The iPhone 4G Soap Opera

If you're a follower of all things iPhone, you'll have heard about the presumed 4th generation iPhone prototype that found it's way from the floor of a bar into the hands of Gizmodo and ultimately onto the interwebs. Evidently, someone found the device at said bar and contacted Gizmodo, that had basically put up a bounty on unreleased Apple devices. When Gizmodo paid the bounty to the finder, it disassembled said device and posted the results and their analysis on the Internet. Eventually Apple did request the return of its property and Gizmodo complied.

The latest news is that a Gizmodo editor that was responsible for posting the details of the device had his home raided and several computers seized by REACT (Rapid Enforcement and Allied Computer Team). Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker, is arguing that the editor, Jason Chen, is protected by California shield law protecting journalists from revealing anonymous sources.

It's debatable whether bloggers are journalists, though many would seem to think so, and the New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't think so in a recent ruling. Regardless, there are California laws that possession of lost property can be considered theft even if the possessor doesn't know if the property was stolen, but knows who the owner is likely to be. On top of that, I don't know how much legal trouble or political capital is at stake when a technology blog site reveals what may amount to trade secrets as said items have not been made publicly available.

It's obvious that Gizmodo was more interested in getting a scoop than returning a missing and valuable item, but for all its talk about bloggers being journalists, it leaves a bad ethical taste in a lot of people's mouths when news that Gizmodo paid $5,000 for this iPhone prototype. I would think that journalists with credibility would want to confirm the authenticity of the device with where it presumably originated (Apple), rather than disassembling it. Did they think that journalism protected them from doing whatever they wanted with what could presumably be stolen property. Once they determined that it indeed was an authentic Apple device based on their dissection and analysis, they were legally obliged to return it to Apple. By not doing so, they were partaking in a CRIMINAL act.

My OPINION is that bloggers are not journalists. There is no editorial review of their contributions and no guarantee of fact checking. With very little assurance that said works are free any modicum of bias, how do they expect to be considered journalists?

Journalists do not commit crime and understand the boundaries of the law, not just hide behind it to serve any purpose. They made no attempt to return the item, nor report it to authorities. How would they know if it was reported stolen? While even a reasonable person may not know who to return the item to, Gizmodo has editors who are knowledgeable of tech gadgets and technology in general. They would be able to figure out whether the device was legitimate or not by simple examination of the device without dissection. But they chose to disassemble it under the excuse that they were verifying the authenticity of the device...and then published their findings -- photos and all -- to the Internet. All this, and they did not attempt to contact Apple to let them know that they were in possession of the device. Because they knew that this was an Apple product, and not returning it, they were in essence violating criminal law, which is not protected by California's shield law.

I'm basing all of my arguments on an article discussing the legal issues behind this story, but this article at The Register does a very good job going over all the know facts.

If somehow Gizmodo is absolved of the charges laid against them, they will have lost credibility with many tech companies, and have them less-willing to talk to them or any of Gawker's media properties.

But bad judgement and susoect ethics is apparently forgivable in America, and in some circles, applauded.