[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by starman 

But that's the point. Nobody who does anything "in print" would ever touch it.

The Times wouldn't. Pogue would have a fit.
Wired wouldn't.
The BBC wouldn't.

...and on and on.

I don't understand if you're playing devil's advocate here or what.

They report news. Just because they break laws and have poor judgment doesn't change that they're giving us news. It just makes them terrible journalists. Amateur, unprofessional, unethical, whatever.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

Again, are they journalists?

According to the article, they are, under California state law.

Ok, so they get paid to write on the internet. This is new territory for some people because the internet still isn't taken as a serious source of news.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. The internet in 2010 is a very large source of the news for the general population. Personally, I have long since cancelled all of my newspaper subscriptions, because I get almost all my news from the internet.

For Mac news I read MacNN, etc. For gadget news I go to places like Engadget or whatever. For Toronto news I go to the GTA section of thestar.com. For Canadian news I go to theglobeandmail.com. For US news I go to CNN.com and nytimes.com. Etc.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I really don't know what you're talking about here. The internet in 2010 is a very large source of the news for the general population. Personally, I have long since cancelled all of my newspaper subscriptions, because I get almost all my news from the internet.

For the average person, sure it's a legit news source. But officials still seem to look upon the internet as a whole as some sort of shady business operation.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

For the average person, sure it's a legit news source. But officials still seem to look upon the internet as a whole as some sort of shady business operation.

Who are "officials"? If these officials even exist, then they're stupid. Simple as that.

It should be noted again that even lawmakers can consider online-only newsmakers legit.

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, there is also a structure around a newspaper or television broadcast that lends it a certain authority that a "blog" might lack. There is an editorial board, an ombudsman, etc. (Here it is worth noting that Gizmodo does have an editorial director.)

[imitchellg5]

Well, from reading the California laws, it looks as if internet journalists aren't even exempt under the laws that journalists are, except for when a specific case went to court to find that they were indeed included with every other journalist. But yet the law wasn't changed or amended.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well, there is also a structure around a newspaper or television broadcast that lends it a certain authority that a "blog" might lack. There is an editorial board, an ombudsman, etc. (Here it is worth noting that Gizmodo does have an editorial director.)

So is a local access cable TV channel that reports on local events legit?

BTW, in a broad sense, it should be noted that Engadget also "profited" from this Apple leak. They willingly published the pictures, in order to generate page hits and ad revenue.

P.S. Had somebody shown me that unit, I too would have been all over it, and published it in my blog. Of course I wouldn't have paid any money for it though, as I'm too cheap.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

For Mac news I read MacNN, etc. For gadget news I go to places like Engadget or whatever. For Toronto news I go to the GTA section of thestar.com. For Canadian news I go to theglobeandmail.com. For US news I go to CNN.com and nytimes.com. Etc.

And on a side note all of those sites work on the flashless iPad/iphone with the exception of the globes videos.

Many of those news sources even have their own fancy apps.



Carry on.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So is a local access cable TV channel that reports on local events legit?

All I'm talking about here are perceptions, so under normal circumstances, maybe. But if it's some disputed topic and it's "Bob's Angry Rants" on cable access versus The Hometown Times newspaper, I'm going to go with the Times.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

According to the article, they are, under California state law.



I really don't know what you're talking about here. The internet in 2010 is a very large source of the news for the general population. Personally, I have long since cancelled all of my newspaper subscriptions, because I get almost all my news from the internet.

For Mac news I read MacNN, etc. For gadget news I go to places like Engadget or whatever. For Toronto news I go to the GTA section of thestar.com. For Canadian news I go to theglobeandmail.com. For US news I go to CNN.com and nytimes.com. Etc.

Let me make myself more clear here.

The INTERNET itself is a transport for the news. CNN, The Times, etc. use the internet to push the news to the people. I should have said that internet-BASED sites still need to be taken seriously. You mentioned CNN and the Times - they existed long before the internet.

Now, take Gizmodo. They're not taken seriously in 2008 for two reasons: 1) The CES 2008 incident, 2) "bloggers" were trying hard to be treated the same as respected tech journalists and the CES event screwed it up for everyone.

So yes, you get your news from the 'net, but the sources of the news aren't Web 2.0-type web-based sites that cropped up in the last few years.

[Eug]

Well, to be honest, as much as I find Giz's approach sometimes overly juvenile, I'd be hard pressed to say that 98% of the established print tabloids out there are more deserving of the "journalist" moniker, just because they're in print and have been around for longer.

