All else aside, calling the person who turned the phone over to Gizmodo a thief might amount to slander, so Craig should be careful. This would be something for a court to decide: e.g. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/6/45-6-302.htm . Note "permanently".
An apology...
121–130 of 194 posts
Re: An apology...
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason the frontpage has the stories it does is because they're the ones users have voted for. If you want different stories, the solution starts with you: try voting for some. You haven't voted on any of the stories currently on the frontpage.
> You haven't voted on any of the stories currently on the frontpage. You do realize you're effective saying here that you monitor the personal voting record of users, and that you're willing to disclose that record without their permission? Also, his whole point was that he didn't vote for those stories. There may be others that he did vote for but that didn't make it to the front page because of all the apple drama…
There's a big difference between 'monitoring' the personal voting record of users and being able to look it up in the server logs to back up a claim. I doubt that pg would carelessly disclose the voting records of users without their permission (or even with it).
Re: An apology...
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeez, talk about the pot and the kettle. From a five second skim, the harm minimisation part seems pretty appropriate: Harm limitation principle ...This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of…
Show compassion does not mean omit facts. In fact, the article you quote says just the opposite. Beyond that this is not a tragedy. This is someone dealing with the consequences of their actions. Finally publishing photos off someone's social networking site is not invading their privacy. Again I point out that you didn't read the whole article you quoted. You zeroed in on the points that you think support your argum…
I think we've already established your level of reading comprehension, so I won't argue any of your points, except to say that publishing photos from someone's stolen iphone is absolutely an invasion of privacy, and how you can think otherwise beggars belief.
Re: An apology...
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You haven't voted on any of the stories currently on the frontpage. You do realize you're effective saying here that you monitor the personal voting record of users, and that you're willing to disclose that record without their permission? Also, his whole point was that he didn't vote for those stories. There may be others that he did vote for but that didn't make it to the front page because of all the apple drama…
There's a big difference between 'monitoring' the personal voting record of users and being able to look it up in the server logs to back up a claim. I doubt that pg would carelessly disclose the voting records of users without their permission (or even with it).
Actually I think it would be fascinating to view the voting records of everybody. Maybe in a log file and then numerous people could analyse the data. I'm sure some interesting patterns would emerge. Nice to go over it in 5 or 10 years time when some of the factual disagreements have been settled.
Re: An apology...
#125if gizmodo had not outed him, it could have been successfully sued for theft. Apple considers the phone stolen - an excuse given by powell to obviously save his ass - and had giz not explained the events as to how they got the phone - they would have got screwed. So yeah, everyone makes mistakes - but you've got to learn from them :)
In the state of CA, you're breaking the law if you don't turn found property into the police.
You're also breaking the law in every state if you purchase or otherwise receive stolen goods.
You can't get around the law by smearing somebody on your blog.
Re: An apology...
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's fair. What Gizmodo did would violate the ethics policy of any serious news gathering organization. I don't consider them press.
Cable/TV News fairly regularly pay subjects for stories.
Most TV news programs are also not serious journalism organizations, unfortunately. Also worth noting that when they do checkbook journalism, they're usually quite sneak about it. For example, paying someone under the pretense of buying rights to their photographs or paying their travel expenses. That's because even they know it's wrong to pay sources/subjects outright.
Re: An apology...
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, you like accidentally buying stuff that's about to be replaced with a better model?
No, but he likes watching the internet explode with speculation that the new iphone will cure cancer and world hunger, at the same time.
Speaking of speculation, I've heard some that this was a planned move by Apple to overshadow the HTC launch.
Re: An apology...
#128I will celebrate the day when HN front-page is not filled with Apple drama and gossip.
This teapot just happens to be the right size, in the right place, for these tempests.
Re: An apology...
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I hate to defend Gawker I don't think you can blame them for the negative impact on his career. Say what you will he is guilty of what they claim he did. I would hope future employers would be willing to look past it and realize it was an innocent mistake but they have a right to know. In the end this incident is relevant to how much you trust him with prototypes in the future. Beyond that Gawker is a news…
Bullshit. There's a big difference between making a mistake, and having that mistake sprayed across the internet for all to see.
There's a big difference between making a mistake, and having that mistake sprayed across the internet for all to see.
Less and less difference. This is an outlier at the moment, but having your entire life, mistakes and all, laid out for anyone to view... that's just going to be normal.
Re: An apology...
#130They very possibly did the guy a favor exposing his identity not only to insulate him from hasher retribution but also as pretty clear evidence it was an innocent mistake. No one would leave their identity on the device if they had personally conspired to sell it on the black market. I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the device was being field tested Apple was accepting the risk of theft/loss. If it had been…
pretty clear evidence it was an innocent mistake.
This is an important point.