at Apple and I know how hard they work to keep proprietary business info super tight lipped, it is critical to product development and release schedules.

The last thing they need is some gear head with no life doing what they did. Throw his sorry butt in jail.
 
bobob said:
Errr... if you believe that, then I wouldn't Google the phrase "church worker guilty" if I were you. ;)
Click to expand...
What I absolutely believe in is the presumption of innocence. And that good people can make mistakes. Even if he is "charged" this is hardly a heinous crime on the scale of things. Certianly doesn't deserve the indignation and rhetoric that is thrown around. A gaol sentence would be absolutely insane which people are calling for.

alan27inla said:
The minute they put that first picture of the iphone prototype on their site they basically signed their demise.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on macrumors rehosting and posting the pictures on the front page?
 
.Andy said:
LOL it just gets better and better :D! First you claim indignantly that we don't know the full story and can't possibly draw conclusions and in the same breath hypocritically call an individual involved a "thief" (with caps lock on repeatedly!) and of "low moral character" who is lacking "a modicum of personal honour". Not only do you have a problem with caps lock but also with hyperbole lock as well :p!
Click to expand...

There is nothing hypocritical about believing Hogan took the iPhone. He's already admitted it and "apologized" for not doing more to return it to its rightful owner. Admitting that he didn't try hard enough to return it to its rightful owner is ALSO admitting that he realized it HAD a rightful owner. Knowing that there was a rightful owner means Hogan also knows the phone doesn't belong to Hogan. Keeping it and then eventually selling it makes Hogan a THIEF under California law. It wasn't his to sell.

It's actually pretty simple when you stop and use logic and reasoning, two things that seem to escape you. :)

There, you see that, I threw in a smiley face to make you all warm and fuzzy! :)

Oops... did it again! :)

Mark
 
Mark Booth said:
There is nothing hypocritical about believing Hogan took the iPhone.
Click to expand...
Which is not what I said whatsoever.

Mark Booth said:
He's already admitted it and "apologized" for not doing more to return it to its rightful owner.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you've got yourself in quite a hypocritical pickle. You'll disregard what he says on one hand;
Mark Booth said:
You'll excuse me if I don't automatically believe the story of a someone of low moral character.
Click to expand...
But quite readily believe what he says on the other when and only when it suits you. It's cherrypicking.

You also made the claim that we don't know the story so can't reach conclusions, yet you are more than ready to entirely assassinate hogan's character based on this event (and have been doing so for many, many pages across multiple threads now). It's hypocritical.
 
.Andy said:
Wait till my wife hears about this!


Alleged :)
Click to expand...

Maybe your wife will give you a cookie and some warm milk? :D (Ohh.. that one earned you the BIG smiley!)

And there's nothing alleged about it. That Hogan is a thief is MY OPINION. Even if a jury found him innocent tomorrow, I'd STILL believe him to be a thief. He's already admitted (through his attorney) that he took what didn't belong to him and sold it. Sure, they want to pretend that he was selling the "exclusive". Yeah, sure! :rolleyes:

Mark
 
.Andy said:
And you've also been clear that you don't believe what a "thief of low moral character says". So I'm still at a loss why you believe what he "admits" here.
Click to expand...
Really? You're at a loss... really?

A little common sense and thoughtful use of logic can enable one to discern what may (or may not) be a plausible narrative. [e.g., it is not plausible that someone and their attorney would admit guilt to something unless there was no reasonable doubt.]

But all that jazz about being unable to return it to Apple... :D ...sorry, that's highly doubtful. [doesn't pass the laugh test, unless Hogan somehow forgot how to form coherent sentences in English i suppose. A sudden attack of amnesia perhaps? Yeah, that's the ticket!]
 
.Andy said:
You're kidding aren't you :confused:? The unethical practice of chequebook journalism has been around for as long as journalism itself and isn't confined to smaller/"less established" outfits whatsoever. "Journalist ethics" is as close to an oxymoron as one can get - especially when talking about the mass media.
Click to expand...

