Why the buzz ..... Stolen i Phone Debacle ?

Why the buzz ..... Stolen i Phone Debacle ?problem than the iPhone story. The Twitter documents
were clearly stolen from Twitter by a hacker who
The biggest story in tech today is the Gizmodo stolenbroke into their email accounts. Here's a full description
iPhone debacle (note that I use the word "stolen" onlyof how that happened. Ultimately we decided that it
to keep the description brief, not in any legal way). Anwas reasonable for us to publish the documents
Apple employee with a iPhone prototype left it in a bar.because the value of the news was substantial. And
Someone found it and sold it to Gizmodo for $5,000.the hacker also made it clear that he intended for the
Gizmodo got a huge scoop, but they are now facingdocuments to be published. We spent a great deal of
criminal and possibly civil liability issues. John Gruber hastime convincing him not to do that, because most of
a good summary of the first part of the story. Howthe documents were simply too personally sensitive
this all plays out is still being decided, but the policeand embarrassing.
have now raided a Gizmodo editor's home and haveIn the Gizmodo/iPhone case things are less clear. The
seized property.phone was left behind by an engineer and was found
A number of sites have compared this to the Twitterby another individual. Should that individual have
document scandal that we were in the middle of lastreturned it to Apple? You can argue that, but you can't
year. And we've received a number of inquiries aboutargue that Apple wasn't negligent in letting it be found
whether or not we would have handled this iPhonein the first place.
situation the same way as Gizmodo did.Where Gizmodo made a mistake in my opinion is
I'm not going to go into the legal issues around thiswhen they purchased the phone. This is something we
because I'm just not qualified. I will say that having thewould never do. We've been asked if we wanted to
police raid my house would very likely be a net positivepurchase information in the past that would have
event – it would place us firmly in the middle of themade for some great stories and we have always
story, and all eyes would be on us. So don't thinkdeclined. Our policy is to never pay for information.
Gawker is trembling in their boots just yet. I would hopeThat isn't common, and even the big media outlets will
that any legal pressure would be on me though, notoccasionally pay for a story. But it just isn't something
one of our writers.we're comfortable with.
But putting that aside, how would I have handled theDoes the legal case against Gizmodo rely on the fact
story?that they purchased the iPhone? I don't know, but it
The Twitter documents were emailed to us without ussure does make them look bad.
requesting them in any way. We contacted TwitterApple's complaint will be that information about the
and their lawyers immediately, before publishing anyphone leaked early, giving competitors a head start on
documents. There were lots of behind the scenescopying the features. That's a reasonable complaint,
discussions, but Twitter made it very clear from thebut it seems to me they can make the same case
first conversation that they would not take legal actionagainst Engadget, which also posted leaked photos of
against us for publishing the documents. They justthe device. The same damage was done there, and
wanted to make sure that they weren't all published.they posted before Gizmodo.
Twitter certainly tried to stop us from publishing any ofThe bottom line is this. If someone walked the new
the documents, but they put moral and ethical pressureiPhone into our offices and offered to let us take
on us, not legal pressure. And we never came to fullpictures of it, we'd do that in a second. If Apple or the
agreement on what the ethically correct thing to dopolice came after us, we'd lawyer up and make it as
was – I wrote my thoughts on that here.big of a circus as possible. The only thing we wouldn't
In some ways the Twitter story was more of ado is pay for the device.