Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G
Stoic Joker:
@wraith808 - It's all good man, I've had days where I phrased things a bit shorter then I meant to too. ;)
@StoicJoker-
Like it! ;D :Thmbsup:-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a relief, I had a feeling if nobody got the humor I'd get hammered for it :-\ ...but I hit post anyway.
But there's a few problems with the analogy.
--- End quote ---
Damn, Okay I'll give it a shot.
* Bookie Jim is engaged in an illegal activity. Apple isn't. (At least on paper.)
--- End quote ---
Well... Unless you're planning to use the two wrongs make a right defense, you can't really leverage that distinction.
* Sleazy Pete is working for the police as a paid informant. Gizmodo isn't.
--- End quote ---
Actually no, SP is just some random schmuck off the street. Perhaps it's just a Florida thing, but we have 1-800-crimeline billboards all over the place. Any Joe average can dial-in a dime on someone/thing and pickup a check (assuming the tip is (convict-able) valid). Being a bar owner (Where PR is an issue for both sides...), I've had occasion to spend quality time with the local Fuzz discussing who is on the top of their Would-Like-to-Find list - So I know first hand that really interesting tips get better rewards.
The connection I was making is that either way a "stolen item" was being "purchased" by way of a "finders fee".
* 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.
--- End quote ---
The notebook contained the client list, inventory, and a booking operation business model.
Objectively:
1. Notebook was $3 at staples
2. iPhone was $10 in parts at RadioShack.
...However, both carry a high intrinsic value to either side in both cases.
* 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.)
--- End quote ---
The roles get fuzzy here true. But the connection is an expressed interest in acquiring something that quite likely will be stolen. Distinction being, it's apparently (by way of observation) perfectly fine and good to sell stolen items to the police (as long as it's not being done during a sting operation).
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.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. ...however, the laws that are relevant, are based on the philosophical and moral environment of the time period in which they were penned. This is usually referred to colloquialistic-ally as the Spirit-of-the-Law in question.
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.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely - Problem being that part of the destinction between the two is not everybody can afford the same quality of attorney... Not to mention that politics frequently plays heavily in whether or not somebody gets a pass or a crucifixion (seen most frequently during election years...).
40hz:
@StoicJoker-
Like it! ;D :Thmbsup:-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a relief, I had a feeling if nobody got the humor I'd get hammered for it :-\ ...but I hit post anyway.
-Stoic Joker (May 05, 2010, 06:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
Could be worse. I have the exact opposite problem.
People (esp. my GF) often start laughing when I'm being dead serious. >:(
Still, like you, I continue to hit post anyway. :-\
;D
Renegade:
Well, I suppose that I'm going to hit Post. ;) :P (Please nobody take offense. That is not my intent.)
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.
*snip*
-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
Here comes the Devil's advocate...
I'm going to have to disagree quite strongly here.
The raid was simply wrong. They could have gotten a subpoena.
That there are *allegations* of criminal activity are very, very far from sufficient grounds to step on journalists like that. The point of protecting journalists is to *try* to preserve a free state by guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Limiting the press by passing laws to make different aspects of reporting illegal would be simple.
It's a very dangerous road to go down.
I'll even show you all here how and why you already agree with me... ;)
There have been several cases where the press has posed as children to contact child molesters, then turned that over to police. This is what we call "entrapment" and it is illegal. That it was the press contacting them is simply a matter of semantics. It's entrapment. It's illegal. Those people they caught still got prosecuted.
So, who wants to say that catching child molesters is 'wrong'? ;) Save the children!
More on illegal activities that have been legislated as legal... On the same heart-chain-tugging line...
Canada, the Netherlands, and a number of other countries have passed anti foreign sex-tourism laws that make it (il?)legal to prosecute people for sex crimes committed outside of the country, and specifically, for child-sex tourism (mostly targetted at Southeast Asia). So... Sovereign states are prosecuting for acts that are committed outside of their fair and legal jurisdiction.
Kidnapping and forced confinement are pretty much illegal anywhere. But this is what is done when a state prosecutes someone for a "crime" that is committed outside of its jurisdiction.
Hmmm... See a dangerous precedent here?
However, this is not completely unprecedented. Some countries will prosecute their citizens for any act they (want to or) deem illegal no matter where it is committed. A friend of mine was fined (i.e. summary conviction) in Korea for something he did in the Philippines (nothing serious -- he was shipping consumer goods into Korea, and at the time it was legal -- afterwards it was made illegal because of me and him -- i.e. he was convicted of a crime that had not yet been made illegal -- I was also fined for the same thing, although I was in Korea at the time).
