It's no doubt going to suck for him until this blows over, but it will blow over, and I doubt that his career and life will suffer too much in the long run if he just rides it out. Any rational person looking at this will think it an honest mistake that they could easily have made, as Gizmodo points out tirelessly. Apple would be crazy to fire him.
I think you're overestimating the impact this has. People generally don't remember a name in an article they read at some website some time ago. Secondly, the number of people actually reading this is quite small. For instance, suppose someone lost a Nokia prototype in the same way and the engineer later applied to Apple. How large is the chance that the responsible guy at Apple HR would have heard the story and remembered the name?
"Forgot my cellphone" has got be way down on the list of engineering failures.
The question is not whether hiring managers will find out about this - they will - it's whether they'll care.
Unless the next time we see him is in a grainy beheading video featuring Steve Jobs wielding a large machete.
All this 'OMG STOLEN' drama is totally over the top - I think some people are just looking for an angle at which to get outraged at a newsworthy product leak.
+1 for that.
I haven't even looked at the Gizmodo page in question. That's not for any moral outrage, but because I just don't care. A new Apple product is not going to change my life by one iota. Hearing about an Apple product under development makes even less difference to me.
I have to say: Apple's marketing -- and this is part of it, make no mistake, even if it was precipitated by accident -- are the masters. That they can get the press into such a tizzy, and have such a legion of fanboys, for nothing but a handful of tech products, is what's truly remarkable -- and makes me kind of sad.
Unless it is happening to you. Empathy, geeks are known to lack it, you should at least learn to fake it.
Maybe you're talking about Gary Wotsit being outed - I wasn't referring to that.
Beyond that Gawker is a news source. It's their job to report on stories. So while it was dishonest to buy the stolen prototype this post is just reporting the story and I'm not sure it's out of the bounds of what a news organization should do.
The question they should have asked themselves first was: "Does naming this person CONTRIBUTE to the story?" This is clear Journalism 101. The answer was and is clearly "no." The best line of defense for them is they have none.
Sometimes I hate the internet and its cache. This is one of those times. Anyone can ruin anyone. The really good news is that it appears he has many people on his side.
But the very existence of those laws proves the point I was making which is that reporters should be bound to report all details. Not the other way around
There's no proving or disproving points here, as you seem to think. It is a valid belief that ethically the name of the engineer should not have been reported. You might not share this belief, but it is a valid belief to have and it cannot be disproved. Your ethics are simply different.
Let's say a Conservative reporter is in Iraq and for whatever reason he's the only reporter allowed there. Let's say he finds out that there were no WMD but says to himself "That's irrelevant because President Bush thought there were WMD so there's no reason for me to report on that". Would that be right?
Of course not. But the reason we have rules against reporters using their judgement to omit details is because it leads to situations like the above.
Now back to this situation. I'm not saying this is true I'm just putting forth a possibility. That said what if this is a person who serially does things like this? What if he could be linked to several leaks over the past few years? Wouldn't his name be relevant then? But how could you know if that was the case if reporters decided to omit his name every time he was involved? That's just one example of how this one fact that you think is irrelevant could in fact be very relevant
Gizmodo have chosen to not only imperil this guy's current job with Apple but also his future career prospects. First by providing a market for stolen Apple secrets and being a willing buyer and publisher of the prototype and its details and second by splashing his name all over the internet. Count me amongst those who will boycott Gizmodo and all other Gawker sites from now on.
Journalists have to make judgments all the time, they have to decide which parts of a story are important and which parts are irrelevant. If they didn’t do that – if they weren’t allowed to do that – they wouldn’t do their job. Reporting whatever you hear and see is not what being a journalist means.
You can have nice arguments about which judgments are the right ones, which are the wrong ones. Saying that Gizmodo should just report whatever they know is not such a argument.
(You actually start to make the right kind of argument in your last paragraph which is nice but I don’t see how there is any evidence at all that hints at the scenario you are describing. There are always many things which are possible but that’s hardly a convincing argument. Evidence is what’s needed.)
Note please, that the New York Times [1] doesn’t mention the name. Apple engineer is all they write.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/technology/companies/20app...
Well, then apparently the beginning of the end was the beginning of journalism. This is done all the time.
Less and less difference. This is an outlier at the moment, but having your entire life, mistakes and all, laid out for anyone to view... that's just going to be normal.
Also, Gawker could have easily reported on this story and kept the engineer's name private. For example, read the NY Times article re-reporting the story, you won't see the engineer's name. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/technology/companies/20app...
I asked if you ever misplaced anything valuable or anything that mattered to you. A wallet could be something valuable, or your keys. Most valuable, however, would be your sense of compassion, which right now you have clearly misplaced.
This engineer had an obligation to his company that he disregarded and his only excuse is "I was drunk and thoughtless" (which really isn't an excuse at all).
Again, I'm not advocating he be fired because I think people should have the right to make mistakes but I find it appalling that the attitude in this comment thread has been that being drunk makes it ok to be derelict in your duties.
What a responsible human being you are. You probably don't have kids though :)
People lose their kids in places like supermarkets all the time ... I haven't (yet) but it's a possibility (because kids by definition don't stay put) and I'd appreciate that if you found my child instead of stealing it from me to sell it to the highest bidder, you'd return it to me, because otherwise I might just burn down your house with you in it :)
Yeah, it's a bad analogy because for most people a phone is not equal to a child, but for passionate engineers the line is kind of blurry, isn't it?
> the attitude in this comment thread has been that being drunk makes it ok to be derelict in your duties
No, the attitude is that it's not OK to steal property, even if that person you're stealing from is drunk ... and to make matters worse the buyer also made the story public, for no public good whatsoever.
Please, let's not compare our children with iPhones. Maybe choose a better analogy?
> Yeah, it's a bad analogy because for most people a phone is not equal to a child, but for passionate engineers the line is kind of blurry, isn't it?
Yes, it is a bad analogy, so why did you use it? If you are going to claim that passionate engineers equate products to living humans, at least qualify that by saying "a small proportion".
> No, the attitude is that it's not OK to steal property, even if that person you're stealing from is drunk ... and to make matters worse the buyer also made the story public, for no public good whatsoever.
The guy who had the phone tried to return it. He did more than most people would. On top of that, he was unable to get any contact information off the phone because they wiped it.
Yes he could have returned it to the bar but who knows how trustworthy those bar owners are?
Harm limitation principle ...This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:[17]
* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Beyond that this is not a tragedy. This is someone dealing with the consequences of their actions.
Finally publishing photos off someone's social networking site is not invading their privacy.
Again I point out that you didn't read the whole article you quoted. You zeroed in on the points that you think support your argument and ignored the rest. Maybe you should take more than five seconds and read the whole article
Actual responsible journalists often withhold names of ordinary people that get into news stories if disclosure would be embarrassing or damaging for those people. For example, the names of people that are accused of crimes are usually not disclosed by journalists until these people have been charged. The names of people that are killed or injured in a newsworthy event are also usually not disclosed. The names of victims of sensitive crimes like rape or sexual harassment are usually not disclosed.
Of course Apple know he is the one who lost it, but now every future potential employer will also know. And again there was no reason at all for his name to have been made public.
[1] - unless your film or music career literally pre-dates Charlie Chaplin, you knew what you were getting into.