The Appalling Reaction to the Apple iPhone Leak

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10523213

by hernan7 • 16 years ago

113 64 16 years ago

abcnews.go.com

ugh3• 16 years ago

Hm, I’m not so sure whether Chen’s house was raided because he published information. After all, Engadget also posted photos of the prototype, even that same prototype, yet the police didn’t raid their editors’ homes.

Rather this seems to be a case of Gizmodo being clueless about how to do proper investigative reporting (i.e. don’t buy stolen stuff). Should journalists be allowed to buy things they know to be stolen? Sure, but not always. Memos which show government fraud? Hand over cash. Consumer electronic? Rather not.

ahk2• 16 years ago

What's the big diference between government secrets and company secrets? Just that one is more tawdrier and of less consequence?

These days companies are getting so unaccountable to anyone that I'd rather not have reporters make any such distinctions.

somebear3• 16 years ago

You could start with the simple question "who will be hurt if I do not publish this information?" I have a hard time finding anyone who would be hurt if the finder of iphone had handed it over to the bartender, apart from Apple's competitors.

Like it or not, real journalists make these distinctions all the time.

hammerdr• 16 years ago

I think he brings up a point in his post which effectively nullifies his argument. Throughout the article, both explicitly and implicitly, he alludes to the fundamental nature of a strong free press in American society.

Occam's Razor; which is more likely? The American public has completely lost sight of the principle of a strong free press despite having held on to the ideal for 200 years. Or, that the American principle of a strong free press is still alive and kicking but the American ideal is not offended by this particular case.

I think, even for the most cynical among us, that the second seems more likely.

Why would that be? Well, there is the "distressing" issue of Gawker Media purchasing (known) stolen goods. There is also the general distaste that most Americans have for tabloid (yellow) journalism. Gawker Media is not very well respected by the American public. Combine this with the general attitude of Gizmodo (Look what we got! Na na na naa!) and the disgusting way that Gizmodo ousted the engineer involved in losing the prototype and we start to see a clearer picture of why getting the police involved doesn't offend too many people's free press sensibilities.

Consider, just for a moment, that Gruber had gotten pictures of an Apple product (legally) and posted those pictures on his blog. Do you think police would be breaking into his home?

sheldonwt• 16 years ago

Can you remind me again how you qualify a phone (lost, drunkenly) as 'stolen'. You seem to be using that word rather loosely, when the person who found that phone in fact found lost property, not stolen property. Nobody stole from Apple here, rather Apple made a grave mistake which it seems in hindsight they then used the police to assist in helping them recover from. How can you say that Apple's clear and apparent ability to influence the actions of the police isn't at least a little bit frightening? A little bit? It doesn't matter whether Gruber or Gawker posted those pictures, the fact of the matter is that the journalist who did post them faced what seems to be police persecution at Apple's direction. Consider, just for a moment, that it had been a Windows Mobile 7 phone. Do you think the police would be breaking into his home?

vtail2• 16 years ago

Your intuition regarding California Law is wrong.

"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485

tumult2• 16 years ago

Perhaps this will sound cliché, but it is attitudes like yours that contribute to the decline of nations and cultures. Some guy made a simple mistake, and now all bets are off with regards to his property. You seem to be assuming it's okay for a possession to be considered forfeit because it was left somewhere. It makes me sick that American culture is in a place where some people consider it acceptable behavior to take other people's things because they forgot them.

lazugod• 16 years ago

I do not think it particularly accurate to say that Americans as a whole dislike yellow journalism. How else has it survived but for the gross support of readers?

Mind you, all the encouraging Apple to bring the force of their lawyers down is just as much in the tabloid spirit.

somebear3• 16 years ago

You can also consider for a moment that Engadget posted pictures of the same device [http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/17/iphone-4g-is-this-it/], but did not pay any money for it, nor mocked Apple or the engineer in question. I have yet to see the police breaking down the doors at Engadget.

tspiteri2• 16 years ago

Does this mean that a police raid was a way of getting back at them for paying the money, and for mocking Apple and the engineer? Now that would be worrying.

DanielBMarkham• 16 years ago

Nerd note: last I checked Occam's Razor didn't say to look at two choices and simply pick which was more likely. The point is that a possible solution with one reasonable term is probably more likely than one with several reasonable terms. As you add terms, even reasonable ones, the proposed solution becomes less and less likely.

nollidge• 16 years ago

That's all well and good, but the author is neglecting to mention the fact that there was a stolen item involved here, which is the entire point.

nostrademons• 16 years ago

Right.

If you take away the whole bit about this being a 4G iPhone, the facts are something like this. Guy leaves cell phone at a bar. Cell phone is picked up by another patron. Instead of leaving the phone with the bartender, finder takes it home. Finder fires it up, logs onto FaceBook, discovers who the phone belongs to. Instead of contacting the phone's owner, finder sells it to Gawker for $5000.

