Quote Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo View Post
iPhone, Gizmodo and moral clarity about crime.
edit[*]
I did not find this to be very well written, and a bit preachy (now that's saying a lot coming from me! :laugh. I think the crux of most arguements is did Gizmodo knowingly participate as a party to theft when it purchase the phone? This article assumed absolutely yes. I think absolutely yes is an iffy statement.

In my opinion, no - because they did not know for certain it was stolen (it hadn't been reported as so) and they did go out of their way to contact Apple and see to it that it was returned.

My guess is the reason they published Powells name is to document that they did not obtain the phone via industrial espionage - a serious crime. And yes, it was still a dickish move, and not one I'll defend. They were jerks to do it.

As to the original finder, I would not hand a lost iPhone over to a random bartender. Walking out with it - he assumed responsibility to try and find the owner. Now that we're learning how little he actually did, it's very questionable if he can defend that as sufficient. Dumbass - even odds that Apple would have paid him 5k reward as a thank you, and sign here please about not breathing a word of this.

In any event, not Gizmodos problem - they were assured it was not stolen and were told that efforts were made to find the rightful owner. They then did due dillegence anyway. The fact that they took pictures in the meantime - sucks to be Apple, don't abandon your prototype phone in a bar.

The whole REACT heavy handedness still gives me the creeps.

[*] originally posted from my iPhone (which seems so fitting). Which isn't always the best for posting from. That will get better once the awesome new iPhone 4 comes out.