… regarding Gizmodo and Apple:
First of all, I’ve got to say that I’m a little disappointed in the fact that many people aren’t automatically on Gizmodo’s side here. I wrote some quick comments yesterday afternoon, which you can read here (and I still stand behind).
I’ve heard a lot of angles as to why people are supporting Apple in this fight, but I’ll draw the line in the sand right here: if you still support Apple after this travesty of an abuse of process, you are an adherent of the Church of Jobs. There is no other explanation. You’re either on his payroll or you worship the man and his plastic iReligious icons.
These are our people, dear readers. Bloggers. Content producers. Those who go to tech events and talk about them. Those who buy the new devices and review them. Those that create interesting stories related to technology for us to consume.
And guess who started at the bottom of that world and built and empire? Nick Denton. Yeah, he’s had an odd corporate culture once it became of a size to be a corporation. There are probably people that have worked for Nick over the course of his career you hate (particularly if you’ve shown up in Valleywag before).
That doesn’t matter, though. This is exactly the type of case we need to care about, because if Apple can “steer” the police to pursue the theft of a $300 device that results in a blogger’s door being bashed in, then what’s to stop the Blackwaters, Enrons, and Halliburtons of the world?
Seriously, take a breath here, change the name of Apple in your head to Walmart or something, and re-examine your feelings on this.
If you and I possessed stolen prototypes and were blogging about them, the only person speaking up for us would be our attorneys.
I respectfully disagree with Leo's point about shield laws should have prevented the seizure from taking place. Shield laws are to protect journalists from having to reveal sources of information, not to allow them to obtain pre-released product without permission of the manufacturer.
That being said, I don't know that proper procedure was followed in the collection of the evidence. I'm certain that Gizmodo's attorneys are doing everything possible to identify any irregularities to have any criminal charges or civil case dismissed. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they do identify multiple problems with the way the authorities managed the collection of evidence.
Shield laws may be able to protect the party that provided the device, as authorities should not be allowed to identify that party via interrogation of the journalist. However, it does not protect the journalist from sharing (potential) trade secrets with the public without authorization.
In this particular case, the consequences of what transpired are far from dire, in terms of damages to Apple for several reasons:
It probably did more good than harm by generating additional excitement for the product release.
As Louis stated, the fact that it is a new release of an existing product line further dilutes any problems Apple would face from the early release of the information.
The timeframe for the release of the product is relatively short.
Regardless, Gizmodo (or any journalist or blogger) does not have the right to obtain pre-released product without permission from the manufacturer, much less publicly discuss and review it.
I do agree that the majority of bloggers out there defending Apple are doing so blindly, and are loyal members of the Church of Jobs. They simply stand in line behind all of the other lemmings rather than give any sort of independent or intelligent thought to what has transpired, allowing their loyalty to turn a blind eye to any irregularities that may have taken place in the investigation.
FWIW, I don't think Louis said what you think he said.
I didn't speak up for Matthew Cooper because I didn't much care for Valerie Plame and thought she had it coming... I didn't speak up for Gizmodo, because I didn't much care for Nick Denton and thought Jason had it coming...
... I hope you'll speak up when they come for me, or hope someone's left to speak up for you when they come for you.
--
/mark \"rizzn\" hopkins - rizzn.com
editor @ siliconANGLE.com
big kahuna @ rizzn.com
twitter.com/rizzn - 903-253-0143
--
Me:http://rizzn.com
/> Computer Science Meets Social Science:http://siliconANGLE.com
/>--
\"In God We Trust.\"
First of all, let me preface my comment by stating I am by no means an Apple fanboy. If you ask me, a Mac is nothing more than an attractive (and very expensive) PC that runs a superior operating system.
I agree with Louis in that Gizmodo is at fault for possession of a device that was obtained illegally. I'm a bit surprised that no one has really spoken to the fact that there is also another party that is equally at fault, that being the individual(s) that provided the device to Gizmodo. An Apple employee(s) or contractor(s) likely provided the device in the first place, as I doubt someone from Gizmodo (or someone on their behalf) entered an Apple facility and took it.
In any case, the fact remains that Gizmodo obtained a device not meant for the public, and for that they should be held accountable. Fanboy or not, I think it is difficult to dispute that fact. Whether or not proper procedure was followed in seizing the evidence, I hope due process is served. Gizmodo should not get away with having broken the law just because law enforcement failed to properly obtain evidence.
I definitely wasn't trying to single you out, Louis. I included your thing in there for context on Leo's quote, mostly - you've been very even handed from the very beginning in what you share and say about this topic.
The reason I used Leo's quote was not only because it was a unique perspective, I think, but because it doesn't get more fanboy than leo (he's bought like 10 iPads so far), and this is the position he's taking.
To me, I think I'd be more liable to side against Gizmodo here if the police evenly enforced the law in Northern California or anywhere in the US regarding stolen iPhones. We all know they don't, though.
When you have laws that no one understands that are unevenly enforced, you have the first building block that most dictators require to run an effective regime. I'm not implying that Apple's trying to create iUSA or anything, but I'm more speaking to the fact that our laws and governmental operation is starting to resemble the countries that we tend to go in and "liberate."
Hey now. Nice screenshot. For the record, I don't think you have seen me take a side anywhere. I haven't blogged/tweeted or anything on the topic. I did share the article in Google Reader/Buzz and said "this is going to get interesting...)
In regards to the screen cap above, I thought Leo's response was very good. Assuming I think Gizmodo is in the wrong, it's not because of the Church of Jobs, it's that they may have paid for known stolen property. I personally think you should not do that, no matter your job, unless you are in law enforcement.
As for the subject of the story, it's interesting how worked up people are about iterative changes to a product that has had a consistent roadmap. I really don't care about iPhone 4 anyway. :)
Apple, the Apple engineer, Gizmodo, and the Gizmodo journalist are all at fault.
Apple for allowing non-disclosure agreements to be violated
The engineer for violating non-disclosure
Gizmodo for allowing the article to be published
Gizmodo journalist for obtaining the device and discussing it publicly
I think it is dangerous to justify the act due to the poor security of the device. Lifelock is a pretty good example, but a better analogy would be a woman that dresses provocatively and is subsequently raped (please forgive the graphic nature of my example).
Perhaps the woman was inappropriately dressed, but in no way does that does justify the act of rape. I think stating that "she got what she deserved" is a poor argument, and it certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like