Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Apr 2010 23:11 UTC, submitted by UglyKidBill
Thread beginning with comment 421054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Where did I compare it to a security breach impacting national security.
Right here:
What if I simply lost my USB keystick with classified government data on it (as seems to happen readily over in the UK).
Lost classified government data, by definition, is a security breach. Once again, your original flawed analogy falls flat on its face and bites you in the ass.
Gizmodo didn't "break" news... They bought a stolen item, took it apart, and published their findings to the world.
It was news, as in no one else knew about it, and they were the first to break the story. Or is there a new definition of "breaking news" that I wasn't aware of? If so, point me to the dictionary that contains it so I can learn it. Note that I'm not defending Gizmodo; I think they were stupid to do what they did. Just pointing out your inept attempts at discussion.
Why not change the law if you're so overwrought with disdain for Apple. Clearly we don't need that particular law do we?
The problem isn't the letter of the law; it's a good thing that the police will get involved when there is a justification. The problem is with whom they choose to give the most help to, and why. In this situation, they took a strong-arm approach when it was not needed. Remember, the DA has not brought charges yet, so a subpoena would have been the most logical course of action and would have avoided an impression of overwhelming favoritism towards Apple. One is left to wonder how much influence companies like Apple really have in the government. Certainly, it seems to be much more than most of us would be comfortable with.
The problem isn't the letter of the law; it's a good thing that the police will get involved when there is a justification. The problem is with whom they choose to give the most help to, and why. In this situation, they took a strong-arm approach when it was not needed. Remember, the DA has not brought charges yet, so a subpoena would have been the most logical course of action and would have avoided an impression of overwhelming favoritism towards Apple. One is left to wonder how much influence companies like Apple really have in the government. Certainly, it seems to be much more than most of us would be comfortable with.
The problem _is_ the letter of the law. Gizmodo took an equally strong arm approach in purchasing stolen property, disassembling it and posting its findings to the world and were quite cavalier about the entire situation.
How many other large tech companies are in Santa Clara's county? Quite a few, actually. Do they want a DA that plays nice? Putting Apple as the sole instigator in this is sophomoric.




Member since:
2006-12-15
Besides, the most amazing thing about the new iPhone is OS 4, which Jobs already spilled the beans about during the iPad launch. There's an hour long video about it on the Apple website if you'd care to get in on the secrets. The only thing new we got to see on Gizmodo was the physical design, which is subject to change anyway. At the end of the day it's still just a phone.
The fact remains, Apple has pull with the government that even other big companies can't touch, and they are using it for intimidation and harassment. The actual security breach was with their own employee and whoever found the phone, why aren't their massive efforts focused there? Why harass the journalist who broke the story? Because they can. It sends a clear message to other journalists and bloggers: Don't break Apple news that isn't officially sanctioned, or you'll be greatly inconvenienced.
Where did I compare it to a security breach impacting national security. I merely stated classified. Sure it could go that far, but there is quite a lot out there that is classified without being tied to national security.
Gizmodo didn't "break" news... They bought a stolen item, took it apart, and published their findings to the world.
Why not change the law if you're so overwrought with disdain for Apple. Clearly we don't need that particular law do we?