This isn't about "ethics" or even checkbook journalism, i.e. paying for a story. It's paying for stolen goods, or at least merchandise that didn't belong to the seller, which may be the same thing in California. It's about criminal behavior.

I write for a blog. Can I steal as long as I write about it?
 
Hal Itosis said:
Really? You're at a loss... really?
Click to expand...
You might be able to come up with a "plausible narrative" that satisfies you. And that's great. The story will come out in time and it will be boring and it will cost the taxpayer a fortune and law enforcement countless man hours. Both apple and gizmodo are tarnished by this incident as far as I'm concerned. It's a laughable situation which took two to tango and has escallated beyond what is necessary.

MacToddB said:
This isn't about "ethics" or even checkbook journalism, i.e. paying for a story. It's paying for stolen goods, or at least merchandise that didn't belong to the seller, which may be the same thing in California. It's about criminal behavior.
Click to expand...
My post was in reply to the claim that "established journalists" operate to some superior ethical guidelines to bloggers. That's patently laughable. Journalism since the beginning of time has put ethics down the bottom of the list. Even more so now with short attention spans and the increased squeeze with tight deadlines and ever falling advertising revenues.

MacToddB said:
I write for a blog. an I steal as long as I write about it?
Click to expand...
I've never said anyone can steal for a blog :confused:. I have no idea where you got that from. I haven't once said that what gizmodo did was legit or that I condone their actions at all. I think the opposite.

In my opinion you (as a blog writer) should have is the same rights to keep your sources secret if you so choose. That protection should be for everyone that writes and publishes - not only those who work for powerful media conglomerates or the "established organisations".
 
.Andy said:
In my opinion you (as a blog writer) should have is the same rights to keep your sources secret if you so choose. That protection should be for everyone that writes and publishes - not only those who work for powerful media conglomerates or the "established organisations".
Click to expand...

But if those sources are my sources of stolen merchandise..., it doesn't matter if I write for Gizmodo, NY Times, or Fox News. Theft is theft.
 
MacToddB said:
But if those sources are my sources of stolen merchandise..., it doesn't matter if I write for Gizmodo, NY Times, or Fox News. Theft is theft.
Click to expand...
Yes your sources might not be legit. But I still think you should be afforded protection for what you write until a case can be legally made otherwise (which in this case it still hasn't).

Here's a question though - if hogan had taken pictures of the phone, and sold the pictures to gizmodo for $5000 before handing it over to the barman would that have been OK in your opinion?
 
.Andy said:
Yes your sources might not be legit. But I still think you should be afforded protection for what you write until a case can be legally made otherwise (which in this case it still hasn't).
Click to expand...

Which is why the cops haven't gone through the computers... but they confiscated them to prevent erasing evidence, etc.

Here's a question though - if hogan had taken pictures of the phone, and sold the pictures to gizmodo for $5000 before handing it over to the barman would that have been OK in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't have been stolen. I'm not talking about the ethics or the shield law, protecting sources, etc. Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to the 'seller', yet they bought it. In California, that's purchasing stolen property. The 'finder' could have just as easily left his name and phone number with the barkeeper. Gray Powell did return a few times.
 
.Andy said:
Both apple and gizmodo are tarnished by this incident as far as I'm concerned. It's a laughable situation which took two to tango and has escallated beyond what is necessary.
Click to expand...

Apple was only tarnished by the stuff that people made up about this situation.

What do we know that Apple did?

- One of their employees lost a prototype phone that he was field testing.
- Apple looked for it.
- Apple reported it stolen when they found evidence that it was likely stolen per California law.

What did they do to escalate the situation unnecessarily?
 
BaldiMac said:
Apple was only tarnished by the stuff that people made up about this situation.

What do we know that Apple did?

- One of their employees lost a prototype phone that he was field testing.
- Apple looked for it.
- Apple reported it stolen when they found evidence that it was likely stolen per California law.

What did they do to escalate the situation unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

Field Testing? For real? One low level guy, out for drinks on his birthday is "Field Testing?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back