Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

13468929

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    By California law it was stolen. If the guy couldn't get ahold of Apple as he claims, he should have left it at the bar where he found it with the manager/bartender.

    This.

    That you know the person who owns the phone isn't around doesn't suddenly mean you get to do what you want with it.

    Quid on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I find this to be pretty ridiculous. Someone found a phone that didn't belong to them and they sold it to Gizmodo, who bought a phone from someone that the phone didn't belong to. This is not murky, this is 100% skeezy as hell and unethical. There is a reason why Engadget refused to buy the thing when they were approached. The person who sold what wasn't his and Gizmodo who bought it are wrong.

    I cannot understand how deeply all of you must despise Apple that your perception of this incident is being so distorted.

    Sarksus on
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Personally, I feel a lot more ill-will toward the guy who ripped the stereo out of my car than the guy who bought it from him. If the guy who bought it contacted me and said, "hey I have your stereo" and gave it back, I'd actually feel pretty charitable, even though they had technically both committed a crime.
    To me, the issue is more that of sharing the secrets. If somebody stole my external hard drive, and sold it to another person who contacted me to give it back and then also distributed all of the works copyrighted to me that I placed on the disc, I'd be pissed.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Is it possible that all parties involved were wrong, for different reasons?

    I mean we have a lot of information but it's spotty. Let's just assume everything we've heard is true.

    - Some guy taking a phone that someone else left in a bar? Shady. I would have left it with a manager at the establishment, or at least one of the bartenders.
    - Apple not responding to the guy? Shady. Or at least stupid.
    - Trying to pawn the phone off for an exorbitant price to technology review sites? Shady.
    - Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
    - Apple failing to communicate properly with Gizmodo despite Gizmodo's attempts to get in touch with them? Shady.
    - Apple taking the phone back from Gizmodo and then filing a suit after that? Kind of shady.
    - The police overstepping their authority and then claiming ignorance of the law? Very fucking shady.

    So we have a lot of shadiness going around. I think Apple is the least shady in the affair, but I do think the suit was retaliatory and that their lack of communication with the guy that found the phone and then with Gizmodo before the article was published are both shady.

    I don't think shadiness on the part of any particular party here absolves any of the shadiness on the part of any other parties involved.

    In other words, this was a giant clusterfuck and everyone involved was culpable in some part of making it into a giant clusterfuck. Even if Jason Chen (the Gizmodo editor) was doing something shady, Apple isn't really scott-free here and the cops certainly weren't either.

    Drez on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Personally, I feel a lot more ill-will toward the guy who ripped the stereo out of my car than the guy who bought it from him. If the guy who bought it contacted me and said, "hey I have your stereo" and gave it back, I'd actually feel pretty charitable, even though they had technically both committed a crime.

    The guy who bought it from him basically just encouraged him to keep on stealing.

    What's been made clear up til now is that if you steal technology, Gizmodo will pay you.

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Evander on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    By California law it was stolen.

    Do you have a cite for this?

    deadonthestreet on
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    Was it right for them to buy it? Eh... shady business there. But they DID try to return it fully in good faith before Apple got their panties in a twist.
    They shouldn't have bought it in the first place. That was illegal. It's not murky territory, it's pretty black and white.

    And if they had trouble finding the right person I'm pretty sure an e-mail with a picture would have done the trick. Or, you know, not have bought it.

    Apple had 3 weeks to get it back. They bricked the phone almost immediately. They knew something was up, and they didn't seem to really be too interested in getting it back, even though they HAD to have known.
    According to what we'd assume to be standard Apple security protocol, the phone was bricked almost immediately. (In case people are concerned that Apple is only finding out now that a phone went missing, make no mistake, they knew the engineer lost it almost immediately.)

    Some time later, it was passed to us. (We paid $5000 for it.) For nearly a week we investigated it thoroughly, ascertained its authenticity, then posted about it. But what about the three weeks before that? Three weeks during which Apple presumably tried—and obviously failed—to get their phone back

    I just mainly feel bad for the Gizmodo guy being slammed with a police raid when Apple's phone was missing for 3 weeks.

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • WazzaWazza Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I can't really side with either party here. I wish the cops had a task force for the nice pair of sweatpants and cool clock radio that were stolen from the attic of my frat house.

