Appholes

Discuss new comics, posts, and news directly from the Snafu-Comics main page!

Moderator: Mod Squad

Postby Dave » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:23 am

It's no secret that I love Apple and I'll never go back to being a PC. But douchey crap like Apple pulled over the new iphone getting leaked... yeah it makes me want to like them a whole lot less. John Stewart does it best though.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Appholes
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
WiNg0o wrote:To be honest I thought Dave just existed. In the beginning there was Dave.
Administrator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18162
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:07 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Gullible » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:29 am

This one is hard to sort through mainly because alot of information is not present. Regardless of whether the guy who sold Gizmodo the iphone took it out of the pocket or just picked it up off a the floor of a bar selling it was illegal and results in the item being classified as stolen. Had he returned it this wouldn't be the case but who am I kidding? My technophilia is well under control and even I probably would have sold it. This of course doesn't make the act right, it just makes me honest enough to admit how dishonest I am, honestly.

lso Gizmodo took apart the iphone during their review. Did they keep a few pieces? We don't know. We can't know details like that at this time. I do believe that a raid was way over the top. A full blown raid was unnecessary as a knock on the door, a piece of paper, and probably a swift kick in the event of resistance would have sufficed. Only problem is given what I've seen police do over the last few years and what I've seen on the real news over recent years I am not prepared to trust what any of the sources say at full face value. Was the raid as dramatic as implied? Just how was the iphone prototype lost in the bar? In this situation though confiscation of computers in order to search them for any trade secrets or possibly missing hardware is necessary. Did they even return the prototype or just switch cases? I don't have the answer to any of these questions. This is speculation on the part of someone somewhat paranoid.

All I know is that in hindsight New User is PARANOID would look so much better than New User is Gullible. Hindsight is 20/20, eh?
offline
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:08 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Dave » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:22 pm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html

Well there is a more serious new source about it and there is an update link on the story as well.
WiNg0o wrote:To be honest I thought Dave just existed. In the beginning there was Dave.
Administrator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18162
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:07 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby PunkyChipsAhoy » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:24 pm

It should come to no surprise that Apple are a bunch of dicks when it comes to their precious iPhone and iPad [a guy was recently banned for life from buying another iPad].
A Pimp Named Jeezy Creezy: Lasting all the way up to Valentine's.

And the Pimpeth lord sat amidst his real ballin' players, the Apostles, and raisingeth his cup of Cristal as they devoured the grapes and cheese from the finest bitches in town he said

"Sleepery Dee, Sleepery Doo.
Whoever betrays me tonight, I'll mo'fuckin' cap you!"
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13061
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: ....
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby King Bing Bing » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:48 pm

I loled when I saw this last night.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:29 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby zepherin » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:26 pm

I saw that on the consumerist and then john stewart. Appholes. I love.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Gullible » Sat May 01, 2010 6:46 pm

Still not seeing quite where it is a clear cut violation of civil rights. The iphone prototype was not purchased legally (since the person who sold the iphone to the reporter did not obtain it legally himself I hope that the money paid was recovered) but trafficking in stolen merchandise is a crime and since trade secrets are involved this goes somewhat beyond just journalism. In all honesty, this guy new the item was probably obtained less than legally but just didn't care. I do believe that bloggers and other internet reporters should be protected by the shield law and that they should be recognized quickly to help ensure free speech but the shield law does not say that a journalist cannot have a search warrant issued against him at all or that his property cannot be confiscated. It states that these things cannot be done in an effort to divulge a source or to force him to disclose unpublished information, this being there to protect sources and keep the journalist from being put in danger by divulging information on say, the location of a militia headquarters. The law is not absolute protection and since trade secrets are involved searching the computers is not outside of the scope of a reasonable investigation.

This site has a copy of the warrant issued http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize ... -computers

Wired declined the iphone on the grounds that it was probably not legally obtained and is reported to have named the person who sold the phone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1874

Mr. Chen ignored the likelihood in order to be the guy who could say "FIRST!" on the new topic post. he could have avoided any liability and probably gotten a review out of it if instead of buying the iphone and returning it to Apple after they requested it he had gone to Apple and told them he had obtained the iphone from someone who likely did not come to its possession legally; would like to return it and perhaps they would oblige him with an interview. If questioned on whether that was a condition he could simply have said no and asked to come down and return the item to them in the morning. In this case then it would be a clear violation as his actions would have been in the intent of returning the lost/stolen property peacefully. The clear difference being that instead of getting what he wanted and then relinquishing the item he would have relinquished the item with no promise of getting anything in return.

There are many clear cases of rights violations in this country. I saw on an episode of BULLSHIT! a security camera clip of a police officer pointing a loaded weapon at the head of a high school student in the hallway of her high school as she huddled against the wall in compliance with the officer during their routine drug search. This case is that of two opportunistic individuals who believed that they could not be punished for actions outside of the law because there is a law that is in place specifically to ensure that anyone can go to a journalist safely. They aren't scum, but to an outsider who can only read the laws cited and has not been trained to work the system like me (not that anyone here necessarily has either) it doesn't seem that they are protected or that any of the parties involved in the actual theft and sale had the best intentions or even intentions falling into the category of shades of gray.
offline
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:08 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Gullible » Sat May 01, 2010 6:47 pm

Oh, and Zeph, awesome avatar picture.
offline
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:08 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby zepherin » Sat May 01, 2010 11:26 pm

