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."
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.
They didn't steal it.
No, but they knew it was stolen. And they bought it anyway.
and you care so little, you'll go out of your way to make sure we all know how little you care.
They bought it for $10,000 after the "seller" explained to them he thought it was a lost prototype iPhone. Both parties even knew who owned it from the phone's info; selling/buying someone else's property seems like dealing in stolen property to me. And then to make it worse, they disassembled it and broke it while trying to put it back together.
If they didn't think it was really a lost prototype from Apple, why would they have done any of those things? Intent is an important consideration in legal matters like this, and their actions clearly showed their intent...
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...
Depending on how they couched the previous press releases, they may have contended that they paid $10,000 for the rights to a story about the new iPhone, and the "finder" gave them the hardware to prove that his story about the new iPhone details was real.
...so the defense would be: "No, sir, we didn't buy this phone we knew to be stolen; we rented it in order to profit by dismantling it and putting photos of it in our website. (And yeah, sorry for breaking it!)" Yeah, that's gonna work great.
I don't understand why the DA isn't going after them.
Are you adequate?
"Bringing down the police like they're personal security guards"? What are you smoking?!
Apple told the police that one of their prototypes was stolen, and had a pretty good idea who had it, since they posted about it on the internet, with self incrimination that they purchased stolen property (however you slice it, the law in California is very specific about what you can do with something you "find" - you cannot sell it right away, you have to register it as a lost item with the local sheriff's office, and if it goes unclaimed, then you can sell it).
This was not "personal security" from Apple, it was *the bread and butter day job of the police*. You just don't like it because someone who was not Apple was the bad guy in the whole palaver.
This issue has been extremely exaggerated.
The post you replied to referred to it as a 'pesky little issue', nothing more, hell even Apple admitted it was a an issue and issued a fix. Yes it has been exaggerated, but certainly not in the context of the post you replied to.
But Slashdot is so extremely out of touch with reality, simply pointing out two very obvious fundamental flaws with jhoegl's post gets modded "Troll" simply because it isn't "rah-rah, let's hate Apple!"
But there is no flaw with his post, he said it was a 'pesky little issue', Apple even agrees with that, they issued bumpers as a fix. You would be absolutely 100% correct if had have been making out as if it was a major problem because that is completely untrue, but he didn't, on the contrary he trivialised it about as much as he could.
They bought it for $10,000 after the "seller" explained to them he thought it was a lost prototype iPhone. Both parties even knew who owned it from the phone's info; selling/buying someone else's property seems like dealing in stolen property to me.
Before the seller sold it to Gizmodo, he called Apple and explained he had one of their prototype phones. He did this multiple times. At first they told him that could not be the case, then they took his information and just never got back to him.
At that point, it's abandoned property. Once he sold it, Gizmodo also attempted to contact Apple, explaining that all they needed to do is to acknowledge that the phone was indeed theirs (which would be great for them, because it would confirm it was a legit prototype). Perhaps because Apple didn't want to give them that confirmation, Apple initially refuse to acknowledge the phone was theirs. So, after Apple repeatedly claimed that the phone was not theirs, and after they refused to take it back despite many offers, they show up with the police on a raid and grab the phone.
Basically, you can't blame either Gizmodo or they guy they bought the phone from. The Apple employee was careless and Apple the company literally abandoned the phone before deciding that actually, they did want it back. Which would have been fine if they asked for it, but that's not what they did.
I like the part where you tell us what they