    Wazza on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Are you serious? Jesus Christ. Did Apple run over your dog or something?

    You know what they are saying? Don't buy stolen shit. That is the moral of this story. Don't buy something from someone who doesn't own what they are selling. Don't take it apart and tell everyone you just bought stolen goods. If Gizmodo had acted ethically from the beginning they would have been fine.

    Sarksus on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Is it possible that all parties involved were wrong, for different reasons?

    I mean we have a lot of information but it's spotty. Let's just assume everything we've heard is true.

    - Some guy taking a phone that someone else left in a bar? Shady. I would have left it with a manager at the establishment, or at least one of the bartenders.
    - Apple not responding to the guy? Shady. Or at least stupid.
    - Trying to pawn the phone off for an exorbitant price to technology review sites? Shady.
    - Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
    - Apple failing to communicate properly with Gizmodo despite Gizmodo's attempts to get in touch with them? Shady.
    - Apple taking the phone back from Gizmodo and then filing a suit after that? Kind of shady.
    - The police overstepping their authority and then claiming ignorance of the law? Very fucking shady.

    So we have a lot of shadiness going around. I think Apple is the least shady in the affair, but I do think the suit was retaliatory and that their lack of communication with the guy that found the phone and then with Gizmodo before the article was published are both shady.

    I don't think shadiness on the part of any particular party here absolves any of the shadiness on the part of any other parties involved.

    In other words, this was a giant clusterfuck and everyone involved was culpable in some part of making it into a giant clusterfuck. Even if Jason Chen (the Gizmodo editor) was doing something shady, Apple isn't really scott-free here and the cops certainly weren't either.

    I don't agree that Gizmodo sharing details about the device was shady, but I will agree with the rest.

    If Gizmodo was slapped with some kind of fine, I wouldn't have an issue.

    Having cops tear apart an editor's home is a few steps too far. When a corporation is targetting and harassing individuals, that is a serious issue, and not one to just play off.

    Evander on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    To me, the issue is more that of sharing the secrets. If somebody stole my external hard drive, and sold it to another person who contacted me to give it back and then also distributed all of the works copyrighted to me that I placed on the disc, I'd be pissed.

    Actually, it'd be more like you left your hard drive somewhere, someone found it, couldn't find you, then sold it to someone who wanted it, then that person put up all your naked pictures on the internet, and then they gave it back to you.

    gearn on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What control did Apple have over the authority's response to their charges?

    Sarksus on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    KalTorak on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Are you serious? Jesus Christ. Did Apple run over your dog or something?

    You know what they are saying? Don't buy stolen shit. That is the moral of this story. Don't buy something from someone who doesn't own what they are selling. Don't take it apart and tell everyone you just bought stolen goods. If Gizmodo had acted ethically from the beginning they would have been fine.

    Is Steve Jobs giving you a blow job right now?

    What part of buying stolen property, and then returning it to its original owner, warrants a dude's house getting ripped apart?

    Evander on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I don't agree that Gizmodo sharing details about the device was shady, but I will agree with the rest.

    Are you fucking trolling now?

    gearn on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Are you serious? Jesus Christ. Did Apple run over your dog or something?

    You know what they are saying? Don't buy stolen shit. That is the moral of this story. Don't buy something from someone who doesn't own what they are selling. Don't take it apart and tell everyone you just bought stolen goods. If Gizmodo had acted ethically from the beginning they would have been fine.

    Is Steve Jobs giving you a blow job right now?

    What part of buying stolen property, and then returning it to its original owner, warrants a dude's house getting ripped apart?

    The only Apple product I own is an iPhone and I'll be happy to tell you how much I dislike it. The fact is I don't like Apple very much but some of you are so hateful that I would derive pleasure from buying a MacBook Pro out of spite because I find how you're acting to be absurd.

    Again, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? I don't think the house should have been raided but I don't find fault with Apple pressing legal action against Gizmodo.

    Sarksus on
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    And even then, they couldn't really post much about it because a lot of the circuit boards and chips were covered in a metal sleeve covered with thermal paste.

