Apple, Gizmodo, and Stuff…
Once again I’ve managed to stir up unexpected trouble on Twitter. Twitter for me is just an inflammatory blog post waiting to happen, I just don’t know which tweet is going to set off the storm.
Here’s what happened this time. I read Michael S. Malone’s piece berating the tech press for covering Apple softly. Until I read this, I wasn’t too upset about iPhoneGate, but Mike’s article framed the situation differently for me: as a free speech issue.
Since my point seemed to be widely misunderstood on Twitter, I will say right up front that I am not commenting on the behavior of Gizmodo or the gentleman who found the phone and subsequently sold it. I would like to think that in the same situation I would return the phone to Apple, although I would certainly be tempted to post some pictures just because I think Apple’s paranoia deserves tweaking whenever possible. Not returning the phone to its (obviously) rightful owner was wrong, but it’s an everyday kind of wrong and it doesn’t affect my life so I’m not going to get too upset about it.
What bothers me is Apple’s reaction. Without knowing the details of the activities that went on, from up here in southern Oregon it looks like Apple enlisted the police to make an example of Gizmodo. If I had lost a hardware prototype and I called the San Mateo police or the REACT group or the Superior Court judge, there’s no way they would have reacted in the way they did. Apple got special treatment because they are large. That’s wrong.
I’ve learned to look for the intent behind behavior that I don’t understand. What could Apple’s intent have been in having Mr. Chen’s house searched in the manner it was? The explanation that makes sense to me is that they wanted to intimidate anyone who was thinking about writing about Apple “secrets”. The course of justice doesn’t demand what they caused to happen. They were looking for effect, is how I read it.
Here’s where it starts to affect my life–what if I figure out something about Apple next “big thing”, purely legitimately? Am I going to write about it? Well, if it’s me I probably will because 1) I’m clueless about what’s going to upset people (obviously) and 2) I hate people telling me what to do. I’d certainly think about it, though. What if Apple took umbrage at what I wrote? Josephine County sheriffs would be battering down my door in no time, and there’s nothing I could do about it. I don’t like that feeling.
My conclusion is that Apple has read too many of its own press releases and thinks the world should run for its benefit. I expect more boorish behavior and increasing alienation from the needs of customers and developers. That’s too bad, because I like my Apple products.
I completely agree that Apple’s behavior recently (on this as well as some other issues) has been disturbing and disappointing. I think you stirred up a storm on Twitter because you linked for support to an article that is clearly disingenuous: it completely ignores the allegations that a real crime was committed by the journalist, choosing to pretend instead that he simply “found himself in possession of” information and chose to publish it.
You may not have been commenting on the behavior of Gizmodo et. al., but by choosing Malone’s piece to link to, it certainly made it seem as if you were.
I also doubt that the police treated the case that way entirely because Apple is large, or at least not in the simplistic way that you imply. I think it’s also, at least partly, because Apple was able to make a convincing case for the very high *value* of the stolen phone. The police usually react more strongly to theft of valuable items. I’m sure there was some “Yes sir Mr. Jobs sir” in the mix, but I think it’s silly to claim that without that there would’ve been no criminal investigation. It seems clear that, according to California law, there’s good reason to think the phone was stolen, and it’s easy to argue that the phone was worth millions of dollars.
Again: I’m certainly don’t wish to defend Apple in this. But the true picture is far less clear than the one you painted.
It’s not about ‘information’ – they got raided because they bought stolen goods.
If it had just been posting pictures/information and not buying the device, it probably wouldn’t've gone down this way.
Gawker are really keen to frame this as a free speech/freedom of the presses issue, but the key difference is that it’s not just information that’s been changing hands, it’s a physical object that was stolen. I can completely understand why they want to frame it this way – it makes them look good – but it’s disingenuous to ignore that they were buying stolen goods.
Apple has nothing to do with the manner of the investigation; this is entirely the responsibility of the police department and the court that decided to issue the warrant. Apple could not have compelled the police to act as they did, nor could they have prevented the police from doing so.
Nor, in the US, could the sherrif batter down your door for expressing an opinion, however outrageous. The threshold for police involvement is very clear and well established: a clear and present danger, such as shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater in order to frighten people and cause a panic.
I am not entirely certain that the police in San Mateo might not have pursued your report of a theft with the same vigor. One would certainly hope they would, and they ought to do so. Glenn Vandenburg makes a good point: large companies (and wealthy people) are more likely to possess items of great value, and police departments do tend to pursue large and conspicuous thefts more vigorously than small ones. Reasonable people may differ on whether this should or should not be the case.
Of course, it is possible that the police department itself acted improperly; if so, they will themselves be investigated.
Maybe I missed something, but has there been a smoking gun that links Apple to the police and their actions?
The police got involved because it is a international story involving a website run by an admitted attention whore & the admitted purchase of stolen goods by their own admission. How could the police not get involved?
Does it say somewhere that the police can only investigate crimes where there is some degree of difficulty in obtaining evidence?
Your reasoning of the reaction to a stolen prototype is flawed. The value of a stolen prototype from Apple and of a stolen prototype from you is not the same, and therefore warrants different reactions.
Wow. Yeah he bought an item he should not have and the guy who found it should not have sold it. Yeah he should have been raided for it, but it was not “stolen,” it was found. If you find a Blackberry on the street, did you steal it, no! As for the authorities reacting in a heightened way, if you believe for a minute it had nothing to do with Jobs and Apple being the plaintiff and all about proper reaction to theft…take off the rose colored glasses. Jobs if getting a little “out there” Not all other tech companies are wrong and he is right. Part of the reason I do not buy apple products.
Kent:
I’m enjoying the comments. However, I’m afraid that a number of folks are missing my key point. I didn’t pronounce on whether the guy who found the iPhone was right or wrong not to return it to Apple (though apparently he made a minimum effort), and I wasn’t keen on Gizmodo buying the prototype. My real question was whether the police abused their powers in the service of a big corporation. You only have to ask yourself: would the San Mateo Police, on the report of a missing prototype from XYZ Startup Inc., have kicked open the doors of the San Jose Mercury-News or San Francisco Chronicle and stormed the news room, snatching the laptop and notes off the desk of a reporter?
I think you know the answer The Shield Law should cover all journalists, not just those who belong to the old-fashioned media. As for there being no proof of Apple’s hand in this . . .please. Apple has been coming down harder on the blogosphere than any other company in tech, perhaps in American business. There’s going to be no paper trail between Apple and the task force on whose board it sits: that’s why Gizmodo needs to sue — in order to get to the real truth through discovery. It also needs to sue — and win — in order to set legal precedent for the fact that, in the 21st century, a blogger is just as much a journalist as a reporter at a major newspaper or television network.
In the meantime, I would suggest that some of your commentors do some real soul searching about which side they want to stand on in this case. It always easy to defend free speech until your (or your favorite vendor’s) ox is being gored.
It must also be possible that Apple didn’t need to exert influence on the police.
It’s in the interests of police departments to bring to a conclusion high profile cases that attract publicity. Perhaps the police determined their own vigorous course.