They worked fairly well. An iPod Touch would be cool, but you'd have to keep the Skype (or whatever VOIP app) up all the time. (Until they are able to possibly change it for the new iOS4.)
Although it was in the legal field. The best advice I can give is to find a list of journals that publish content like yours. Then, read over some of the research papers. It will give you an idea of the kind of style they look for. (For example, what kind of citation methods do they use. Do they allow diagrams and charts and, if so, how must they be submitted. For that matter, what kind of submissions are allowed?)
A good resource for legal writing is Academic Legal Writing by Eugene Volokh. Some of the principles can apply to any area of academic writing. As for math/science research papers, there may be similar types of "guides."
You may want to check out Open Journal System's list of OJS journals. You can learn more here: http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs
This system allows for journals to accept submissions online. One of these journals might publish you.
Good luck with it. Sounds like an interesting subject. Also, see if you can contact academics at a local research University. They may have some suggestions as well.
To go even further, citizens have a number of rights not guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, the right to privacy against other private individuals is not guaranteed by the constitution. Rather, it is a right that developed in the common law.
The Constitution guarantees some rights in the Constitution. Most of those guarantees are based upon a limit of government power.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean other rights do not exist. It just means the government may abridge those rights more readily than it can abridge Constitutionally-enumerated rights.
Miranda was the Supreme Court's reaction to police using highly coercive techniques to compel questionable confessions from suspects.
It's actually a consolidated case. The other cases heard under Miranda were: Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart.
So, while the police in Miranda didn't use excessive coercion to elicit a confession, the ruling in Miranda came about because of police not knowing the law and continually breaking it. The Supreme Court created a bright-line, prophylactic rule to essentially coerce police into behavior less likely to lead to Constitutional violations.
The risk / reward balance was readjusted so excessive coercion might get you that confession, but it will also see the suspect walking free. Therefore, police have been forced to do more investigation to ensure "beyond a reasonable doubt" will be answered with sound evidence, not questionably coerced confessions.
There are no Miranda "rights". There are Miranda Warnings, which advise you about your Constitutional Rights to not self incriminate. The only rights we have are listed in the Bill of Rights.
While a myopic view of legal rights based on a highly technical reading, you're still wrong.
Some context helps sort it out. "Miranda rights" is a short-hand way of referencing those Constitutional rights invoked in the Miranda warning. In other words, the "Miranda rights" are the rights listed in the Miranda warning.
The label "Miranda rights" is a just that -- a label -- and not indicative of the underlying bases of these rights.
And to be more accurate, Miranda rights list not only the Constitutional right against self-incrimination, but also the Constitutional right to an attorney.
However, Miranda was a consolidated case. (More than one case, Miranda is just the one people remember.) Further, the court made it clear the ruling in Miranda was the result of numerous other cases heard by the courts that sought to reign in the use of "the third degree" (physically coercive, abusive methods).
So while the police in Miranda did their job, the decision by the Supreme Court was in reaction to numerous cases where the police did not do their job and coerced confessions from suspects.
Which goes back to the general idea of this story -- police are wont to abuse their power unless that power is checked by the judiciary or the public.
I agree. The hoopla over the recent Miranda-related decision is a tempest in a tea cup.
It should be pointed out that the way it works is that once you assert your right to silence -- "I won't talk to you coppers!" -- or ask for an attorney, the interrogation is supposed to stop. Those circumstances didn't exist here.
Thanks! And I swear I'm not posting this to get the last word. Seriously.
And I sympathize on the bankruptcy. I dabbled in that as a legal assistant and almost ended up having to take a job as a bankruptcy associate at a firm. No thanks.
Take care, dude! I'm sure I'll see you wandering more/. comments in the future.
Ha ha! Well, I think the real question is which of us will stop playing our childish game of one-upmanship first.
On the plus side, I do think our argument provided/. comment readers a bit more information on the legal process.
I'm glad I could make you laugh. Me, I'm just taking a break from really, really, really boring legal research on tax law. Which, no, is not my specialty. Which is probably why I find it really, really, really boring.
So, tag, you're it! And have fun.
P.S. I actually just found my @hole attorney card. Which is good. Now I don't have to pay extra for a photo version of the @hole attorney card.
Apple doesn't handle this stuff well. I love their products, but hate their PR.
Even so, the way Gizmodo handled this is tragic. They're acting similar to their parent company, Gawker, when it is chasing down and stalking celebrities. Now they want to hide behind a journalism shield when, this whole time, they didn't act like journalists.
I don't throw around legal terms as if I know what they mean. I do know what they mean.
Unlike you, I'm not a paralegal. I'm a lawyer. Not a California lawyer, but a lawyer in another state.
You may think you know what it means, but all you're doing is showing why paralegals aren't attorneys.
I'm sorry you're embarrassed for being shown up so thoroughly that you have to sling insults around. But, let me break it down for your paralegal mind:
The "bold" section of what you cite places a reasonableness standard on the finder. The question is whether a reasonable person in the finder's situation would have acted as the finder did in trying to find the owner and give him back his property.
You may remember from your expansive legal background that this is the so-called "reasonable person" standard.
The question is whether the evidence at hand supports a finding by the jury that the finder did or did not act reasonably in trying to contact the owner. The burden will likely be beyond a reasonable doubt.
You, in your paralegal mind, seem to think this is a simple case of matching facts to elements. It is not.
Each fact will carry its own weight for each juror. Clearly, if you were a juror, you would put a lot of weight on the finder's attempt to contact Apple. To you, that satisfies the statutory requirement.
Obviously, others disagree with you. Others believe he should have called the bar. Or given it to the bar staff. Or given it to the police.
What is clear is that, based on the sparse facts we have, there is sufficient evidence on both sides to support the two possible conclusions: (1) he acted reasonably, (2) he acted unreasonably.
Which is why a potential charge is likely to be sustained. To translate for your paralegal mind: they could take this to a jury to decide.
So, while this guy has arguments that he did act reasonably, a prosecutor also has arguments that he did not act reasonably.
I hope this helps you understand WTF you're talking about, since obviously you didn't before.
No, it isn't important for intent. You can't intentionally do something (take a phone) and then undue that intent by trying to give it back.
"But officer, clearly I don't have criminal intent. Sure, I pulled that trigger, but after he was shot I tried really, really hard to keep him from dying!"
What those actions do is go towards his purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent mental state. And even in that case, it's likely not enough.
You keep confusing mental state with intent. It's something first year law students do all the time. Doesn't mean it's not an important distinction.
You took a criminal justice class on crime and think you understand criminal law?
You are correct. Generally crimes require intent. Even so, some crimes are strict liability crimes and require no intent. These are typically citation crimes (like speeding, or parking tickets).
Here, this crime requires intent. What you don't understand is what meets this intent requirement.
For example, what are the required elements of the crime of theft? Taking the property of another person without permission or consent.
But we still need intent. Adding intent might leave us with something like this: Knowingly taking the property of another person without permission or consent.
But then, there are also different levels of intent. For example, perhaps we don't want the standard for intent to be knowingly. Perhaps we want it to be purposefully. This is a stronger requirement: Not only did you need to know, but you had to do it with purpose. This is akin to premeditation.
Or, perhaps we want a lesser standard. Recklessly taking the property of another person without permission or consent. Or negligently taking it.
But all of this is academic and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So let me explain how intent might be found here.
A phone is sitting on a bar stool. It is not your phone. You know it is not your phone. You do not see the owner of the phone nearby. So, you take the phone.
The phone didn't fall into your pocket on its own. It wasn't there by accident. You intended to bend over and grasp the phone with your hand, carry it out of the bar, and back to your residence. You intended to do all of that.
So, there you go, your basic intent. It exists. Do me a favor -- if you get in trouble, call a lawyer and don't rely on your undergrad criminal justice course.
The real fun begins when they have to make the evidence of intent meet the standard for the specific crime. (The purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent spectrum.) 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 instead sold it to someone for $5000.
But, then again, maybe someone at Gawker thought they understood "intent" because they, too, had taken an undergrad criminal justice course.
After all, he gave it to the bar for its lost and found.
Oh, wait, he didn't. He just took it.
Oh, but he called the bar later to see if the guy had been looking for it!
Oh, wait, he didn't. He called two news outlets to see if they wanted to buy it.
Clearly Gizmodo's source stole the phone. Given the amount the phone is worth, this is likely a felony charge. Add in some possible industrial sabotage or other statutory crimes, the thief is in trouble if he is found out. Hope he spent that $5k on some tickets out of the country.
The question is whether Gizmodo can be considered on the hook. They had to knowingly receive stolen goods.
This is a difficult question to answer. There are a lot of inferences that must be made. A jury could probably go either way, but my gut tells me they'd get off.
Still, it is likely there is enough to get this to the jury. The calculus is do you want to put your trust in twelve people, or plea out?
And Gizmodo can't rely on the First Amendment. This isn't stalking a celebrity like Gawker's used to.
Cry me a river about bloggers as journalists. You want to be called a journalist? Fine. Have the nuts to go to jail to cover a source. Also, have the ethics to cover a story like this properly.
Being a journalist comes with duties and responsibilities. If you don't want to take on those burdens, then you can't hide behind the protections journalists receive.
Actually, someone recovering an abandoned or wrecked ship, container, etc does acquire salvage rights. Nevertheless, these do not extinguish the property rights of the original owner. The person recovering can, in effect, hold the property and demand payment for their efforts in recovering it. The amounts vary by jurisdiction. I.E. U.S. admiralty law, the international laws of the seas covered by various conventions, British and European maritime law, and more.
In some parts of the world (the Caribbean used to be popular) there have been captains who sought out distressed ships, lent aid, and demanded salvage rights. Sometimes the aid was never sought by the distressed ship. Then you get into all sorts of interesting laws about when do you gain the salvage right and when were you obligated to act to help rescue someone under the laws of the sea.
So, anyway, comparing this situation to maritime laws is like comparing apples to roast beef. It's not comparable. Maritime law is its own ancient and complicated beast. It operates as much on custom as it does on rules. In the law, some might call this "the law of the horse" or "sui generis law." In reality, it is as old and convoluted as actual property law. Which, trust me, is rather old and convoluted.
Gawker is run by little more than high school gossip hounds. What they're discovering are the boundaries of the First Amendment. It protects you when you stalk celebrities, but it doesn't protect you when you participate or induce theft. And this is just the first of their hopefully painful lessons.
By going after the engineer who lost it the way they did, they've opened themselves up to civil liability as well. Reporting about how much someone drunk on his birthday and his reactions to ambush phone calls when they are a celebrity is one thing, doing it when they are a regular Joe is another.
The First Amendment protects newsworthy stories, not malicious gossip and attacks. Such attacks open journalist-wannabes like the Gawker crowd to defamation and invasion of privacy liability.
The truly sad thing is that Gizmodo has competent and ethical writers. The problem is that they're owned by a company that makes money harassing and embarrassing celebrities, and they let their owners meddle when journalistic integrity would have held their hand.
After all, Engadget got the photos but not the police visit. There is a proper way to get the story, and an improper. Gawker's amateurs don't know the difference.
It is a crime in every state to receive stolen property. By not trying to find the phone's owner, or leaving it with the bar, the 'source' kept property that was not their own. At the very least this is trespass to chattels or conversion, at the worse this is misdemeanor (or felony in some states, based on the phone's value) theft.
So yes, in the U.S., non-legal shenanigans occurred.
Gizmodo may get off for this. A prosecutor would have to prove they knowingly received stolen goods. Then again, seriously? Anyone believe they didn't know the phone wasn't the guy's they bought it from?
Worst, though, is that by naming and shaming the poor guy who lost it Gizmodo is now liable for invasion of privacy and possibly some other statutory civil lawsuits.
Perhaps the Gawker folks should stick to harassing celebrities, where the First Amendment protects them, rather than Apple engineers.
And I reviewed her security protocols. She has a Mac and uses Firefox or Chrome exclusively. This leaves out attacks based on Microsoft security holes (un-updated Microsoft installations, etc).
She visits sites while still logged into Google. I wonder if there is some way to do that. The only other thing I can think is that she used her email address to create an account at a compromised or fake website and used that email account's password as the account password.
Nevertheless, I can confirm the unauthorized access was through the mobile interface. In fact, the access point was Portugal.
The only other thing I can think of is somehow her use of Google's software for accessing her email or syncing her calendar through her iPod Touch might have been compromised. Then again, she only connects to the network here. (Unless she left it roaming.)
On a side note, GMail, by default, does not require an SSL connection. I wonder if anyone who was hacked had their settings set to require that.
Anyway, the point is that Google's assertions that accounts are compromised is bogus. If my family member's account was compromised, it was because of an insecurity in Gmail. Either browsing while logged into Google, or by not requiring an SSL connection to access Gmail, I don't know -- but I feel confident the insecurity was not the typical social engineering or browser/chat hole.
As some have said above -- Gotta love the Cloud!
I think I'll keep predominantly to old-fashioned email. After all, Google went and picked a fight with the Chinese. Maybe it isn't state-sponsored hacking, but that doesn't mean it's not Chinese hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
They worked fairly well. An iPod Touch would be cool, but you'd have to keep the Skype (or whatever VOIP app) up all the time. (Until they are able to possibly change it for the new iOS4.)
Good luck with it.
Although it was in the legal field. The best advice I can give is to find a list of journals that publish content like yours. Then, read over some of the research papers. It will give you an idea of the kind of style they look for. (For example, what kind of citation methods do they use. Do they allow diagrams and charts and, if so, how must they be submitted. For that matter, what kind of submissions are allowed?)
A good resource for legal writing is Academic Legal Writing by Eugene Volokh. Some of the principles can apply to any area of academic writing. As for math/science research papers, there may be similar types of "guides."
You may want to check out Open Journal System's list of OJS journals. You can learn more here: http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs
This system allows for journals to accept submissions online. One of these journals might publish you.
Good luck with it. Sounds like an interesting subject. Also, see if you can contact academics at a local research University. They may have some suggestions as well.
This is generally a group of people who understand things, not people who just scream and rant and pitch a fit when they don't get their way.
Wait, what? I must be reading the wrong comments. (G)
To go even further, citizens have a number of rights not guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, the right to privacy against other private individuals is not guaranteed by the constitution. Rather, it is a right that developed in the common law.
The Constitution guarantees some rights in the Constitution. Most of those guarantees are based upon a limit of government power.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean other rights do not exist. It just means the government may abridge those rights more readily than it can abridge Constitutionally-enumerated rights.
Miranda was the Supreme Court's reaction to police using highly coercive techniques to compel questionable confessions from suspects.
It's actually a consolidated case. The other cases heard under Miranda were: Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart.
Wikipedia provides a reference: Miranda v. Arizona.
So, while the police in Miranda didn't use excessive coercion to elicit a confession, the ruling in Miranda came about because of police not knowing the law and continually breaking it. The Supreme Court created a bright-line, prophylactic rule to essentially coerce police into behavior less likely to lead to Constitutional violations.
The risk / reward balance was readjusted so excessive coercion might get you that confession, but it will also see the suspect walking free. Therefore, police have been forced to do more investigation to ensure "beyond a reasonable doubt" will be answered with sound evidence, not questionably coerced confessions.
Ah, do they? Or do evil people exist because of cops and laws? Oh the philosophy!
There are no Miranda "rights". There are Miranda Warnings, which advise you about your Constitutional Rights to not self incriminate. The only rights we have are listed in the Bill of Rights.
While a myopic view of legal rights based on a highly technical reading, you're still wrong.
Some context helps sort it out. "Miranda rights" is a short-hand way of referencing those Constitutional rights invoked in the Miranda warning. In other words, the "Miranda rights" are the rights listed in the Miranda warning.
The label "Miranda rights" is a just that -- a label -- and not indicative of the underlying bases of these rights.
And to be more accurate, Miranda rights list not only the Constitutional right against self-incrimination, but also the Constitutional right to an attorney.
You are correct.
However, Miranda was a consolidated case. (More than one case, Miranda is just the one people remember.) Further, the court made it clear the ruling in Miranda was the result of numerous other cases heard by the courts that sought to reign in the use of "the third degree" (physically coercive, abusive methods).
So while the police in Miranda did their job, the decision by the Supreme Court was in reaction to numerous cases where the police did not do their job and coerced confessions from suspects.
Which goes back to the general idea of this story -- police are wont to abuse their power unless that power is checked by the judiciary or the public.
I agree. The hoopla over the recent Miranda-related decision is a tempest in a tea cup.
It should be pointed out that the way it works is that once you assert your right to silence -- "I won't talk to you coppers!" -- or ask for an attorney, the interrogation is supposed to stop. Those circumstances didn't exist here.
And people complain about Miranda rights. Miranda rights exist because of abusive cops.
The University of Reading does not have the reputation of other universities in the U.K., and this is a good example of why.
This was a transmission between machine and machine. It is no different than a malware infection from a USB stick.
To quote the very first response: "Stupid. Just plain stupid."
Thanks! And I swear I'm not posting this to get the last word. Seriously.
And I sympathize on the bankruptcy. I dabbled in that as a legal assistant and almost ended up having to take a job as a bankruptcy associate at a firm. No thanks.
Take care, dude! I'm sure I'll see you wandering more /. comments in the future.
Ha ha! Well, I think the real question is which of us will stop playing our childish game of one-upmanship first.
On the plus side, I do think our argument provided /. comment readers a bit more information on the legal process.
I'm glad I could make you laugh. Me, I'm just taking a break from really, really, really boring legal research on tax law. Which, no, is not my specialty. Which is probably why I find it really, really, really boring.
So, tag, you're it! And have fun.
P.S. I actually just found my @hole attorney card. Which is good. Now I don't have to pay extra for a photo version of the @hole attorney card.
Says the paralegal who doesn't understand basic criminal law?
Don't feel too bad. Real lawyers have to go through three years of school to learn the law. I'm sure you'd understand it better if you did that, too.
I agree.
Apple doesn't handle this stuff well. I love their products, but hate their PR.
Even so, the way Gizmodo handled this is tragic. They're acting similar to their parent company, Gawker, when it is chasing down and stalking celebrities. Now they want to hide behind a journalism shield when, this whole time, they didn't act like journalists.
Compare with how Engadget handled this.
I don't throw around legal terms as if I know what they mean. I do know what they mean.
Unlike you, I'm not a paralegal. I'm a lawyer. Not a California lawyer, but a lawyer in another state.
You may think you know what it means, but all you're doing is showing why paralegals aren't attorneys.
I'm sorry you're embarrassed for being shown up so thoroughly that you have to sling insults around. But, let me break it down for your paralegal mind:
The "bold" section of what you cite places a reasonableness standard on the finder. The question is whether a reasonable person in the finder's situation would have acted as the finder did in trying to find the owner and give him back his property.
You may remember from your expansive legal background that this is the so-called "reasonable person" standard.
The question is whether the evidence at hand supports a finding by the jury that the finder did or did not act reasonably in trying to contact the owner. The burden will likely be beyond a reasonable doubt.
You, in your paralegal mind, seem to think this is a simple case of matching facts to elements. It is not.
Each fact will carry its own weight for each juror. Clearly, if you were a juror, you would put a lot of weight on the finder's attempt to contact Apple. To you, that satisfies the statutory requirement.
Obviously, others disagree with you. Others believe he should have called the bar. Or given it to the bar staff. Or given it to the police.
What is clear is that, based on the sparse facts we have, there is sufficient evidence on both sides to support the two possible conclusions: (1) he acted reasonably, (2) he acted unreasonably.
Which is why a potential charge is likely to be sustained. To translate for your paralegal mind: they could take this to a jury to decide.
So, while this guy has arguments that he did act reasonably, a prosecutor also has arguments that he did not act reasonably.
I hope this helps you understand WTF you're talking about, since obviously you didn't before.
No, it isn't important for intent. You can't intentionally do something (take a phone) and then undue that intent by trying to give it back.
"But officer, clearly I don't have criminal intent. Sure, I pulled that trigger, but after he was shot I tried really, really hard to keep him from dying!"
What those actions do is go towards his purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent mental state. And even in that case, it's likely not enough.
You keep confusing mental state with intent. It's something first year law students do all the time. Doesn't mean it's not an important distinction.
It doesn't.
Actually, eBay doesn't receive the property. In fact, they try to monitor for the sale of stolen property.
Just because they can't catch every single stolen item being sold doesn't mean the police catch none. Nor does it make it legal.
You took a criminal justice class on crime and think you understand criminal law?
You are correct. Generally crimes require intent. Even so, some crimes are strict liability crimes and require no intent. These are typically citation crimes (like speeding, or parking tickets).
Here, this crime requires intent. What you don't understand is what meets this intent requirement.
For example, what are the required elements of the crime of theft? Taking the property of another person without permission or consent.
But we still need intent. Adding intent might leave us with something like this: Knowingly taking the property of another person without permission or consent.
But then, there are also different levels of intent. For example, perhaps we don't want the standard for intent to be knowingly. Perhaps we want it to be purposefully. This is a stronger requirement: Not only did you need to know, but you had to do it with purpose. This is akin to premeditation.
Or, perhaps we want a lesser standard. Recklessly taking the property of another person without permission or consent. Or negligently taking it.
But all of this is academic and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So let me explain how intent might be found here.
A phone is sitting on a bar stool. It is not your phone. You know it is not your phone. You do not see the owner of the phone nearby. So, you take the phone.
The phone didn't fall into your pocket on its own. It wasn't there by accident. You intended to bend over and grasp the phone with your hand, carry it out of the bar, and back to your residence. You intended to do all of that.
So, there you go, your basic intent. It exists. Do me a favor -- if you get in trouble, call a lawyer and don't rely on your undergrad criminal justice course.
The real fun begins when they have to make the evidence of intent meet the standard for the specific crime. (The purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent spectrum.) 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 instead sold it to someone for $5000.
But, then again, maybe someone at Gawker thought they understood "intent" because they, too, had taken an undergrad criminal justice course.
Due diligence, absolutely!
After all, he gave it to the bar for its lost and found.
Oh, wait, he didn't. He just took it.
Oh, but he called the bar later to see if the guy had been looking for it!
Oh, wait, he didn't. He called two news outlets to see if they wanted to buy it.
Clearly Gizmodo's source stole the phone. Given the amount the phone is worth, this is likely a felony charge. Add in some possible industrial sabotage or other statutory crimes, the thief is in trouble if he is found out. Hope he spent that $5k on some tickets out of the country.
The question is whether Gizmodo can be considered on the hook. They had to knowingly receive stolen goods.
This is a difficult question to answer. There are a lot of inferences that must be made. A jury could probably go either way, but my gut tells me they'd get off.
Still, it is likely there is enough to get this to the jury. The calculus is do you want to put your trust in twelve people, or plea out?
And Gizmodo can't rely on the First Amendment. This isn't stalking a celebrity like Gawker's used to.
Cry me a river about bloggers as journalists. You want to be called a journalist? Fine. Have the nuts to go to jail to cover a source. Also, have the ethics to cover a story like this properly.
Being a journalist comes with duties and responsibilities. If you don't want to take on those burdens, then you can't hide behind the protections journalists receive.