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase, even granted that they had foreknowledge that it was stolen or at least certainly stolen-ish. This isn't a guy buying a stolen iPhone to make calls on and listen to music from. These are journalists buying a stolen prototype in order to report on its features to the general public ahead of its owners' intended release of such information, and without the fog of bullshit which inevitably attends such corporate releases of data. I'm frankly rather suspicious about the provenance of the iPhone in the first place, given that IIRC around the same time as this one several other iPhones were lost in other bars that went to other journalists...

    Feel free to replace "journalist" with "blogger" if you take offense at my conflation of these two vastly different concepts; I just dislike the word "blogger" on general principle for empty aesthetic reasons alone. It sounds funny.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I don't agree that Gizmodo sharing details about the device was shady, but I will agree with the rest.

    Are you fucking trolling now?

    Oh quiet.

    There is a valid argument in unfettered journalistic freedom. I don't know if I buy into it, but it's not "fucking trolling" to assert that whatever information Jason Chen had - regardless of how he got it - is game for publication.

    This is why I avoided the thread up until now. You aren't interested in debating or conversing, you just like yelling when people hold an opinion that differs from yours.

    Drez on
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    edit: > What part of buying stolen property, and then returning it to its original owner, warrants a dude's house getting ripped apart?

    Probably the "buying stolen property" part. It may be a little over the line, as I doubt that everybody who bought a bootleg anime DVD deserves getting their house ripped apart...then again, it's not just any stolen iPhone. It's the new product model.
    Also, I don't know that this really counts as a big corporation being unfair to the little guy.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

    And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

    Evander on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase, even granted that they had foreknowledge that it was stolen or at least certainly stolen-ish. This isn't a guy buying a stolen iPhone to make calls on and listen to music from. These are journalists buying a stolen prototype in order to report on its features to the general public ahead of its owners' intended release of such information, and without the fog of bullshit which inevitably attends such corporate releases of data. I'm frankly rather suspicious about the provenance of the iPhone in the first place, given that IIRC around the same time as this one several other iPhones were lost in other bars that went to other journalists...

    Feel free to replace "journalist" with "blogger" if you take offense at my conflation of these two vastly different concepts; I just dislike the word "blogger" on general principle for empty aesthetic reasons alone. It sounds funny.

    Bill Clinton recently used the word "blogosphere" in an interview.

    I was like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't legitimize that shit please ugh.

    Drez on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    - Some guy taking a phone that someone else left in a bar? Shady. I would have left it with a manager at the establishment, or at least one of the bartenders.
    This much I agree with as just being shady.
    - Apple not responding to the guy? Shady. Or at least stupid.
    Apple as an entity, maybe. But some mid level customer service rep getting a call from some guy saying they found an Apple prototype? Not so much.

    From the rep themself:
    I work for AppleCare as a tier 2 agent and before the whole thing about a leak hit the Internet the guy working next to me got the call from the guy looking to return the phone. From our point of view it seemed as a hoax or that the guy had a knockoff, internally apple doesn't tell us anything and we haven't gotten any notices or anything about a lost phone, much less anything stating we are making a new one. When the guy called us he gave us a vague description and couldn't provide pics, so like I mentioned previously, we thought it was a china knockoff the guy found. We wouldn't have any idea what to do with it and that's what sucks about working for apple, we're given just enough info to try and help people but not enough info to do anything if someone calls like this.
    If the guy could have provided pictures it would have been sent to our engineers and then I'm sure we'd have gotten somewhere from there, but because we had so little to go on we pushed it off as bogus.
    - Trying to pawn the phone off for an exorbitant price to technology review sites? Shady.
    Not shady, illegal.
    - Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
    Once again, illegal. Not their phone.
    - Apple failing to communicate properly with Gizmodo despite Gizmodo's attempts to get in touch with them? Shady.
    Gizmodo didn't try and get in to contact with them. Apple contacted Gizmodo once they posted the phone.
    - Apple taking the phone back from Gizmodo and then filing a suit after that? Kind of shady.
    I don't even see how that's shady. They filed a suit against people that bought property stolen from them.
    - The police overstepping their authority and then claiming ignorance of the law? Very fucking shady.
    Which the cops tend to be. It's possible Apple leaned on them, it's also possible they're getting evidence from the guy who self admittedly committed a felony and isn't giving the info about the guy he bought it from.