And ironically, while (as is obvious) I hate most of the print tabloids, it took a print tabloid to expose John Edwards' mistress and his lies about her all along. Why? Cuz they actually pursued the story when other journalists wouldn't go there.

For the record, I DO have reservations as to how Giz came to get possession of the Apple product. OTOH, if mystery bar dude did at least call Apple once to say he has their product, and Apple just ignored him, then that's good enough for me ethically. How far must he pursue this?

To give you an example. I KNOW I owe my carrier more money than they got from me. I called them to tell them part of my account 10 years ago had not been paid by me or any of my accounts. I didn't pay it, and I didn't recognize the account number they said the money came from. I notified them a couple of times but they never followed up on it. So I just said screw it, it's their problem. I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct their error.

And if the guy didn't call Apple at all? Well, that's worse karma, but even then I'll freely admit I'm glad I saw the pictures. Not only Giz knew that would be true for us geeks, but Engadget did as well, which is why these "ethical" tech journalists didn't refuse to publish them either.

[Shaddim]

Looks like good publicity for Apple, I know that I want a new G4 iPhone after seeing the changes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't a stunt, albeit one that's gotten a bit out of control.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't a stunt

I'd be completely shocked if this were just an Apple stunt (that got out of control).

[Eug]

Heh. Gizmodo's affair now is part of Wikipedia's entry on checkbook journalism.

The rescue of the Australian miners in the Beaconsfield mine collapse renewed public awareness of chequebook journalism, as the TV networks and their stakeholders bid for the exclusive rights to the story as told by miners Todd Russell and Brant Webb, who were trapped underground for 2 weeks. Examples of other cases involving chequebook journalism include:

* the Nine Network paying Lindy Chamberlain $250,000 for the exclusive rights to her story
* the Seven Network paying Stuart Diver $300,000 for his story about the Thredbo landslide
* the Ten Network paying Douglas Wood $400,000 for his story about being kidnapped and held hostage in Iraq
* David Frost paying Richard Nixon $600,000 for his story
* the Seven Network paying solo yachtsman Tony Bullimore for his story about being trapped in his overturned vessel in the Southern Ocean[1][2].
* Gizmodo.com, an online technology enthusiast news website, paying an anonymous source $5,000.00 USD for providing a misplaced prototype of the next generation iPhone.

[imitchellg5]

Kind of off topic, but I think it's funny how everybody knows the name of the guy who lost the iPhone, but not the lucky dude who is now at least $5k more rich and had a major part in the greatest tech leak of all time.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Kind of off topic, but I think it's funny how everybody knows the name of the guy who lost the iPhone, but not the lucky dude who is now at least $5k more rich and had a major part in the greatest tech leak of all time.

You have an odd sense of humor.

[Eug]

Is it really the "greatest tech leak of all time"? It's really just an evolutionary phone. It's not even all that unexpected.

Hell, in many ways the 1000 MHz bus of the new G5 Power Macs was more interesting. Sure, a wayward G5 Power Mac didn't show up in a bar, but the specs were more surprising than what we've so far seen with this iPhone 3G HD.

[The Final Dakar]

Its probably best to ignore his incessant hyperbole. Or him.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well, from reading the California laws, it looks as if internet journalists aren't even exempt under the laws that journalists are, except for when a specific case went to court to find that they were indeed included with every other journalist. But yet the law wasn't changed or amended.

That "law" that people keep talking about is only relating to Journalists having the ability to protect their sources for certain stories.

If Chen/Gizmodo is being accused of theft, it's a completely different thing.

As far as I know, what Chen/Gizmodo is being ACTUALLY accused of is not public, only assumed.

[Eug]

Well, that article claims they haven't actually be charged... yet.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Is it really the "greatest tech leak of all time"? It's really just an evolutionary phone. It's not even all that unexpected.

Hell, in many ways the 1000 MHz bus of the new G5 Power Macs was more interesting. Sure, a wayward G5 Power Mac didn't show up in a bar, but the specs were more surprising than what we've so far seen with this iPhone 3G HD.

When was the last time that a journalist got his or her hands on a next generation Apple product months before release? And was able to tear it apart, take video of it, etc? Unless you count all of the people who claimed last year to have used the "Apple tablet" in secret, then I don't think this has ever happened before. It's pretty wild to think that a company that has been known for being religiously anal about product secrecy now has this sort of thing happening. That's what I meant. As far as the device itself being the greatest leak of all, time I'm not sure. But it certainly is significant, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion

[mduell]

Why? Because the engineer and Apple's external counsel reported the theft to the DA and requested an investigation.

