Investigation moves forward in Gizmodo iPhone leak case

Personally, I want to see the book thrown at Mr. Chen for being an unmitigated wanker. There was absolutely no need to print the name or private details of the employee that "lost" the device. Following this I note that Mr. Chen considers himself more important such that he hides his own personal information that appeared on the subsequent legal documents.

Aside from that I am in full agreement with everyone else who can see that what Gizmodo did was illegal and that they handled themselves in a way that can only be described as amateurish and stupid. Why anyone argues there case is quite beyond me, unless they are linked to this organisation.

Please tell me that Jason had PGP full disk encryption set up. This is a GREAT example of why everyone should be encrypting no matter what their area of work.

@Prydie

@colourflight

If you seriously think they did the right thing then you sir are the joke. Someone loses something you return it not throw it up on a web page and make x amount of money from page clicks. If you find something and choose NOT to return it immediately then you STOLE it. Simple as that.

What a joke. Gizmodo did the right thing and handled the situation perfectly.

Where exactly is the wrongdoing here? They didn't go mug the guy and steal his phone.

quote:Rowedahelicon
Okay, let me ask a question to all the people supporting his case, do you feel Apple was personally hurt by this? No?

Ummmm YES.

A prototype is called a prototype for a reason one of which is its not shown to ANYONE for the simple fact they don't want to tip off their competition until the said item goes to market. The leak did just that and they lost some of the competitive lead due to it which means it could have caused millions of dollars in potential future revenue. It also caused a lot of people who were thinking of buying a 3G to decide not to buy a 3G and wait for the new device meaning potential revenue was again lost.

I'm far from being a Apple fan boy and I'm not one to push mega corp philosophy but in this instance big business is 100% in the right. It's absolutely nobodies business to see a product until the business who created it decides its time.

You shouldn't defend Gawker Media or their employee Jason Chen. Gawker has garnered a reputation as the supermarket tabloid of the tech media and Chen is known amongst many journalists as an a-hole.

I couldn't care less if the device belonged to Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Dell or Apple. You find something which is a obvious prototype you return it for the simple fact its the honest thing to do. Both Gawker Media and the guy who sold the device knew what they had in their hands and who to return it to knowingly chose to financially capitalize at Apple's expense. I say sue the crooks (Gawker) out of existence and good riddance to slimy trash. They only serve to give real tech journalist companies a bad name.

"Investigation moves forward in Gizmodo iPhone leak case"

FTFY: "Investigation moves forward in Gizmodo iPhone theft/extortion case"

If Jason had a brain in his head he would have Paid 5 grand for "access" to the product, not the actual product. He – legally – could have walked away with photos, specs and cred all without actually BUYING the phone. THAT the shield laws would have protected him since he would have been made to reveal his source, yet can't be punished for purchasing stolen goods since the seller would have never lost ownership. But he didn't because he was greedy and wanted to have exclusive, not first.

He'll learn in jail.

I'd also like to point out that while Jason is the scapegoat here, there are at least 3 people connected to this case, the employee, the seller to Gawker Media, and Jason.

Why is the employee not on the table here? Jason is just in the spotlight here , merely as a warning to any possible cases where this happens again. Regardless of whether or not he has the law technically on his side, that doesn't make the story right.

Anonymous = able to keep this person out of the court of public opinion and scrutany of their credentials, motives or methods. Nice ruling, CA.

As for the comment of if some multibillion dollar company was on the other side.... It's Apple. They are big enough to be the bad guy now. That's why so many people are cheering FOR them.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add, the Shield Act doesn't have anything to do with journalists whatsoever -- it just protects disclosure of information in relation to domestic violence cases...

Now shield LAWS are what I think you meant. ;-)