Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

<< < (21/26) > >>

40hz:
I honestly don't feel that great about seeing the journalist shield laws coming up for argument with possible criminal complications in the mix when the root of the story is a mere tech gadget.
-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 12:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

Spot on! :Thmbsup:

You're one of the very few people to have said that, and I couldn't agree more.

I think it very well might be disastrous for the "new press" movement if this became the test case for determining what the definition of "journalist" is.

What we need to be especially careful to not succumb to is something Clay Shirky referred to as "the conservation of outrage" should we discover our original anger was the result of erroneous information we'd been given.

Something to think about.

Mr. Shirky is an interesting writer on media topics,  and my little summary doesn't do justice to his presentation. You can (and should) read it in full at his weblog:

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/04/the-failure-of-amazonfail/

The Failure of #amazonfail

In 1987, a teenage girl in suburban New York was discovered dazed and wrapped in a garbage bag, smeared with feces, with racial epithets scrawled on her torso. She had been attacked by half a dozen white men, then left in that state on the grounds of an apartment building. As the court case against her accused assailants proceeded, it became clear that she’d actually faked the attack, in order not to be punished for running away from home. Though the event initially triggered enormous moral outrage, evidence that it didn’t actually happen didn’t quell that outrage. Moral judgment is harder to reverse than other, less emotional forms; when an event precipitates the cleansing anger of righteousness, admitting you were mistaken feels dirty. As a result, there can be an enormous premium put on finding rationales for continuing to feel aggrieved, should the initial rationale disappear. Call it ‘conservation of outrage.’

<more>

--- End quote ---

wraith808:
Sleasy Pete is a snitch - Who has (he feels) a hankering need for that $4,000... So be bumps into Jims table (a few times), fetches the notebook from the floor (when it falls), and then beats feet down to the local PD to turn in the notebook (of Jims) what he'd "found"...

The Fuzz happily pay Sleasy Pete the $4,000 for the notebook, because it has everything they need to bring down Jim's opperation and be rid of him for good.

Now do you really think that anybody in the DA's office is gonna give a rats ass about Jims complaint that his notebook was stolen?!?

Do you really think Sleasy Pete is going to get arrested for stealing Jims Notebook?!?

Hell No - He'll be way to busy posing for photos with his shiny new Key-to-the-City...
-Stoic Joker (May 05, 2010, 12:46 PM)
--- End quote ---

So, let me summarize:

You'd equate law enforcement with technical journalism?  For all of the talk about individual rights and such, and the sensationalist approach to using such an example, that in the end is what you expect the reader to be shocked into denial over.  Sort of like the very true reason behind the fact that Universal Health Care will never be repealed- the fact that they take the edge case and use it as the total of their defense.

So is that what you're doing?

40hz:
@StoicJoker-

Like it! ;D :Thmbsup:

But there's a few problems with the analogy.


* Bookie Jim is engaged in an illegal activity. Apple isn't. (At least on paper.)
* Sleazy Pete is working for the police as a paid informant. Gizmodo isn't.
* A paper notebook isn't an engineering prototype. It may contain secrets, but there isn't anything in its form or function that is inherently proprietary. The iPhone contains both proprietary data and embodies proprietary intellectual property in its hardware and design.
* The DA has made it clear he's after Jim. Regardless of how any of us may feel, nobody in authority is actively going after Apple. (At least not yet.)
We have to be careful with analogies. That's why the article by Prof. Green was so valuable. He basically forces us to confront the facts in the actual incident - and the relevant laws - rather than the philosophical and moral issues surrounding them.

As former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once remarked:

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

And that's an important and very real distinction.

 :)

40hz:
So is that what you're doing?
-wraith808 (May 05, 2010, 01:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ummm...I think 'Stoic' was only trying to insert a little levity into the discussion.

And I'd suspect he is also a very nice person.

 :)

wraith808:
So is that what you're doing?
-wraith808 (May 05, 2010, 01:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ummm...I think 'Stoic' was only trying to insert a little levity into the discussion.

And I'd suspect he is also a very nice person.

 :)

-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:35 PM)
--- End quote ---

I didn't mean it in a bad way... sorry if it came off that way; it was a lazy reply which apparently didn't convey what I meant very well if you thought that.  :-[  I should have waited to reply since yours summed up everything better anyway in a non-lazy way. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page