Thanks. While I agree that this isn't in the spirit of the shield doctrine, it may be within the wording of the shield doctrine. And in law. It's what it says that matters not what it's intent was. Likely scenario. The gear they took stays in evidence for a year or two while they go through it. The defendants lawyers get the evidence suppressed and the judge grants a motion to dismiss do to lack of evidence. At this point what matters is the caliber of Chens lawyers. If he has a reputable law firm working for him. He'll go free. If he spent 500 dollars and got a lawyer out of the back of a local paper. He'll get a favorable plea deal. If he represents himself and screams first amendment at the judge he'll go to jail.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Dave » Sat May 01, 2010 11:44 pm

Here's my thing. They told Apple about it first. Apple denied it was the iphone and so he blogged about it. Apple then said it was and they wanted it back and he gave it back. AFTER all that they rammed through his door and harassed him. Seriously Apple is being grade A douchebags on this one. Admitedly something that will make BILLIONS for the company it's hard not to take seriously but they're handling it completely wrong.
WiNg0o wrote:To be honest I thought Dave just existed. In the beginning there was Dave.
Administrator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18162
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:07 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby zepherin » Sun May 02, 2010 1:39 am

To be fair it was the police that rammed down his door it wasn't the iPolicia.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby BeeAre » Sun May 02, 2010 5:07 am

zepherin and gullible how do you know so much about the law? i am genuinely curious :)
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: Appholes

Postby zepherin » Sun May 02, 2010 12:35 pm

BeeAre wrote:zepherin and gullible how do you know so much about the law? i am genuinely curious :)

Well I took introduction to law and constitutional law as electives for my social science degree, and I took business law and currently taking Legal Environment as a requirement for the MBA I'm working on.

IANAL though
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby Gullible » Sun May 02, 2010 2:44 pm

Google. And regarding the shield law it clearly states that it only applies to identities of sources or information not publicized. So in this wording if they discover by accident he's linked to Al Qaida (pulled out my rear end for shock value) that is unpublicized information but it would be unpublicized and completely unlinked to the story that supposedly sparked the search (I consider a raid to include the SWAT team or at least a flash bang). Now of course he isn't connected to a terrorist organization but my point is the shield law although sounding vague on the part of unpublicized information actually isn't. Any information related to the story that he published and decided to omit for whatever reason. If there was an email with a schematic for a new product on that iphone and they're concerned he ma have it stored somewhere else then the schematic isn't "unpublicized information" simply because he hasn't put it in print yet; it is a trade secret and the sole property of Apple computers I believe due to intellectual property rights although the idea of owning thoughts always confused me somewhat.

And as for him telling apple computers about it I have actually not read that or somehow managed to go glossy eyed when I came to it as I don't seem to have retained it. Double post the link for me so I can give you the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so," please.
offline
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:08 am
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby zepherin » Sun May 02, 2010 7:43 pm

Gullible wrote:Google. And regarding the shield law it clearly states that it only applies to identities of sources or information not publicize

The problem is that what information on his computer is or is not from sources not publicized. In some jurisdictions it all falls under confidential and if that is how it is written and the judge rules that way then all evidence is suppressed. In other jurisdictions the laws are written differently. Your still interpreting the meaning of the law not the base of what is said. Some things are omitted that makes them unpublished. And in this case there will be lawyers arguing on precedent and whether that falls under the law. And really what the judges mood was.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Appholes

Postby (CH3)3CLi » Sun May 02, 2010 8:32 pm

Gullible wrote:And as for him telling apple computers about it I have actually not read that or somehow managed to go glossy eyed when I came to it as I don't seem to have retained it. Double post the link for me so I can give you the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so," please.


Well, I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but this article from ABC News partially covers Gizmodo's response to a letter from Apple's senior counsel asking for the return of the prototype iPhone. On the first page, Gizmodo does agree to returning the iPhone as per Apple's request. What this acquiescence affects in terms of legal matters and the subsequent raid is beyond me, but it seems to be a crucial point of interest from what I have read in your and zepherin's posts.

EDIT: Legal issues aside, however, I do feel that Apple's response may have been excessive regarding this journalist and his coverage of their exclusive product. Then again, this is not the first time that Apple has unleashed its Gestapo on unsuspecting Internet journalists. If you are interested, you should take a look at O'Grady v. Apple, or how an Apple employee committed suicide due to the Foxconn interrogation he was subjected to. I certainly hope Apple will not prosecute Jason Chen following this raid.
Image
Pyrophoric
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:09 pm
Location: In a solution.
Gender: Male

Re: Appholes

Postby Gullible » Mon May 03, 2010 9:48 am

The first page does say that they attempted to return it but that Apple would have to claim it on record, hardly a small thing. It would confirm that it is an iphone prototype which means yes all that they had seen is about to be released to the public at some pint. More importantly though, that would make Apple look quite foolish (which Gizmodo ultimately did). The prototype was forgotten in a bar. That itself is embarrassing when it's your wallet or your keys or your crummy cheapo phone. Also on record would basically mean that Apple gave them an interview by simply letting them have the phone and saying "Yes, it is a prototype" which they never agreed to. Gizmodo tried to bend them over a barrel by putting the whole thing on the record. It could have caused some major problems (granted probably for only a few days as they smooth things over with other tech sites and magazines) but still, by wanting it on record Gizmodo attached strings to the return of stolen property. I'm pretty sure that maintains the unlawful nature although this doesn't seem as arrogant or audacious as demanding they reimburse the $5000 dollars payed and give them a finder's fee. Gizmodo demanded something as a precondition of returning the phone, that was just plain stupid and not even close the polar opposite of what I suggested. It does constitute an, "I told you so," but a bittersweet one at best.
offline
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:08 am
Gender: None specified


Return to Comic Updates and News!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests