Slashdot Mirror
Gizmodo Off the Hook In iPhone 4 Investigation
An anonymous reader writes "When Gizmodo ran photos of Apple's iPhone 4 months before Apple even officially acknowledged it existed, the blogosphere exploded with excitement. But when details leaked explaining how Gizmodo came to find itself in possession of a pre-release iPhone 4, that excitement quickly turned into indignation, and for some, anger. Now, Gimzodo and Gizmodo editor Jason Chen have been let off the hook by the San Mateo DA's office."
They didn't steal it.
They openly acknowledged how they got it.
They stated, simply, that if it did belong to Apple, which was not a 100% certainty but was likely, that all Apple had to do was to ask for it back through proper channels.
Instead, we saw what happened. I would rather a judge have found for them and dismissed with prejudice, but at least it appears to be working out.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There are certain areas of major Californian cities like LA and Oakland where real crimes happen on a daily basis. These places are rife with gangs who partake in drug trafficking, prostitution, violence, theft, vandalism, and just plain out thuggery. This activity is what the police forces and courts should be investigating and punishing.
Aside from a relatively small number of trust fund babies, most real people don't give a fuck about Apple, or whatever their next device will be, or whenever this information is leaked prematurely.
and you care so little, you'll go out of your way to make sure we all know how little you care.
The police got what they wanted from Jason Chen and Gizmodo: their source. And now people know that, if they want to leak information to the press, they might want to go with a more reputable news outlet that knows how to secure their notes and would sooner go to jail than reveal their sources.
I take it that if you left something - a nearly one of a kind item - in a bar, someone found it and sold it to someone else who had 100% knowledge of both where the item was found and that it was not the property of the seller....you'd be ok with that?
Cool -- where do you live? Lets go out for a drink! I'll buy!
investigating real crimes poses real risks. doing so could involve injury or death. busting techies... is a substantially less risky endeavor. choices choices...
Not to mention this egregious editorial. Wherein, among other things, they claim they can't be "biased journalists" because they aren't really journalists. That's odd, I could have sworn they were whistling a different tune when the cops were breaking down their doors...
See the problem with labels is this. Police with a warrant seizing evidence from a person you may not like = police doing their duty. Police with a warrant seizing evidence from a person you like = omgz RAID. It's the same thing. In this case Gizmodo let the whole world know they had the phone and they acquired from someone they knew didn't own it. In most places, police label that as receiving stolen property.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yeah, nobody gives a fuck about one of the most valuable companies in the world.
Hey, don't forget schadenfreude.
Sure, if the person who bought it promptly turned around and offered to return it to me at no charge!
So, knowingly purchasing/receiving stolen product is now legal now? Fence you way to legal riches ($$$) in sunny San Mateo!!!!
That's right. Nobody gives a fuck if there's no harm to the company that can actually be proven in court. Who cares how much the company is worth? That's just a specious argument.
We do care about one of the most valuable companies in the world using cash and lawsuits to censor information that causes no harm, however.
How many people deliberately went down to their local future shop and bought Windows.
I did; XP and 7 worked quite well for me.
How many people deliberately went to their mobile carrier and bought the iPhone?
I did that too, but not an iPhone 4. I'm quite happy with my 3G and I'm in no rush to get a newer model.
People get Windows on accident. People get iPhones on purpose.
One doesn't "accidentally" buy stuff.
Your parent commenter remains correct.
The mods disagree apparently, but what the hell do they know, eh? It's not like there's been much in the way of logical arguments so far.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Ok, for the sake of argument, let's leave aside the whole angle where they revealed confidential information about Apple's business, that can be used by competitors to unfair advantage. Let's assume there is no harm in that.
They deprived Apple of some of its property for three weeks, during which they disassembled and broke it. How is that not harm?
Are you adequate?
The thing that really pissed me off about the iPhone 4 shit was not that they bought the prototype. They're sleazy, and would be somewhat expected to do such things. No, what really got me is that they published the details and Facebook page of the poor guy who lost the phone. Right there was when they lost any and all credibility to me, and lost any possible sympathy for having Apple come after them.
These places are rife with gangs who partake in drug trafficking, prostitution, violence, theft, vandalism, and just plain out thuggery.
Theft? Like taking someone's phone from a bar? Thuggery? Like selling that same phone to a bunch of scumbags?
Yeah, you can't show that there was no harm. However, it can be very readily proven that Gizmodo took part in the buying and selling of stolen property.
Taking a phone from a bar is called Theft. Selling that phone is Selling Stolen Property.
No charge my ass. You know damn well there was a charge, it just happened to not be in money.
And what about the part where they broke it?
I like how prosecuting theft and the selling of stolen property is "abusive" these days.
No, he's saying that few people specifically choose Windows, they choose a "computer". Windows is just what comes with a "computer". Few people who buy PCs buy it specifically for Windows.
Most people don't engage in the stupid platform wars that nerds do. They just really don't give a shit, just like they don't care which FPGA their TV set uses.
I still don't visit their site if I can help it. Guilty or not, they're still scumbags. Everyone still remember that they released the
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
But here's a tweet of mine on the subject from a few months ago:
"I think Apple should FedEx Jason Chen the yet to be released iPhone 5 just to screw with him."
https://twitter.com/#!/JustinFreid/status/78269879458865152
Hey, how's it going?
Or the part where they tried to extort them before giving it back ... and 3 weeks later is not 'turned around and offered to return it to me'. Especially when its AFTER the cops have kicked your door in.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Is an extra 100,000 page views next week worth the millions of page views they are going to lose from being banned from Apple events for the rest of their existence?
Steve jobs has a loooong memory; he won't forget this any time soon.
Actually, people who knew Gizmodo knew they should be banned from ANY EVENT EVER after the whole TV-B-Gone event where they acted like 13 year old boys and thought they were bad ass because they could turn off a bunch of monitors/TVs at a conference ... where the monitors didn't have any special security features since it was a given that the conference was for adults ... not 13 year old boys pretending their blog made them journalists (which they also claim they aren't depending on what you're accusing them of).
What they accomplished by fucking over Apple in this way is that they will now likely not be invited to ANY event by ANY tech company. MS and Google aren't going to want them either, they certainly don't NEED Gizmodo, but I think the other way is not the case.
No one wants a bunch of douche bags like the Gizmodo morons at their event, they are just obnoxious little fucks the world would be better off without.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Even though when asked, the owner of the bar said he had received two calls a day from the guy who lost it and none from the gizmodo people.
There's a simple explanation for both of these seeming inconsistencies.
The gizmodo editors are liars. They bought stolen property with no intention of returning it and then when the realized they could actually be convicted of a crime they just tried to lie their way out of it.
Common criminals. Not worth your attention and not worth the "but we're journalists" crap.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It's not. Go see one of them medical marijuana doctors and get diagnosed with glaucoma or soft tissue damage and get your license.
cat
No, he's saying that few people specifically choose Windows, they choose a "computer". Windows is just what comes with a "computer". Few people who buy PCs buy it specifically for Windows.
Most people don't engage in the stupid platform wars that nerds do. They just really don't give a shit, just like they don't care which FPGA their TV set uses.
Few people specifically choose gasoline engines when the choose a "car". Gasoline engines are just what comes with a "car". Few people who buy cars buy them specifically for gasoline engines. Most people don't engage in the stupid drive wars that hipsters do. They just really don't give a shit, just like they don't care which FPGA their TV set uses.
See what I did there?
Dismissing Windows or gasoline engines as "not specifically requested" does not work. Just because an item is not specifically requested, doesn't mean it is not commonly desired. Most prefer gasoline / Windows to diesel / Linux (too much hassle), hybrids / Macs (too much money and the only real benefit is your image), pure electrics / Unix (impractical, backwards for the environment), or solar cars / Whatever Google's trotting out (permanent beta).
"the only real benefit is your image" . . Yeah, I see what you did there. You said something congenitally stupid, but it was obviously based on ignorance so it's at least excusable..
"There are more serious crimes than this one, so we should ignore this one altogether." Classic bullshit argument.
Well in that case, I think we can all agree that the Gizmodo staff should stop breaking California law so the police and DA's office can get back to prosecuting violent crimes.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
It's still "real crime" which you mentioned above. But because it happened to people you don't like, then all of a sudden the cops should have "more important" things to do.
They knew the phone did not belong to the person selling it to them and they paid money for it. It doesn't matter what their intent was - they could be the most altruistic people ever to live, but paying money for property you know to be stolen/not owned by the person selling it to you: illegal.
You're misunderstanding some fundamental elements of criminal law. With a few exceptions, there are two elements that are necessary for any crime: an actus reus (a.k.a. external element, physical element, objective element, guilty act) and mens rea (a.k.a. fault element, subjective element, guilty mind). The first is the forbidden act; the second is a mental state that makes somebody criminally culpable for performing that act. Correspondingly, there are two ways of defending against a criminal accusation: "I didn't do the requisite act" and "assuming I did the act, my state of mind at the time excuses me from fault."
The problem with your statement that I quote is that you're basically saying that proving the actus reus is sufficient for guilt. This is not the case; it is necessary to prove both that and the mens rea, and there are such situations. So for example, if an altruistic person knowingly buys some stolen property and promptly returns it to its owner, they have performed the actus reus but without the mens rea, and thus committed no crime.
Now, I think we can agree that Gizmodo's actions have both elements. They have admitted to paying for the phone, and their actions demonstrate that they believed it belonged to Apple. Their intention in acquiring the phone, as demonstrated also by their actions, was to profit at the cost of depriving Apple of its property for some length of time.
Are you adequate?