3 ms·

His job was to make stuff at Apple, their job is to report stuff about Apple. No moral outrage please.

maxharris 16y ago
When their "job" comes into conflict with state laws concerning theft, moral outrage is appropriate. Gizmodo traded in property they knew was stolen (according to California state law), and that alone is enough for anyone to be angry with them. The way they treated Gray is awful and immoral (if not illegal). I won't visit their site again, and I don't think anyone else should, either (morally speaking).
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  I have to disagree with this conflation of laws and morals. Journalists certainly break laws; and this may have happened in this case; but I don't see how that makes them immoral. For example, the theft and sale to a newspaper of UK MPs expenses details was illegal but not widely considered immoral. I'd like to quote from [1] before continuing: "Last year, an employee at Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that is one of Apple's biggest suppliers, committed suicide after being accused of stealing a prototype for the iPhone. Sun Danyong, 25, was a university graduate working in the logistics department when the prototype went missing. An investigation revealed that the factory's security staff had beaten him, and he subsequently jumped to his death from the 12th floor of his apartment building." If you want to talk about the legality and morality of Apple trying its damnedest to keep trade secrets, then what is your opinion of Apple using a supplier which beats an employee suspected of theft/loss and pushes him to suicide? Because, (morally speaking) that is far more reprehensible than a journalist getting a scoop by acquiring a trade secret through theft. As to the way Gizmodo treated Gary, well, it sucks that he lost it but that's life, Apple should accept that in-field testing will lead to some losses. Gizmodo couldn't have hidden his identity since presumably only one iPhone 4G has been lost. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-ad...
  - maxharris 16y ago
    I do not conflate law with morality; they are distinct and have a definite relationship. The moral for any individual is what is in that person's long-term rational self-interest. Law is a subset - it should only extract justice in the defense of individual rights. So correct, objective laws (good for people) must be moral. Although correct laws necessarily cannot enforce morality (instead, they must be limited to the protection of individual rights), they are limited by morality - they must not criminalize moral actions. -- If someone came to your house and robbed you, would you just say, "Hey, that's life. People are going to rob me, so I just have to accept some losses. I'm not going to defend myself or go to the police"? -- On to Foxconn: Yes, Apple should take responsibility for the Foxconn suicide, along with Dell and Sony, all of whom use the same factory in Shenzhen, where four more employees have since committed suicide. What does taking responsibility entail? Getting more control over Foxconn's security procedures, demanding prosecution of the particular managers that actually forced the suicides, all under threat of halting production and using a different supplier, or manufacturing in a different country if necessary. If that doesn't work, Apple should spend some bucks and literally advertise the problem to Americans - take the moral high ground and say "we took the lead in quitting these guys, and our competitors - Dell and Sony - did not." If they don't do this, and the people making the devices keep getting murdered (forced suicide), they lose legitimacy morally. Morality is essential in business, because without it, long-term profitability cannot be achieved.
ugh 16y ago
Report stuff about Apple, not about Apple engineers. I can understand if you think it's ok for Gizmodo to buy the lost/stolen iPhone (I don't agree), I absoluly can't understand how you can think it is ok for Gizmodo to drag Gray into the public.

When their "job" comes into conflict with state laws concerning theft, moral outrage is appropriate. Gizmodo traded in property they knew was stolen (according to California state law), and that alone is enough for anyone to be angry with them. The way they treated Gray is awful and immoral (if not illegal). I won't visit their site again, and I don't think anyone else should, either (morally speaking).

Robin_Message 16y ago
I have to disagree with this conflation of laws and morals. Journalists certainly break laws; and this may have happened in this case; but I don't see how that makes them immoral. For example, the theft and sale to a newspaper of UK MPs expenses details was illegal but not widely considered immoral. I'd like to quote from [1] before continuing: "Last year, an employee at Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that is one of Apple's biggest suppliers, committed suicide after being accused of stealing a prototype for the iPhone. Sun Danyong, 25, was a university graduate working in the logistics department when the prototype went missing. An investigation revealed that the factory's security staff had beaten him, and he subsequently jumped to his death from the 12th floor of his apartment building." If you want to talk about the legality and morality of Apple trying its damnedest to keep trade secrets, then what is your opinion of Apple using a supplier which beats an employee suspected of theft/loss and pushes him to suicide? Because, (morally speaking) that is far more reprehensible than a journalist getting a scoop by acquiring a trade secret through theft. As to the way Gizmodo treated Gary, well, it sucks that he lost it but that's life, Apple should accept that in-field testing will lead to some losses. Gizmodo couldn't have hidden his identity since presumably only one iPhone 4G has been lost. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-ad...
- maxharris 16y ago
  I do not conflate law with morality; they are distinct and have a definite relationship. The moral for any individual is what is in that person's long-term rational self-interest. Law is a subset - it should only extract justice in the defense of individual rights. So correct, objective laws (good for people) must be moral. Although correct laws necessarily cannot enforce morality (instead, they must be limited to the protection of individual rights), they are limited by morality - they must not criminalize moral actions. -- If someone came to your house and robbed you, would you just say, "Hey, that's life. People are going to rob me, so I just have to accept some losses. I'm not going to defend myself or go to the police"? -- On to Foxconn: Yes, Apple should take responsibility for the Foxconn suicide, along with Dell and Sony, all of whom use the same factory in Shenzhen, where four more employees have since committed suicide. What does taking responsibility entail? Getting more control over Foxconn's security procedures, demanding prosecution of the particular managers that actually forced the suicides, all under threat of halting production and using a different supplier, or manufacturing in a different country if necessary. If that doesn't work, Apple should spend some bucks and literally advertise the problem to Americans - take the moral high ground and say "we took the lead in quitting these guys, and our competitors - Dell and Sony - did not." If they don't do this, and the people making the devices keep getting murdered (forced suicide), they lose legitimacy morally. Morality is essential in business, because without it, long-term profitability cannot be achieved.

ugh 16y ago

Report stuff about Apple, not about Apple engineers. I can understand if you think it's ok for Gizmodo to buy the lost/stolen iPhone (I don't agree), I absoluly can't understand how you can think it is ok for Gizmodo to drag Gray into the public.