Actually, someone recovering an abandoned or wrecked ship, container, etc does acquire salvage rights. Nevertheless, these do not extinguish the property rights of the original owner. The person recovering can, in effect, hold the property and demand payment for their efforts in recovering it. The amounts vary by jurisdiction. I.E. U.S. admiralty law, the international laws of the seas covered by various conventions, British and European maritime law, and more.
In some parts of the world (the Caribbean used to be popular) there have been captains who sought out distressed ships, lent aid, and demanded salvage rights. Sometimes the aid was never sought by the distressed ship. Then you get into all sorts of interesting laws about when do you gain the salvage right and when were you obligated to act to help rescue someone under the laws of the sea.
So, anyway, comparing this situation to maritime laws is like comparing apples to roast beef. It's not comparable. Maritime law is its own ancient and complicated beast. It operates as much on custom as it does on rules. In the law, some might call this "the law of the horse" or "sui generis law." In reality, it is as old and convoluted as actual property law. Which, trust me, is rather old and convoluted.
Gawker is run by little more than high school gossip hounds. What they're discovering are the boundaries of the First Amendment. It protects you when you stalk celebrities, but it doesn't protect you when you participate or induce theft. And this is just the first of their hopefully painful lessons.
By going after the engineer who lost it the way they did, they've opened themselves up to civil liability as well. Reporting about how much someone drunk on his birthday and his reactions to ambush phone calls when they are a celebrity is one thing, doing it when they are a regular Joe is another.
The First Amendment protects newsworthy stories, not malicious gossip and attacks. Such attacks open journalist-wannabes like the Gawker crowd to defamation and invasion of privacy liability.
The truly sad thing is that Gizmodo has competent and ethical writers. The problem is that they're owned by a company that makes money harassing and embarrassing celebrities, and they let their owners meddle when journalistic integrity would have held their hand.
After all, Engadget got the photos but not the police visit. There is a proper way to get the story, and an improper. Gawker's amateurs don't know the difference.
It is a crime in every state to receive stolen property. By not trying to find the phone's owner, or leaving it with the bar, the 'source' kept property that was not their own. At the very least this is trespass to chattels or conversion, at the worse this is misdemeanor (or felony in some states, based on the phone's value) theft.
So yes, in the U.S., non-legal shenanigans occurred.
Gizmodo may get off for this. A prosecutor would have to prove they knowingly received stolen goods. Then again, seriously? Anyone believe they didn't know the phone wasn't the guy's they bought it from?
Worst, though, is that by naming and shaming the poor guy who lost it Gizmodo is now liable for invasion of privacy and possibly some other statutory civil lawsuits.
Perhaps the Gawker folks should stick to harassing celebrities, where the First Amendment protects them, rather than Apple engineers.
And I reviewed her security protocols. She has a Mac and uses Firefox or Chrome exclusively. This leaves out attacks based on Microsoft security holes (un-updated Microsoft installations, etc).
She visits sites while still logged into Google. I wonder if there is some way to do that. The only other thing I can think is that she used her email address to create an account at a compromised or fake website and used that email account's password as the account password.
Nevertheless, I can confirm the unauthorized access was through the mobile interface. In fact, the access point was Portugal.
The only other thing I can think of is somehow her use of Google's software for accessing her email or syncing her calendar through her iPod Touch might have been compromised. Then again, she only connects to the network here. (Unless she left it roaming.)
On a side note, GMail, by default, does not require an SSL connection. I wonder if anyone who was hacked had their settings set to require that.
Anyway, the point is that Google's assertions that accounts are compromised is bogus. If my family member's account was compromised, it was because of an insecurity in Gmail. Either browsing while logged into Google, or by not requiring an SSL connection to access Gmail, I don't know -- but I feel confident the insecurity was not the typical social engineering or browser/chat hole.
As some have said above -- Gotta love the Cloud!
I think I'll keep predominantly to old-fashioned email. After all, Google went and picked a fight with the Chinese. Maybe it isn't state-sponsored hacking, but that doesn't mean it's not Chinese hacking.