The Counter Argument

by JS

Gruber asks:

What’s the counter-argument? That REACT should never investigate any crime against one of the companies on its steering committee? What company would sign up for that? My inbox is chockablock with messages from those who think Apple initiated this. That can’t happen.

The counter-argument is that Apple could threaten to withdraw material support for REACT if the DA does not vigorously pursue the case against Gizmodo. I’m not sure that this is what happened. I also don’t have any opinion about the Gizmodo’s  current legal difficulties, but the idea that a steering committee for a law enforcement initiative is composed of corporate members seems deeply problematic, independent of the current iPhone prototype saga.

UPDATE: As long as I’m speculating wildly about possible quid pro quo, I might as well suggest being on the  lookout for a rash of firings at Apple and other REACT member companies as information on Gizmodo sources leaks out of the task force.

UPDATE^2: Ugh. The internet is wrong! Gruber tweets a follow-up tweet/post:

Yahoo News reporter alleging conflict of interest has conflict of interest:http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/26/cook-gawker

Since the reporter no longer works for Gawker, he actually doesn’t have a conflict of interest. That said, even if we were to follow the convoluted logic that conflicts of interest extend to former employers, you still end up having to equivocate between a minor transgression based on employment and a major one involving the potential inequity in the criminal justice system itself. Totally different animals.