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Are you serious? Jesus Christ. Did Apple run over your dog or something?

    You know what they are saying? Don't buy stolen shit. That is the moral of this story. Don't buy something from someone who doesn't own what they are selling. Don't take it apart and tell everyone you just bought stolen goods. If Gizmodo had acted ethically from the beginning they would have been fine.

    Is Steve Jobs giving you a blow job right now?

    What part of buying stolen property, and then returning it to its original owner, warrants a dude's house getting ripped apart?

    The only Apple product I own is an iPhone and I'll be happy to tell you how much I dislike it. The fact is I don't like Apple very much but some of you are so hateful that I would derive pleasure from buying a MacBook Pro out of spite because I find how you're acting to be absurd.

    Again, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? I don't think the house should have been raided but I don't find fault with Apple pressing legal action against Gizmodo.

    The fault I find with Apple pressing legal action is that it is clearly retaliatory. It is not meant to rectify any actual wrongs, it is meant to "send a message" that if anyone receives information Apple doesn't want made public, Apple will make them pay if they put it out there. If Gizmodo had refused to return the device, it would have been different, but as it stands, Gizmodo commited no crime AGAINST APPLE. The crime that they commited, and yes, I don't deny it was a crime to purchase the devise, was a victimless one.

    Apple is attempting to censor the media that comes out about their devices. I have an issue with that.

    Evander on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    - Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
    Once again, illegal. Not their phone.
    I think it's illegal, but hardly shady. Any tech journalist with his head screwed on straight would have done exactly what they did, given the opportunity and $5000 to invest in the venture. And you know what? I'm glad they did it, I hope they get away with it, and I hope that the tech journalists of the future are equally willing to violate the law of the land in order to provide valuable information to the public. I have unorthodox views about what constitutes good citizenship, perhaps.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    - Apple taking the phone back from Gizmodo and then filing a suit after that? Kind of shady.
    I don't even see how that's shady. They filed a suit against people that bought property stolen from them.

    I could see Apple suing Jason Chen for exposing their trade secrets, if they are legally protected in that way. But with the device returned, clearly invoking a raid was retaliatory. Regardless of how wronged they felt by the whole thing, once the property was returned, I really see no legitimate reason for filing a suit that lead to the raid. And I consider it "shady" to exploit the legal system for what amounts to payback.

    I don't blame Apple for being mad. But I still consider this a shady action on their part.

    Drez on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

    So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

    Quid on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

    Listen to what you are saying.

    You basically just said that putting up someones secret device on the internet for everyone to see is a valid way of contacting them to get them to pick it up.

    Christ, did it not ever occur to you that Gizmodo could have, you know, sent pictures or something of the device straight to Apple which would prove they are not one of the other many hoaxers who probably call Apple all the time? Assuming they even did try to contact them (which they didn't).

    gearn on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    Are you serious? Jesus Christ. Did Apple run over your dog or something?

    You know what they are saying? Don't buy stolen shit. That is the moral of this story. Don't buy something from someone who doesn't own what they are selling. Don't take it apart and tell everyone you just bought stolen goods. If Gizmodo had acted ethically from the beginning they would have been fine.

    Is Steve Jobs giving you a blow job right now?

    What part of buying stolen property, and then returning it to its original owner, warrants a dude's house getting ripped apart?

    The only Apple product I own is an iPhone and I'll be happy to tell you how much I dislike it. The fact is I don't like Apple very much but some of you are so hateful that I would derive pleasure from buying a MacBook Pro out of spite because I find how you're acting to be absurd.

    Again, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? I don't think the house should have been raided but I don't find fault with Apple pressing legal action against Gizmodo.

    The fault I find with Apple pressing legal action is that it is clearly retaliatory. It is not meant to rectify any actual wrongs, it is meant to "send a message" that if anyone receives information Apple doesn't want made public, Apple will make them pay if they put it out there. If Gizmodo had refused to return the device, it would have been different, but as it stands, Gizmodo commited no crime AGAINST APPLE. The crime that they commited, and yes, I don't deny it was a crime to purchase the devise, was a victimless one.

    Apple is attempting to censor the media that comes out about their devices. I have an issue with that.

