121–130 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.
"he'd get a new job really quickly" You think? (recruiter reads resume) "Oh, yeah, you're the guy who lost the iPhone prototype! I can't wait to hire you!" :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)
I believe in the US you can still be legally compelled to give up the encryption key(s), and simply held in contempt (indefinitely?) until you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's: - a news organization - matters of public interest involved?
Are the specs of the 4th iPhone truly a matter of public interest? Interest != curiosity in this context. If a journalist has a source that says a state governor is selling senate appointments, that is in the public interest because the public has an interest (is a stakeholder) in clean government. If a journalist gets a stolen toddler toy that turns out to be covered in lead paint, the public has an interest in (is…
I personally don't agree with this, and you may not either, but that doesn't matter.
Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism? What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media? The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would d…
Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…
Alternatively, don't buy stolen property and then publicly announce that you've done so. Once you've committed a crime though, definitely be smart about asserting your civil rights, using encryption, etc. And even if you haven't committed a crime, assert your civil rights and use encryption. But probably the #1 thing you can do to not get harassed by police is to obey the law.
You can always decrypt your drive when asked. But you can't encrypt it after the police take your computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really know if this is a fact or just hearsay? I bet you don't.
The gent who found the phone said it. You can look up the quote easily online.
But personally, I doubt the story is false. A drunk guy forgetting his phone is something that happens every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine them being included in calculations of penal fines, while you're at it. If a conviction ensues the value of Gawker's increased traffic and ad revenue will surely be scrutinized to determine the extent of their economic benefit.
If I benefit from covering this, will I have to give the money back? What about the New York Times? What about Apple?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> chances of you having a search warrant issued on you is pretty low if you are not doing anything illegal. It's the definition of "illegal" that worries me.
Especially in the UK, where writing a book that criticizes pseudoscience is "illegal", as is publishing photographs of celebrities. I'm surprised there are any journalists left there at all.
(which isn't to say they are correct - just not related)