Opinions large and small, worth everything you pay for them.
They "bought" something that they knew was ill-gotten gains.He had no more right to "buy" that iPhone than he would to "buy" my credit cards, if I'd lost my wallet.Screw him. Just because Apple is a pack of humorless dicks doesn't condone theft.
Well, from my understanding the Apple guy lost it, and somebody found it; not exactly theft. Did Gizmodo push things? I'd say yes. Did this require/justify the raid? Don't think so.And there's the matter of the CA law that the judge who signed the warrant either didn't know or care about. Mess all the way 'round.
Firehand, go read the coverage before commenting.Apple employee lost it at the bar. Finder 'tried' to contact the owner, but removed it from the premises instead of leaving it with their lost and found.The finder then sold it to Gizmodo for $5000. Gizmodo bought what they had to know was stolen goods, why else shell out $5k for it?Apple has created this feeding frenzy for information about new products with their iron-clad secrecy. But that doesn't excuse criminal behavior while in search for a story. And the 1st amendment doesn't protect them when receiving stolen goods.
Tempest, teapot.It's more or less a "technological theft" task force. Apple's one of many companies involved with it.(Hey, Silicon Valley! Of course Apple has "links" to such a task force. It would be mind-boggling if they didn't.) DAs and judges decide on warrants and charges. It's not like REACT just Does Whatever It Wants Because Apple Says So.The gobsmackingly stupid thing here is Gizmodo trying to convince anyone they weren't knowingly receiving stolen goods.(I mean, they paid for it because it was an Apple prototype, and they knew damned well that nobody had legal authority to sell them an Apple prototype. They might try and tell the judge that they "didn't know", and he'll laugh in their faces. The only reason it was worth the 5 grand, as Liberty and Tam said, is that it was Apple's.)
(Oh, and as to CA law - the CA Shield Law protects "information" that journalists have from warrants - to prevent police from harassing them hoping to find easy evidence for cases and dampening journalistic inquiry.It does not, at least obviously, protect possession of stolen property, even if you write about it.[Think about the consequences if it did! You could buy a stolen car, write an article about it, and be protected from search and seizure...]And "Apple lost it so it's not theft"? Well, under CA law if you have any way to know who the owner is, you have to try to return it in good faith.They cannot possibly, as stated in previous comment, not known it was Apple's - that's the whole basis of their purchase.And calling Apple's front desk doesn't suffice, since "I found your secret prototype!" is going to be blown off as a crank call by the front office person.Drive over to 1 Infinite Loop and drop it off. That's what you should do, assuming you're stupid enough to buy stolen property in the first place.Negative sympathy. They thought the law didn't apply to them because they write a blog for Gawker. They're wrong.
Please understand, I'm not excusing Gizmodo or the guy who found the phone for their actions. I do think the raid was uncalled for; a knock on the door and "Sir, we have a warrant" would have been the way to go.
Post a Comment