[updawg]

I don't have a link to a website but it was on the local tv news that Jason Chens (not sure if that is correct name) home was raided tonight and all his computers were confiscated. Gawker, gizmodo's parent company, say that as a journalist he should be covered under the shield law. If anyone has a link to a news story please post it.

Edit this is because of the iPhone 4G.

[updawg]

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/

[Albaholic]

At first I didn't see why they seized his stuff but the warrant says stuff about the iphone 4g.

[MadMan007]

I am seriously tired of seeing all this Apple junk in mainstream news.

[benbaked]

I think his defense of the search warrant being invalid is going to hinge on whether or not the state believes blogger = journalist.

[mbigna]

I got some links:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/bu...l?ref=business

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...er-media-says/

I don't know enough of the facts to figure out if I want to hate Apple more or the DOJ for their Nazi like suppression of free speech--maybe both are to blame.

I know Apple filed a complaint, but it is ultimately up to the DOJ to execute an enforcement order. I hardly think there is any "probable cause" to go after Gizmodo with these jack-boot tactics. I guess we'll have to wait a while to get all the facts, though.

[ratbuddy]

I hope he sues the crap out of the thugs, apple, and the idiot judge who signed the warrant.

[burningcpu]

Uhm, well, wait. Really ratbuddy? You are vehemently against pirating and such, but buying a (known) stolen, unreleased phone and then posting its specs, pictures, and innards is perfectly cool?

And Apple should be sued as punishment?

[KonaKona]

Originally Posted by burningcpu

Uhm, well, wait. Really ratbuddy? You are vehemently against pirating and such, but buying a (known) stolen, unreleased phone and then posting its specs, pictures, and innards is perfectly cool?

Was it stolen from the guy in the bar or did the guy who had it sell it? I don't think it was both.

As for the rest of the quote, yes it is. The phone still works, no permanent damage was done. It's not like we don't have the right to post stuff on the internet, you know.

[burningcpu]

I'm not following this very closely (as I don't care too much), but the jist is this guy found a phone in a bar, and then sold it to Gizmodo. Gizmodo then released information about the new phone on the net, resulting in a decrease in the current iphone demand, as the new phone offers superior tech/whatever. That is the damage done to Apple.

I don't care to argue the point. I do find it curious that you don't see the parallels.

[KonaKona]

So? The company lent a prototype phone to someone not smart enough to leave it at home whilst they went out and got smashed. Doesn't matter if the phone was stolen from the drunk, found and was planned to be returned or what, if it makes it's way to the press then the press can report all they want on it. It's not like they broke into the apple test lab to get the thing.

I see the parallels, but I think that rights to free speech/press are more important than apple's profit margins. Heck, it's not like they are loosing money. You did see their last quarterly report, right? They'd still be making profit in the billions if everyone stopped buying iphones.

[rainless]

Originally Posted by burningcpu

I'm not following this very closely (as I don't care too much), but the jist is this guy found a phone in a bar, and then sold it to Gizmodo. Gizmodo then released information about the new phone on the net, resulting in a decrease in the current iphone demand

That's nonsense. If anything decreased iPhone demand it was the release of the new iPad. And even then the demand will only be decreased until the new iPhone comes out. At which point they'll probably be setting records. That's how it is with this whole new sub-species of people that Apple created. They want whatever the newest thing is.

They just happen to be living in a recession. So the gas, water, and electricity bills won't get paid for a month and they'll pick up one thing. If the iPad just came out it'll be that. If there's a new iPhone out it'll be that. If the economy were strong they'd be buying both... but they can't.

Not without getting DCFS involved...

To make your argument you'd also have to make the argument that people stop buying cars when they see the specs for next years model. And they stop buying CPUs, graphics cards, and motherboards when they see the next gen specs. You can probably make that argument... but the point is moot because, as soon as this "new thing" comes out... people are going to start buying it anyway and the demand will be higher than ever. In Apple's case they aren't losing a dime because they're the only ones making the hardware. Whether somebody buys an iPhone today or next week is irrelevant.

It does raise an interesting point about journalism, corporations, and the military state though. "Journalism" or not...Gizmodo is an established tech news outlet. I don't see it as any different than the Chicago Reader or the Village Voice in New York, or the City Paper in DC. Surely you can't call yourself if you just create a username on blogspot, but maybe you can if you've been doing it long enough and a million people a week read what you have to say.

At any rate, the cops busting into this dudes place and taking his stuff was a bit of an extreme step. What's next? I figure out how to get Linux back on my PS3 and Sony sends Blackwater to take me out?



Well thank goodness this is in General Computer Related and not General Discussions (I don't post there anymore... it shouldn't even be on this site.)

Now I can finally get a word in!

[KonaKona]

Uh oh, rainless is here! Quick! Everyone run!

[mbigna]

A few more links:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...yam_2010-04-27

http://blogs.computerworld.com/16004...yam_2010-04-27

And last, but not least--a little Dilbert response:

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/thatlost4gphone/

It appears that Apple may be claiming that the prototype was stolen. The question is--stolen by WHO? Gizmodo claims they didn't know it was stolen at the time of purchase. Of course, none of this speculation has been confirmed anywhere yet.

[ratbuddy]

Originally Posted by burningcpu

Uhm, well, wait. Really ratbuddy? You are vehemently against pirating and such, but buying a (known) stolen, unreleased phone and then posting its specs, pictures, and innards is perfectly cool?

And Apple should be sued as punishment?

The phone wasn't stolen. The person who found it made a good faith effort to return it to apple. Apple should certainly be sued for whatever lies (like the phone being 'stolen') they told in order to get the bogus warrant, the cops should be sued for not knowing better and spelling every other word wrong, and the judge should be sued for having shoddy handwriting and issuing such an illegal warrant in the first place.

[whooping_a_panda]

a week ago gizmodo received this

http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back

i dont understand was it not given back?

[mbigna]

Originally Posted by whooping_a_panda

a week ago gizmodo received this

http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back

i dont understand was it not given back?

I was reading that not only did they already give it back, but the pleaded with Apple to NOT fire the offending employee.

[ratbuddy]

Originally Posted by whooping_a_panda

a week ago gizmodo received this

http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back

i dont understand was it not given back?

Yep, it was given to apple right away. I wouldn't really say given 'back' since apple isn't the one who lost it, some guy in a bar is.

[ihrsetrdr]

Originally Posted by ratbuddy

The phone wasn't stolen. The person who found it made a good faith effort to return it to apple. Apple should certainly be sued for whatever lies (like the phone being 'stolen') they told in order to get the bogus warrant, the cops should be sued for not knowing better and spelling every other word wrong, and the judge should be sued for having shoddy handwriting and issuing such an illegal warrant in the first place.

In real life the situation is this:

1.Once the person who found the iphone ceased making his "good faith" efforts to find the owner, and instead decided to sell it, at that point it became theft.

2.Apple is the victim, not a party that deserves being the defendant in a lawsuit.

3. The police were doing their job

4. The judge is an idiot for being ignorant of the law, or by misinterpreting it.

5. Gizmodo can be held answerable to the charge of receiving stolen property, should the D.A.'s office decide to go that route.

[mbigna]

More info:

http://blogs.computerworld.com/16010...yam_2010-04-28