[pooka]

My knee-jerk on this is that I'm a little shocked at the number of people filled with glee that a "reporter" who may or may not be a suspect in the theft of a ****ing telephone has had several computers, servers, hard drives, etc taken from his HOME in the middle of the night. Not to mention that the authorities are now in possession of terabytes worth of personal information that may be contained on those devices. Dunno. Sort of sends a chill down my spine. But hey, if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by pooka 

My knee-jerk on this is that I'm a little shocked at the number of people filled with glee that a "reporter" who may or may not be a suspect in the theft of a ****ing telephone has had several computers, servers, hard drives, etc taken from his HOME in the middle of the night. Not to mention that the authorities are now in possession of terabytes worth of personal information that may be contained on those devices. Dunno. Sort of sends a chill down my spine. But hey, if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

Yes, that's what worries me as well. It reminds me of how it's illegal here in Colorado to say anything negative about the local beef industry, and illegal to take pictures of cattle being corralled. And even if you take an artsy photo of a cow standing in a field with a wide angle lens and enter it into a photo gallery, you may receive a visit from an investigator, who will seize every electronic device in your home. I know because it happened to a close friend last month.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hell, in many ways the 1000 MHz bus of the new G5 Power Macs was more interesting.

Ya we all know the average consumer would find a 100MHz bus much more interesting than 2 cameras and bigger battery and sexy new durable body.

Oh Eug.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by pooka 

My knee-jerk on this is that I'm a little shocked at the number of people filled with glee that a "reporter" who may or may not be a suspect in the theft of a ****ing telephone has had several computers, servers, hard drives, etc taken from his HOME in the middle of the night. Not to mention that the authorities are now in possession of terabytes worth of personal information that may be contained on those devices. Dunno. Sort of sends a chill down my spine. But hey, if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

I'm fairly they'd be on the side of the journalist if you replaced the word "Apple" with "Microsoft".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm fairly they'd be on the side of the journalist if you replaced the word "Apple" with "Microsoft".

Apple so far hasn't been involved in this case *at all*, AFAWCS, except to request return of their phone (ostensibly on 10-year-old letterhead).

This is the state prosecution investigating theft and purchase of stolen goods.

[pooka]

Uh, right. Apple legal requests the return of the phone, DA suspects fowl play and initiates an investigation on his own time. After reading a few blogs and John Gruber's analysis of the events, he decides to approach a judge to secure a warrant for the search of Chen's house. While he's away. At night. ... All based on a hunch. Call me crazy, but wouldn't Apple at least have to report SOMETHING and possibly provide some details before such action was taken? Or is this why Cali is so broke?

Maybe I'm just bitter than the police normally seem so damn toothless about petty theft and such when it involves me. Never mind the fact that there have been witnesses, finger prints and even video evidence to back up claims and they still don't do jack-shit. Apple loses a phone and suddenly the secret tech squad start breaking down doors. No charges filed. No formal suspects named. Just fact finding expeditions. With boots and battering rams.

[Dork.]

Even discounting the "OMG SECRET PHONE" aspect of it, this phone is a prototype, and is worth much more than your phone. Things that Apple pays cents for in volume may cost dollars in prototype quantities. IIRC, there are a few custom Apple ASICs in there, which could be quite expensive at low volumes, since you are dividing at least $1M of set-up costs over at most a few hundred prototype chips. I wouldn't be surprised if the raw materials cost of the phone was several thousand dollars. (Maybe even more than what Giz paid for it -- they got a deal!)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apple so far hasn't been involved in this case *at all*, AFAWCS, except to request return of their phone (ostensibly on 10-year-old letterhead).

This is the state prosecution investigating theft and purchase of stolen goods.

Ah, sorry, by "they" I meant the peanut gallery/court of public opinion, not the prosecution. I find it interesting how people are leaping to Apple's defense here, when for any other company most people would probably be on the side of the journalist.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I find it interesting how people are leaping to Apple's defense here

"They" are?

Where?

I find this confusing, since Apple hasn't actually DONE anything - at all (except asking for their property back). Why do they require "defending", and by whom, and against whom?

I don't know about the U.S., but over here, the district attorney takes action as soon as he becomes aware of a potential crime - no damaged party actually needs to file charges.