Now, I'm not defending child molesters. They're simply used as an excuse for states to commit crimes themselves, and children are used all the time in arguments. i.e. Are you FOR or AGAINST the children? Children are used as shields to promote agendas all the time. I recently saw an anti-smoking ad: "Smoking kills children." Ok, I exagerate... that was the sub-text. The actual text was, "Don't let children breathe your smoke." Whatever. It shows the point.
The principle here is about protecting the freedom of the press with the aim to preempt tyrany of the state.
It is simply a matter of the state making things illegal to prevent the press from reporting.
Now, this entire Gizmodo/Apple thing may be really small potatoes, but it shows the direction that the state will take. It shouts very clear that the state is more concerned about its own power than it is concerned about freedom for its citizens. (Because we all know Gizmodo will get hammered here.)
Remember, "innocent until proven guilty"? Gizmodo and Jason Chen have not been convicted of any crime, and yet the police are breaking down their doors... For what amounts to an extremely minor offense, if any. Stray 1 mm off the beaten path, and we'll hammer you into oblivion -- this is the message that is being sent.
@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.)-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
Apple is involved in illegal activity. Anti-trust??? Besides, gambling isn't illegal... Only gambling that the state doesn't like is illegal.
* Sleazy Pete is working for the police as a paid informant. Gizmodo isn't.-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
Gizmodo is an informant for the people at large. They serve everyone in an open manner.
How is being a snitch an excuse for stealing?
I'm not seeing how Sleazy Pete is justified where 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.-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
An engineering prototype is just a bunch of junk that you pay a few bucks for at Radio Shack (as mentioned earlier).
If I write the cure for cancer down in a notebook, that's infinitely more valuable than having 1 dose of the cure. i.e. The ability to create and replicate (intellectual property or "knowledge") is more valuable than a single instance of it.
I don't think you've debunked the analogy. If anything, I think you've pointed out how the analogy is actually stronger.
* 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.)-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how the DA going after Jim but not Apple is relevant. They are both committing "illegal" acts. (Apple has been guilty of the same things Microsoft has been convicted of (anti-trust) to a higher degree for a very long time. Browser... media player... etc. etc.)
Are you trying to say that if the DA says it's ok to steal, then it is ok to steal? If we want to put someone in prison, then it's ok for us to break the law ourselves?
I think that is a very dangerous thing that needs to be very closely examined. (I am not saying that I am against it or for it. I only want to point it out.)
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 (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
THANK YOU!!!
110% correct!
What we have here in this thread is a bit of a red-herring.
Some people are talking about "legalities", while others are talking about "justice", while others are equating the two. Sigh...
Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't mean that it is/should be "illegal". Just because something is "right" doesn't mean that it is/should be "legal". (Note the "is/should be" there. There is an infinite divide between the two.) Similarly, we can subsitute "desirable" and "undesireable" in there as well.
I think that my little tirade above points out that there is a problem with equating "legal/right/desirable" and "illegal/wrong/undesirable".
40hz:
I think that my little tirade above points out that there is a problem with equating "legal/right/desirable" and "illegal/wrong/undesirable".
-Renegade (May 05, 2010, 08:32 PM)
--- End quote ---
Good gracious Renegade! You certainly live up to your forum name... ;D
But I think you may be equating a little too much of "everything" with "everything else." ;)
And Justice Holmes' famous quote is not a "red herring" at all. It's a very succinct clarification of what actually goes down in a US courtroom.
Courts deal with the law as it is currently written. Not the way we'd like the law to be.
So while I very much enjoyed your "tirade" (along with some of the interesting points you raised along the way :up:) I can't really say they'd be all that relevant in a courtroom or criminal investigation.
This isn't meant as a knock. Just a semi-rueful nod towards the realities of the legal process itself.
:)
Carol Haynes:
Let me ask a couple of different questions ... why was a search warrant issued anyway? Apple already had their property back at that point and the article published so what exactly were they looking for? What justified confiscating computer equipment?
At best this seems to have been some sort of fishing expedition and I thought courts were only supposed to issue warrants to search for specific items such as drugs, stolen goods or illegal weapons when evidence has been presented to justify the intrusion.
If it was a fishing trip for information surely that would be equivalent to denying him the right to silence?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version