Gawker makes halfhearted attempt to contact Apple. Gawker knows who phone belongs to, yet never makes an attempt to contact them directly and return it. Gawker (to our knowledge) never tells Apple "Hey, this is Gawker Media, we have one of your development phones". Gawker takes apart phone and runs a story. Gawker exposes phone's owner as the most unlucky engineer within Apple.

If it were my phone (even aside from the dev phone aspect), I'd be pissed. I'd probably press charges. If it were just a matter of losing my phone, okay, these things happen, I should've been more careful. If it were a matter of losing my phone, someone picking it up and not knowing how to contact me, okay, that's understandable. But if someone picks up my phone, knows exactly who I am, and then sells it instead of giving it back, how is this not theft?

megablast• 16 years ago

How would HP react if Mark Simon had paid for some information?

How would HP react if someone had left a briefcase in a bar, and it was sold, and it's content put online.

Not to mention the fact that Apple is incredibly secretive, and in this case, for good reason. The iPhone is a multi-billion dollar product, Apple only releases a new once a year, and it is a huge event.

This is not a new HP calculator.

sh1mmer• 16 years ago

I think as Gruber pointed out previously the material point here is a criminal action may have been committed rather than just a breach of a civil contract.

Leaking information about product launches is one thing stolen goods is another. If Gizmodo's actions are ok, does it open the door for protection of the press when an employee of a company decides to sell them stolen materials?

100k• 16 years ago

Malone makes a good point though: do you think Apple would sue the San Jose Mercury News (or ABC, or Time, or...)?

They are suing Gawker because Gawker is weak, and the rest of the media won't defend a blogger.

jbrennan• 16 years ago

Apple would probably not sure Time or ABC or any big-time news agency. But I'm guessing this is more because a big-time agency has the sense/legal advising to not buy stolen goods.

ajg1977• 16 years ago

As of the time of writing, Apple aren't suing anyone.

The only current legal activity is that of a criminal investigation into the circumstances that led to the iPhone being in Gizmodo's position.

Like Gruber and the above poster, I just don't buy the "left on a barstool" piece of this. A seasoned Apple engineer, in his late 20's, trusted to carry one of a handful of iPhone prototypes, somehow manages to leave it at a bar? If he'd been younger that could be put down to the foolishness of youth, but since he's not then he would have to be an idiot to do this. And Apple don't hire idiots.

joubert2• 16 years ago

I doubt that abc, time, or san jose mercury news would knowingly buy stolen goods.

Judson• 16 years ago

I'm so tired of hearing "Gruber" in a context that comes closer and closer to meaning "the one and only way of looking at the law".

Yea, I enjoy his blogging, but his bias is surely towards whatever Steve Jobs whispers in his ear.

The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around.

I'm no lawyer, but lets be honest, if this isn't innocent intent (a legal defense against Receiving Stolen Property: http://www.shouselaw.com/stolen-property.html) I don't know what is.

Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the phone back!

ugh3• 16 years ago

“The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around.”

Really? You might believe that but calling it a “fact” seems a bit too much to me.

rimantas• 16 years ago

  Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the
  phone back!

The guy who lost the phone called the bar several times to find out if anybode gave the phone back. If the guy who took the phone had done that he should—gave the device to bartender, the Apple would have the phone back easeily. Of course, there would be no story for Gizmodo in that case.

joubert2• 16 years ago

The reason this continues to be a "big deal" is because people keep on talking about it. And the same arguments are repeated ad nauseum.

heresy• 16 years ago

While paying a source for information is ethically questionable and on the level of the tabloids, I think it's fairly clear from the article they posted later that Gizmodo's intent was getting a scoop.

On the flip side of what you're suggesting, does Apple having the cops in their pocket like this open the door to other companies getting police to arrest journalists for outing "trade secrets"?

Gruber always finds an angle to defend whatever Apple does, regardless of morality.

gjm112• 16 years ago

Except, y'know, when he doesn't. For instance, he's been pretty critical of a lot of Apple's rejections from the App Store. Example: http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords "Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one."

Now, perhaps this is in fact the only sort of Apple action that Gruber is ever critical of. My hazy memory says otherwise, for what it's worth.

johnswamps• 16 years ago

Can someone explain to me what the purpose of the shield law is? Whether Chen is protected under it or not seems like a technicality to me. I'm more interested in how the law is supposed to benefit society.

Is the idea that journalists should be able to keep their sources confidential? Or that they should be be immune from retaliation for printing unflattering stories of the government and police? Is it to protect whistle blowers? Is it supposed to protect journalists who have broken the law?

vtail2• 16 years ago

You can read about e.g. New York Times Co vs United States and decide for yourself whether shield law benefits the society or not.

philk2• 16 years ago

The idea is that a free press protects society and protecting people/sources who publish things that the powerful don't want published facilitates this.

rbranson• 16 years ago

The guy bought something that was obviously stolen. This was willful behavior. He spent $5,000. Come on! This article was written as if he saw it sitting on a table in a bar and took pictures of it.

madmaze• 16 years ago

How was it stolen? It was lost. The finder tried to return it and when he got turned down with no success, he turned around and sold it. The person who did the wrong doing was the finder and not Chen.

halostatue2• 16 years ago

A good-faith attempt was not made, IMO. A manager of an Apple store certainly would have been a good person to return it to. A note to Steve Jobs would have gotten their attention, and it's not like no one has his email address.

