201–210 of 306 posts
Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the ad views are due to being served with a search warrant, which is public information (or at least something they are allowed to disclose).
And thus, making money out of a legal problem they created for their own employee. So we can add fraud to the potential charges, which requires a material misrepresentation of fact (his potential personal criminal liability), made with scienter (a reckless disregard for the truth), justifiably relied upon (by an employee listening to the company's self-identified legal representative, Gaby Derbyshire, who is not qual…
Hah, deal. If you run for District Attorney, I will vote for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the only way we know that to have happened is via Gizmodo's account of what the guy who sold it to them said. I'm not saying he didn't, but we've hardly gotten irrefutable proof that it actually happened. It is, after all, in the guy's interest to make himself look like he was trying to return it.
Agreed. If he's lying about trying to return it, I hope that's revealed and he's punished. In the meantime, I won't condemn him without evidence. I hope anyone else wouldn't either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?
How do trade secrets even enter into this? They're planning on selling these phones all over the world. How could just possession of one be regarded as violating trade secrets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why didn't he do something reasonable, like turn it into the bartender or the police?
Calling the owner (in the company sense) is better than handing a device in to some dodgy bartender. If I lost an item belonging to my current employer, we would both certainly prefer that. I don't know much about east coast US police but the NY ones certainly don't give a shit about stuff left in public places by drunk people.
(EDIT: Put another way: according to the original story, the finder claimed to think there was nothing special about the iPhone at that time. If you're at a decent bar in the middle of Silicon Valley, do you really think it's that sketchy to turn an iPhone 3G into the bartender or management?)
Therfore giving you legal immunity regardless of the content that you are tweeting?
Illegal drug use, felony activities etc? Or blind ignorance of common ethics and civil code?
Would be an interesting outcome and an explosion of online journalisim if this proves to be the case... Don't you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, d…
They bought stolen goods, period. Sorry, at which point did the theft occur?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a subtle distinction to be made here between providing the key and providing access. Courts have ruled that the Constitution permits the government to compel you to provide access to the relevant information (e.g. to open the safe). But you don't have to give the government the combination. Just open the safe for them, and you can keep the combination to yourself. Anyway, that doesn't really change the basic…
Citation? (And I'm not asking to be snarky. I need more information before I decide to run for public office and change the law :)
That page has a link to the District Court ruling in Boucher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, d…
They bought stolen goods, period. Sorry, at which point did the theft occur?
Instead, he sold it for a profit to a company (Gizmodo) who believed that it was real. Misappropriation = theft.