Silicon Valley Cops raid Gizmodo editors home

[loaba]

Was Gizmodo in the Wrong?

This guy covers many of the facts, but what I find interesting is that he never mentions quietly giving the phone back. Also, does no one return stolen items to the police anymore? And another thing, if the bar was so close to Apple Headquarters, why not return the thing in person?

I guess this just illustrates the difference between the newspapers of yesterday and the upstart blogs of today.

 

[CarlTR6]

Was Gizmodo in the Wrong?

This guy covers many of the facts, but what I find interesting is that he never mentions quietly giving the phone back. Also, does no one return stolen items to the police anymore? And another thing, if the bar was so close to Apple Headquarters, why not return the thing in person?

I guess this just illustrates the difference between the newspapers of yesterday and the upstart blogs of today.

I don't find the newspapers of yesterday any more credible, ethical, or honest than the bloggers of today.

 

[fseal]

Even if the gizmodo actions were a little dodgy, Apple's gestapo tactics in this situation are deplorable.

 

[Thorsen]

The gizmodo editor could have avoided the whole thing by paying the guy to let him take pictures of the device, but instead he purchased "stolen"/lost property.

He would have been within the law as a journalist at that point to protect his source.....

 

[jorpe]

Didn't the guy who found it make several attempts to give it back to Apple without any luck?

You mean by calling Apple Tech Support? 'Cause that's as far as he went. After that, he sold the thing to Gizmodo for $5000.00. Under CA law, he didn't do what was necessary to try and return the phone.

Gizmodo is trying to claim that you can't raid a Journalist's office. What do you do about one who buys stolen property?

Oh yeah - remember, Apple did get their phone back, in pieces.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have really any real knowledge of what the ins and outs of the law are in this case. That's not how it was said to have happened from what I read linked from engadget, but you could be right... I'm fairly biased against Apple.

 

[blackroseMD1]

OK...am I the only one who sees a major difference between "lost" and "stolen"? The guy went out to a bar, probably had a few drinks and then left this iPhone prototype at the bar. Honestly, I'm surprised the guy that found it went as far as calling Apple Tech Support.

Gizmodo didn't pay for a stolen phone...they paid for a found phone. The fact that Apple and Grey Powell called the DA's office to report the phone stolen makes it seem, to me, like Powell was trying to cover his butt with his bosses. Don't you remember the guy from Foxconn last year or the year before who lost an iPhone prototype and then was tortured into suicide by Foxconn? Grey had good reason to want to cover his butt.

Apple's mad because Gizmodo wrote a story about their secret product and, in their fury, have overreacted by trying to make a criminal case out of this. The really need to just STFU and enjoy the free publicity.

 

[smarteyeball]

I was responding to that Apple refused to acknowledge that the prototype was theirs. If you picked up my laptop after I'd left it somewhere and tried to hand it back to me, and I refused to accept it, I guess it would be yours then.

Fair point - I didn't take the 'refuse to accept it back' scenario into account.



Apple are missing a perfect marketing opportunity here. They could release several different 'models' at the same time. (same actual phone, different sticker)

► iLostit
► iFoundit
► iDontwantit
► iWantitback
►iCompoundandobfuscatethesituationbygivingmisleadingstatementsoverastupidfeckingphone

 

[blackroseMD1]

►iCompoundandobfuscatethesituationbygivingmisleadingstatementsoverastupidfeckingphone

That's the best name for an Apple product ever.