    I disagree with how you're perceiving this situation. If Gizmodo had learned about the new iPhone via an anonymous source and Apple retaliated I would be very unhappy with Apple. As it stands, however, Gizmodo learned about the new iPhone by buying the prototype from someone who had no legal right to sell it. The person who sold it and Gizmodo did something wrong. Do you have someone else who can punish them? I don't particularly care who does it, I just think Gizmodo should be punished.

    Sarksus on
  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

    And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

    I have to concur that they are very different. What if it was a different scenario?

    Hey Evander, I found your wallet, do you want to come get it?

    vs

    Hey everyone on the internet, I got Evander's wallet. Here's his credit card numbers, his id numbers, even social security numbers!

    If I'm not responsible for safeguarding secrets then I guess posting those numbers wouldn't be big deal and the police wouldn't be knocking on my door right?

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    - Apple taking the phone back from Gizmodo and then filing a suit after that? Kind of shady.
    I don't even see how that's shady. They filed a suit against people that bought property stolen from them.

    I could see Apple suing Jason Chen for exposing their trade secrets, if they are legally protected in that way. But with the device returned, clearly invoking a raid was retaliatory. Regardless of how wronged they felt by the whole thing, once the property was returned, I really see no legitimate reason for filing a suit that lead to the raid. And I consider it "shady" to exploit the legal system for what amounts to payback.

    I don't blame Apple for being mad. But I still consider this a shady action on their part.

    All they've done is filed charges against someone that committed a crime. Whether it's retaliatory or not, there's zero shadiness here. It's plane as day. Gizmodo committed a crime, Apple is pressing charges through legal channels.
    I hope that the tech journalists of the future are equally willing to violate the law of the land in order to provide valuable information to the public. I have unorthodox views about what constitutes good citizenship, perhaps.

    Yes, you have rather unorthodox ones. You think people should be vigilantes so you don't have to wait to get information you, for some reason, feel entitled to.

    In fact, that's a rather horrible view.

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

    So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

    Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?

    This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

    And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

    I have to concur that they are very different. What if it was a different scenario?

    Hey Evander, I found your wallet, do you want to come get it?

    vs

    Hey everyone on the internet, I got Evander's wallet. Here's his credit card numbers, his id numbers, even social security numbers!

    If I'm not responsible for safeguarding secrets then I guess posting those numbers wouldn't be big deal and the police wouldn't be knocking on my door right?

    Nice appeal to emotion.

    If my personal information was considered newsworthy, then there is nothing different of importance between those two scenarios.

    Would I be upset? Sure. That wouldn't give me the right to retaliate, though.

    "He hit first" is not a justifiable defense.

    Evander on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wait, really? If you were a celebrity and someone posted your credit card and social security numbers to the Internet to much fanfare you wouldn't be entitled to retaliation?

    Sarksus on
  • langfor6langfor6 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    langfor6 on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

    edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

    deadonthestreet on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Basically, by raiding the guys home, they are saying that if you recieve stolen property, you SHOULDN'T inform the original owners and return it to them.

    If Gizmodo had kept the device a secret, and only circulated rumors about it as details, they would be in the clear.

    The fact that they came forward has them in legal trouble.

    That should not be how the system is designed to work. The legal system should encourage people who have commited minor crimes to come forward and rectify them, not encourage them to conceal them.

    They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

    They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

    Two very different things.

    Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

    And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

    Oh please. Most of the value of the device is in its trade secrets, as both you and Giz know. If Giz wanted to go forward to Apple and say "Look, we have this, we know it's yours, we don't want any trouble," then Apple would have taken it without any further problems.

    If Giz came forward and said "Look, we have this, we know it's yours, we don't want any trouble, but first we want to post all its valuable secrets all over the internet and profit like a mofo off of it. Are we still cool?" Apple would have some problems with it. As they clearly did, since that's what happened.

    I'm not even going to address your first sentence, as it is self-aware in its retardedness.

    KalTorak on
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It is kind of interesting that Apple doesn't have some sort of GPS service they could've used to, you know, track down their own prototype phones in case something like this happens, since apparently MobileMe is broken in the betas.

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

    So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

    Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
Sign In or Register to comment.