If it's the same in the U.S.: With all the hoopla surrounding Gizmodo's bragging about having purchased property that was obviously not theirs to purchase, a criminal investigation is simply a matter of course.

If anything, people are siding with the prosecution - not with Apple.

And I seem to recall "The Public" as readily doing so when Microsoft's head was on the block as when O.J. Simpson was on trial.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"They" are?

Where?

I find this confusing, since Apple hasn't actually DONE anything - at all (except asking for their property back). Why do they require "defending", and by whom, and against whom?

I don't know about the U.S., but over here, the district attorney takes action as soon as he becomes aware of a potential crime - no damaged party actually needs to file charges.

If it's the same in the U.S.: With all the hoopla surrounding Gizmodo's bragging about having purchased property that was obviously not theirs to purchase, a criminal investigation is simply a matter of course.

If anything, people are siding with the prosecution - not with Apple.

And I seem to recall "The Public" as readily doing so when Microsoft's head was on the block as when O.J. Simpson was on trial.

Perhaps you see it as such. But what I see is a bunch of people wanting to punish Gizmodo for actions that they would otherwise defend if the "victim" were anyone other than Apple.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't see why people are interpreting this as a Apple/Microsoft thing. If anything it's a Gizmodo thing. A lot of people don't like Gawker media.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't see why people are interpreting this as a Apple/Microsoft thing. If anything it's a Gizmodo thing. A lot of people don't like Gawker media.

I'm not saying it's an Apple/Microsoft thing. Just using Microsoft as an example where people would be more likely to support the journalist.

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, I just don't see it.

[pooka]

Seems pretty prevalent amongst Team Gruber.

"We go in! We kill! No more talk..."

*shrugs*

[The Final Dakar]

Are we talking amongst blogs or the general public here? I'm referring to general (internet) public.

[jokell82]

I haven't watched it yet, but the Daily Show did a bit about this last night:
Video: Appholes | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[analogue SPRINKLES]

"His attorney says he recently transferred schools and will resume his college education in the fall. He has been working part time at a church-run community center giving swimming lessons to children and volunteered at a Chinese orphanage last year while he was enrolled in a study-abroad program.

“He also volunteers to assist his aunt and sister with fundraising for their work to provide medical care to orphans in Kenya,” his attorney says. “Brian is the kind of young man that any parent would be proud to have as their son.”

Awwww, not guilty. Perhaps he should give the $5000 to the all those orphans.

iPhone Finder Regrets His ‘Mistake’ | Threat Level | Wired.com

[Phileas]

He's a 21 year old kid who did something stupid.

Gizmodo should have known better.

[imitchellg5]

Do we know that Gizmodo wasn't the one who really offered the money? What if this guy said he was gonna try Apple again, and then Gizmodo offers $5k?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Do we know that Gizmodo wasn't the one who really offered the money? What if this guy said he was gonna try Apple again, and then Gizmodo offers $5k?

Who said he tried Apple in the first place? His attorney claims the finder's friend offered to call Apple on his behalf, but at this point no one knows if that actually happened.

[Eug]

Apple May Have Traced iPhone to Finder’s Address | Threat Level | Wired.com

People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

What the? Apple has its own phone tracking goon squad now?

The sad part of all of this theft and felony talk is that this is really all just because some dude at Apple got sloshed and lost his precious prototype phone, something you'll be able to buy in a couple of months for $199 or so at the local phone shop.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What the? Apple has its own phone tracking goon squad now?

Or a MobileMe account...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Or a MobileMe account...

...with a goon squad. Or a geek squad anyway.

Je repete: People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

[lpkmckenna]

Right now the police are merely collecting evidence. Whether Chen or the guy he bought the phone from will be charged remains to be seen.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Right now the police are merely collecting evidence. Whether Chen or the guy he bought the phone from will be charged remains to be seen.

Raiding Chen's house is a little more heavy handed than usual I'd have to say, considering it was Apple's employee who lost the phone.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

...with a goon squad. Or a geek squad anyway.

Je repete: People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

I know that, but my point it doesn't take an entire squad to check where the phone actually is. Powell could have done that on his own from his desk at work. Thus when someone at Apple checked, they sent out a couple investigators... it happens with huge corporations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Right now the police are merely collecting evidence. Whether Chen or the guy he bought the phone from will be charged remains to be seen.

As well they should. But, I wonder if it was necessary to break into his home while he was away?

[imitchellg5]

At least he'll get a shiny new door