Slashdot Mirror
Police Seize Computers From Gizmodo Editor
secretcurse writes "California police have served a search warrant and seized computers from Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who unveiled the 4th-generation iPhone to the world. Gawker Media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist. The plot thickens..."
How can this happen when it was 100% totally and utterly obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that Apple staged the whole 'lost prototype' in the first place! In fact I'm sure I received one of those chain emails that said someone somewhere had proof.
So is this also just a marketing ploy by Apple?
I'll wait for a few more forum posts (well only ones that I agree with) before I make up my mind.
(BTW, I'm going for +1, Funny, not so much -1, Troll)
When they posted the Apple Engineer's name and screen shots of his facebook page complete with picture I lost all sympathy for those bastards. Maybe a year in pound me in the ass prison is bad but afterwards he will go on a damn book tour like some kind of hippie hero. Meanwhile Gray Powell's life will still be ruined.
Taking an item that was left somewhere is stealing. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" doesn't apply in the real world. Most people/companies won't press charges if you give it back, but they can. This is especially true if you do anything other than seeking to return it to its proper owner. For example, something like taking the item apart and posting pictures of it while admitting that you know it's stolen property.
wtf "stolen"? The guy CALLED apple. Why bend reality and common sense to fit in the Apple-approved narrative?
The phone was lost, not stolen and as such, no laws that prohibit the purchase of known stolen property will not apply.
Wrong.
This ain't rocket surgery.
It's only a trade secret violation if Apple communicated the information in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence. Leaving a phone on a bar stool does not count.
Furthermore, since Apple didn't have GPS tracking on the device, didn't lock the device, didn't provide a return address/phone number, didn't respond to phone calls, and otherwise didn't try to get the prototype back, they took less care with their prototype than many people take with their regular phones. Since Apple didn't take reasonable precautions to protect their information, they probably lose their trade secret even if the phone was obtained illegally.
There are actually quite a few stories on Gizmodo about this entire chain of events and I would invite you to read them. The person who found the phone tried to return it to Apple. Twice. And was rebuffed both times. Then he gave it to Gizmodo in exchange for the bounty and the story was published. Apple asked for it back and Gizmodo promtly returned it.
Where is the crime? If anything this is going to come squarely back on Apple for filing a false police report. On the civil side, Gizmodo is not going to have any difficulty in finding good, pro bono legal representation to make Apple hurt as well.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
We know for a fact that Gizmodo successfully returned it to Apple. The police probably would have gotten it back to them, but they might not have.
That he was compensated is irrelevant. He turned it over to a respectable publication with the means and motivation to get Apple's attention. That's all that is required of him.
You're being disingenuous as you know perfectly well that I'm suggesting no such thing. If I had to guess, I'd assume that you've made this an open and shut case because you've got a personal attachment to Apple that has enabled you to feel "victimized" by extension. But whatever the reason is, you're definitely oversimplifying things.
In reality, its hardly black and white. The situation is ethically on shaky grounds and legally murky ones. I'm hardly suggesting that everything is fine, just that it's not nearly as easy to sort out as you seem to think.
You're saying that because you come from a crime ridden city, you have trouble telling right from wrong. Legal from illegal. OK, I accept
Seriously dude, comments like these, conflating serious crime with this POS "pitchforks! thief!" story, and using your ad-hominen attack, are pretty sick. You just put in the same category people that are extremely violent and people who *actually called* Apple, who screwed things once again when they said they didn't care and gave his call a ticket number. This mentality is nothing short of a disgrace, but hey, if Steve Jobs says "thief!", who I am to say anything?
Hello Gents.
Selling or giving national secrets,secrets APTA reports, and other documents which are confidential and prive to WikiLeaks is illegal as well? Would you defend Wikilieaks from their computers been seized? Last time I checked Wikileaks, just like Gizmodo, doesn't have a newspaper published. Whats the difference?
Wikileaks KNOWS that all information THEY GET could be STOLEN or LEAKED ILLEGALLY or SECRET - should we also throw them in jail?
Thank you.
I doubt many people will view the original taker as innocent considering he didn't give it to the bar, didn't call the bar later, didn't leave it with the police, and TRIED TO RETURN IT TO THE OWNER TWICE!!! then instead sold it to someone for $5000.
Fixed that for you, see, that's the important bit on intent.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Yes, but you're one of the biggest fucking idiots ever to profess to be a journalist. That may also have been a factor.