If we wanna get into legal hansy pansy talk, everyone in my opinion is wrong.
- The apple guy should not have gotten drunk with such a device in his possession, I would have fired him instantly if I were Stevo - The guy who stole the iPhone and sold it ... well that's law 101 - Gizmodo, knowing very well that it was an item bought under illegal conditions, another law 101... but I guess because they are doing their duty to get us the latest info, it shields them... I really dont see why journalists should have the right to expose company secrets though...the past is the past... now is now.. and now I think its rather unfair that journalists have all these rights to get illegal insider information...
The sap that lost the phone, well if that wasn't his worst workday ever...I shudder. On the upside, all he did was something dumb, but not illegal. He tops the FML greats. ;)
For the rest of the debacle...when did people forget what was naughty? It's just another example of how journalists, I'll go so far as to say *particularly* those in our industry, would benefit from holding themselves to a higher standard. I'd settle for http://www.spj.org/ethicsco...
FWIW, Gizmodo is not legally eligible to be protected by California shield law. The shield law protects a journalist, his editors and their institution from legal action in the event that material is published that a company might want to sue for. The critical part of that, however, is that *nothing illegal* can take place in order for press to receive that protection. Gizmodo, otoh, dropped over five grand large for a device they knew to be stolen.
The Apple sheep are disturbing. They're the worst of the worst imo.
If we wanna get into legal hansy pansy talk, everyone in my opinion is wrong.
- The apple guy should not have gotten drunk with such a device in his possession, I would have fired him instantly if I were Stevo
- The guy who stole the iPhone and sold it ... well that's law 101
- Gizmodo, knowing very well that it was an item bought under illegal conditions, another law 101... but I guess because they are doing their duty to get us the latest info, it shields them... I really dont see why journalists should have the right to expose company secrets though...the past is the past... now is now.. and now I think its rather unfair that journalists have all these rights to get illegal insider information...
FWIW, Gizmodo is not legally eligible to be protected by California shield law. The shield law protects a journalist, his editors and their institution from legal action in the event that material is published that a company might want to sue for. The critical part of that, however, is that *nothing illegal* can take place in order for press to receive that protection. Gizmodo, otoh, dropped over five grand large for a device they knew to be stolen.
the aftermath was pretty crazy