You're right that the finder did the most wrong thing here, by selling the lost phone (at which point, IMO but IANAL, the phone was stolen because the finder no longer had any intention of making any further effort to return the lost phone to the rightful owner). However, Gizmodo/Gawker/Chen are not blameless as buying stolen goods is itself a crime.

Maktab2• 16 years ago

The recent Wired story about Brad Hogan, the guy who found the phone, implies that Hogan did not actually make any of the attempts to find the phone that Gizmodo claimed. Whatever the justification of the police raid on Chen's house and all the other elements of this story, it seems clear that Hogan never had any intention of making a good faith attempt to return the phone to its rightful owner.

ahk2• 16 years ago

"Obviously stolen"? Where is this reported as being true?

And even so, would it have made a difference to you if it was on Wikileaks instead? Be careful what you're choosing to condemn in your support of Apple.

trezor• 16 years ago

I'd like a clear explenation of this as well. So far I've seen this claim repeated again and again by Apple fanboys, but everything I read seem to indicate that it was lost (and then passed around).

Would anyone have cared at all or defended this if this was a lost OpenMoko or something equally irellevant?

blhack2• 16 years ago

If a journalist has to pay to get a revealing interview with somebody, are they "stealing" something? Apple wasn't deprived here, didn't Chen give the phone back?

Say apple was the chinese government, and the iPhone was a disgruntled official who was involved in the "let's hack google" thing...the new your times pays the disgruntled official for an inside scoop.

Is that the same? Better? Worse?

jrockway2• 16 years ago

China is evil and Apple is omg awesome, so clearly this is better. Apple is just so nice to everyone, they didn't deserve to have pictures of their newest telephone published... because now everyone knows the Evo 4G is cooler, and Apple will go out of business as a result.

Does my logic make sense? Let's raid someone's house just to be sure. Nobody would call that over-REACT-ing.

rajbot• 16 years ago

How can a journalist, who writes a piece about the iPhone 4G proto and then spends half his article praising "good hard reporting", get the name of the product wrong? s/G4/4G/

philk2• 16 years ago

Just because someone makes a trivial mistake does not invalidate their argument.

Maktab2• 16 years ago

But it does call into question their command of the facts and the small yet important details of the situation. In my opinion it was quite evident throughout the article that Malone had not studied the situation sufficiently and did not seem to be aware of the California penal code provisions which can make lost property stolen, the Wired story which implied that Hogan made no effort to return the phone and what level of actual power over day-to-day decisions Apple would enjoy on the REACT steering board. Are they even in a position to order a raid? Malone writes as though that's an uncontested fact, but that's hardly true.

jarek• 16 years ago

The product, having not yet been officially unveiled, does not have an official name. The casing itself says only "iPhone." The letter from Apple said "a device that belongs to Apple." "G4" can be considered to stand for "generation four" and indeed this was a naming method used by Apple for iMacs and other products. Just because a lot of people think the name will be "4G" doesn't make him wrong.

sophacles• 16 years ago

This absolutely cannot be the first time a prototype has turned up in some reporter's hands via dubious means. So here is what I would like to know: When Apple is NOT involved, what are the reactions? Not just of the company and reporters, but people who don't really have any stake in it? I am genuinely curious how much of the "apple did nothing wrong" crowd is just apple fanboyism, and how much of the "gawker was in the clear" crowd is just anti-appleism.

Another thing I would like to know: Gawker returned the phone when apple finally admitted the phone was theirs. During the denial stage, why would anyone be responsible for returning property to someone who claims "that isn't mine". Forget apple: if someone sees a $100 bill at my feet and says, "Hey did you drop that bill?" and I say "Nope, not mine", I can't later claim "that guy stole my $100!".

Final question: since apple did get their property back, why are all these people outraged? A large number of them have probably downloaded leaked movie/tv/music. Many of them have railed against IP law in the US. But now that it's Apple they are talking about the "terrible damages that come from Apple not getting to talk about the phone on their own terms". I call shennanagans.

Anechoic• 16 years ago

FYI, here is On The Media's report on the situation: http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/04/30/01

"I think what makes it fundamentally less compelling is the fact that they paid for this phone. If they had simply discovered this phone and took pictures of it, no one would question that that’s a valid journalistic enterprise. But what they were doing here puts them a hair’s breadth away from what a fence does."

"I think that the prosecutor should have shown more restraint, ironically, in the same fashion that Gizmodo should have shown more restraint. I mean, this is not a mob case. You don't have Chen saying, leave the iPhone, take the cannoli."

The Appalling Reaction to the Apple iPhone Leak

Related Stories