Updated: Gizmodo stole Steve Jobs' thunder (new iPhone debuted today)

Re: Steve Jobs must be pretty unhappy right now (new iPhone leaks)

1) What is "traditional media"? 2) "Stick up," how?

 

Re: Steve Jobs must be pretty unhappy right now (new iPhone leaks)

I'd suspect I'd know a bit more about confidentiality, attitudes toward it by journalists and various beliefs about a need for shield laws than you do. I base that on your post and your "please."

I am as big an advocate of shield laws as anyone (as people who followed the Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams threads on here can attest). And California actually has a shield law. In fact, it was applied in another case 3 or 4 years ago that involved Apple trying to get a blogger to divulge his sources about upcoming products. The court protected the guy and ruled against Apple.

A shield law, however, is not protection for someone who knowingly commits a felony. And as this thread has documented, that is what Gizmondo is accused of. If a DA can prove that Chen broke the law by knowingly buying a stolen iPhone, a shield law has no application. It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe ... or Gizmondo. A shield law doesn't protect someone from the consequences of breaking the law.

There's nothing to stick up for, based on what he is accused of. He is being investigated for committing a felony. A reporter who talks to a source from the Pentagon or the White House and then gets leaned on to reveal his sources, hasn't been accused of breaking the law. It isn't illegal to talk to someone.

 

Re: Steve Jobs must be pretty unhappy right now (new iPhone leaks)

Trading in "information" is not illegal.

Whenever journalists are threatened with jail for not revealing sources, 99 percent of the time, it is a prosecutor trying to feret out a whistle blower. The journalist isn't accused of having broken the law. That is why journalists get up in arms about it. You haven't broken the law. You just spoke to someone on the promise of protecting their identity. And then you are threatened with jail for not going back on your promise.

This is wholly different. And it actually *is* a case for why you shouldn't pay for information or an actual item, as they did in this case, because they made themselves subject to a felony charge. Once you pay for it, it adds a new dimension, and now Chen is being accused of a crime (presumably, because that search warrant was vague about the cause for the warrant -- probably intentionally). He is being investigated for having bought (as in paid for) stolen property. If he could somehow claim journalistic immunity, ANYONE who buys stolen property and gets caught should be able to use it as an excuse. Crying, "journalist" is not a defense for breaking the law. Journalists who care about anonymous sources and shield laws want to protect the people who HAVEN'T broken any laws, but are threatened with jail.

If Chen is innocent, I hope he has every opportunity to defend himself -- if he is indicted. But the police were likely able to obtain a warrant from a judge because they had cause to believe property in his home (his computers) was used as a means of committing a felony.