the Informer
September 07, 2010 | 
74°F
September 07, 2010 |
74°F
Courtesy of Gizmodo.com
How far has the terrible tyranny of Steve Jobs gone? How about denying the basic rights of Americans and journalists–the right to free speech.
Last week Apple, in their deluded beliefs that its company’s secrets are more important than basic freedoms, searched the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen for its missing iPhone.
The very same iPhone that Apple engineer, Gray Powell, lost in a bar last month. The iPhone, which is believed to be the one scheduled for release by Apple in June, was bought by tech blog Gizmodo who subsequently posted pictures and a full breakdown of the phone. This same phone was returned to Apple at the request of the evil empire. End of the problem right? Apparently not.
Apple requested a search warrant which was executed for the iPhone which had subsequently been returned to Apple. The police, acting on Apple’s behalf confiscated Chen’s personal computer, home server and phone as well as other personal belongings.
Under the first amendment of the United States, this is an illegal intrusion on any journalist. State and government law protects journalists and their sources. In the 21st Century, an age of technology, the term “journalist” should cover bloggers as well.
But this is only the top most transgression by Apple, Inc. on the lives of Gizmodo staffers. John Cook, a former Gawker (Gizmodo’s parent company) Editor, said Apple sits on the steering committee of the very same police unit who conducted the search–an egregious conflict of interest.
It’s apparent that Apple is trying to cover its own ass in what ever way they can coerce their minions into doing. This is not to say they are the only ones at fault. Shame also gets placed on the police for acting on a search warrant that has no legal grounds.
Simple point, if Apple wanted to protect its secrets so badly they should have never let Gray Powell lose its new iPhone in the first place.
Officially Keeping You Informed Since 1976 | © 2010 The Informer
Damon
April 29, 2010 at 16:07
>>Simple point, if Apple wanted to protect its secrets so badly they should have never let Gray Powell lose its new iPhone in the first place.
So you are throwing this guy under the bus as well.
realitybites
April 29, 2010 at 16:47
The point you’re are not snapping to is….
Ready?…..
He’s not a journalist.
He’s a blogger, like all the other 1.245 million bloggers.
They’re not journalists either.
No legal protection for bloggers, because?
They’re not journalists.
If you research your writing subjects better, perhaps you can get published and be a journalist working for an accredited news source.
frac
April 29, 2010 at 17:24
This is complete bull – and you know it. If you don’t, then Hartford Uni has dredged the gutter for it’s present student intake.
Do some research, read some basic law books and then post something credible.
Apart from every facet of this post being so bereft of believable facts there is this bit which beggers belief:-
‘…Apple sits on the steering committee of the very same police unit who conducted the search–an egregious conflict of interest.’
Lets look at the facts. Apple is just one of 25 high tech companies in Silicon Valley that are members of the REACT steering committee. The REACT organisation is a partnership between the law enforcement authorities and the high-tech industry to combat many aspects of computer related crime. All the members of the steering committee offer support and guidance to REACT. This is not the first time that the REACT force has conducted an investigation on behalf of one of it’s members. Adobe and Microsoft have passed information to the force to combat piracy. Another case involved the prosecution of the largest software counterfeit ring in the US. So you are saying that the police should not investigate some crimes because the victim is on the steering committee? Why would any of those committee members sign up for that? It makes no sense at all and you should be able to work that out for yourself.
Stupidity knows no bounds.
I’ll agree with you on one thing though – you were right to use the word egregious – this post is conspicuously bad. Shamefully bad.
Martin
April 29, 2010 at 17:31
Last I heard “journalism” was not a license to make shit up.
(And no, I’m not referring to Gawker’s stories. I’m referring to yours)
John
April 29, 2010 at 17:48
This talk about Apple being “tyrannical” is absurd. Apple owns trade secrets in the iPhone (and other products). They have a legitimate interest in protecting those secrets. I don’t think they have to show that harm has been done by this publication. Harm may not come for months to come.
Apple has not created the laws that the police acted under. The legislature passed these laws.
I also don’t see Gizmodo acting in the public interest. If Gizmodo were investigating Monsanto for producing weird chemicals that kill people then I’m all for protecting journalists, but outing corporate secrets just so some youthful rubberneckers can’t wait another six weeks to see something that will be released to the public anyway just doesn’t seem worthy of protection.
Dru Richman
April 29, 2010 at 18:14
Mr. Hitchings – Please go back to playing right tackle for U of H. It’s obvious you aren’t writer.
Jon
April 29, 2010 at 18:56
I think Apple should donate a “prototype” iPhone to every competitor (to at least give them a fighting chance of competing in the smart-phone market.)
It is obvious to everybody that Apple have a monopoly. Simply by producing superior hardware and software, people are impelled to buy such “magical” devices.
The fact that it has taken over 15 years of R&D to produce devices such as these – Apple has an obvious unfair advantage.
End sarcasm.
Lava
April 29, 2010 at 22:03
Wow this piece was so educational. Next time someone steals something me and I report it to the police, it’s good to know journalists like David Hitchings thinks that I shouldn’t expect the police to actually investigate the theft, as all such investigations are clearly the result of corrupt system.
Bumper
April 29, 2010 at 22:48
Not to worry David, children say childish things. In twenty or so years you will reflect back on this article and say to yourself, “How could I have put my name to such a steaming pile of crap” and try to forget it ever happened.
Sadly Google won’t let you. Such is life on the Internet.
Steven
May 03, 2010 at 12:04
It’s a good thing that the Internet was invented for all of us to exchange insults with a college student instead of sharing insights and providing information to better ourselves, otherwise how could all of these fine commenters (save one or two) possibly let David know that he’s an idiot for having an opinion?
I think that as long as bloggers follow the same rules of professionalism that other journalists follow, there is no reason they shouldn’t be treated the same when it comes to source protection. David, I agree, the search was a conflict of interest and can be seen, on many counts, as unlawful. Not to mention that even if Chen ISN’T considered a journalist, what about his rights as a U.S. citizen that protect his property from unlawful search and seizures? It’s a shame that the carelessness of an Apple employee caused such a ruffle.