you punted and dodged on my question. It's a legitimate question, too, as some people are displaying a bit of righteous indignation vs. Gizmodo on this issue, and it's a pertinent inquiry as to where they would draw the line on acceptable/unacceptable actions where matters such as this are concerned.
Look, I have no love for Gizmodo. I only look at them for tech info. And I do have to say that gawker.com seems to be run by a bunch of jerks, in my view. On the other hand, I LOVE lifehacker.com. So, I give the family of sites mixed reviews.
Your antagonism vs. Gizmodo seems personal, and that appears to be coloring your opinion. Hey, that's fine; you're entitled. I'm looking at the broader picture. Take gizmodo and its history --as you see it-- out of the picture and replace it with some other tech site. What's permissible and what isn't --in your eyes-- regarding access to and publishing proprietary trade secrets information even if no money changes hands?
What I'm getting, by and large, is that some people just can't stand gizmodo. Far be it for me to challenge that, but I don't really pay that much attention to them to agree/disagree with that.
Why anyone individually would care whether gizmodo broke the law seems odd to me. That's for them to have to answer for, and they just may have to. But the information that came out about the prototype is now public, regardless. Can anyone honestly say that they didn't read the details about the prototype because of concerns that Gizmodo didn't act appropriately in obtaining it? Possible, but not likely.