Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Apr 2010 23:11 UTC, submitted by UglyKidBill
Thread beginning with comment 421065
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.
RE[2]: They didn't pay 5,000 to return an iphone, they paid 5,
by Bounty on Tue 27th Apr 2010 18:30
in reply to "RE: They didn't pay 5,000 to return an iphone, they paid 5,"
I have a similar attitude to you in that I don't think we can come to any absolute conclusions yet, and I can't but help thinking that that $5,000 number is awfully ironic, but I do think that your last argument has a gap in it. Or more accurately, I answer your stated query with an "I don't think so...", since you seem to take for granted that that should be a felony. Since the damage of the deconstruction (apart from information dissemination, which is ultimately not an issue once the phone is out in public) can be undone with money, I think it's a civil matter.
Well I'd argue the damage at least 5,000. We'd have to work based on the value of the information at the time the act was commited I think. Gizmodo set the street value at 5 grand. Ironic.




Member since:
2009-12-04
I have a similar attitude to you in that I don't think we can come to any absolute conclusions yet, and I can't but help thinking that that $5,000 number is awfully ironic, but I do think that your last argument has a gap in it. Or more accurately, I answer your stated query with an "I don't think so...", since you seem to take for granted that that should be a felony. Since the damage of the deconstruction (apart from information dissemination, which is ultimately not an issue once the phone is out in public) can be undone with money, I think it's a civil matter.