261–270 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My memory could be off but wasn't it the guy who found the device and sold it to Apple that supposedly made the effort to return it?
> sold it to Apple Did you mean Gizmodo? Or am I completely out of the loop on this one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
37prime's argument is that this guy is lying to protect himself. But personally, I doubt the story is false. A drunk guy forgetting his phone is something that happens every day.
Since 37prime doesn't have any evidence to prove the finder was lying about repeatedly attempting to return the phone to Apple, I'd like to assume he's not. Lest, you know, someone make a similar accusation about either: - me - you - 37prime sometime in the future. This is one of the basis' upon which society works.
The fact is that the finder of the iPhone Prototype "sold" the property that never belonged to him to Gizmodo.
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.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-i... That page has a link to the District Court ruling in Boucher .
The sticking point for this one, though, is that customs already saw the child porn. After seeing that, they lost the key, and wants Boucher to provide them with one. That's a little different than "we think you might possibly have something on this computer", which is still untested. Also, they appealed. Considering child porn gets you more time than homicide these days, I would wait until the case if over before de…
The fifth amendment applies to words you say, not evidence. The "pass phrase" is access to the evidence, not testimony against yourself. It's a losing battle anyways, a judge demands you turn over the passphrase or unlock the data and throws you in jail until you do. You could attempt to take it to the supreme court or something, but you're in jail during that process. Likewise, you could try to give them the wrong key with truecrypt or something but that assumes that they are idiots. If you find yourself in court in this situation, you've already lost, you're almost certainly going to spend time in jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not remove the ability of law enforcement to serve a search warrant and carry your computers out the door, nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords. What it does do in create an incentive for anyone who does serve a search warrant upon you to look very, very closely at the contents of the drive once you do provide the password -- if you thought the…
nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords It's true, encryption doesn't remove this ability. The reality is that the Constitution never provides this ability in the first place, and specifically prevents the government from passing any law that would provide this ability. Refusing to testify against yourself (without a grant of immunity, anyway) is not a cr…
"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists." I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most oth…
Interesting. What about if Gawker has a house style guide, pays a comprable word rate, requests particular markup in copy for boxouts or artwork, docks pay for late copy, and asks you kindly not to be too aggressive about the big advertisers?
This explains mostly how if we left a cellphone in a bar, why we could not get the police to even take a report, let alone raid the house of the person who bought it from someone who found it, but Apple can.