FBI/DOJ Call Apple Liars and Hypsters; accuse Apple of ‘Corrosive’ manipulation of media to save dying company

Apple: DOJ ‘desperate,’ brief reads like indictment

 

The Justice Department on Thursday filed its latest response to Apple in the fight over iPhone encryption, calling the tech giant’s rhetoric in the San Bernardino, California, case “false” and “corrosive” of institutions that safeguard rights.

The debate surrounds whether Apple should comply with a court order to help authorities unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year’s San Bernardino attack, which left 14 people dead.

“Here, Apple deliberately raised technological barriers that now stand between a lawful warrant and an iPhone containing evidence related to the terrorist mass murder of 14 Americans. Apple alone can remove those barriers so that the FBI can search the phone, and it can do so without undue burden,” the DOJ wrote in the filing.

Apple is due to face the FBI in court later this month. The company, which has said it would have to create software to allow investigators to crack the phone, has argued that doing so could create a dangerous precedent. In a call with reporters Thursday, Apple senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell said the DOJ has become “so desperate” that it has “thrown all decorum to the wind.

“The tone of the brief reads like an indictment,” he said.

Sewell called the brief an “unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple.” In the call, attorneys for Apple said they plan to file a reply brief, which is due March 15. The attorneys reiterated Apple’s position that the disagreement should not be settled in the court system.

Authorities claim they only seek to unlock the device in question. The DOJ reiterated that point Thursday, calling the court order “modest” and arguing it “invades no one’s privacy.”

“It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying,” the filing said.

Attorneys for Apple questioned Thursday where the limits of the power will stop. Some critics of the court order believe it could lead to a so-called back door through Apple’s encryption system. The DOJ contended the case would not give it that power.

Apple, by keeping close control over its software and devices, “maintains a continued connection to its phones,” the DOJ’s filing said.

“Apple is not some distant, disconnected third party unexpectedly and arbitrarily dragooned into helping solve a problem for which it bears no responsibility,” the DOJ wrote.

Many prominent technology companies have backed Apple in the case. Amazon.com, Alphabet‘s Google, Facebook and Microsoft, among others, recently filed a joint brief in support of Apple.

President Barack Obama will not discuss the dispute on Friday during his keynote address at the South by Southwest music and technology conference, Reuters reported, citing a White House official.

Reuters contributed to this report. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/justice-department-accuses-apple-of-false-corrosive-rhetoric-in-fbi-dispute.html

Government Response to Apple

 

FBI/DOJ Call Apple Liars and Hypsters; accuse Apple of ‘Corrosive’ manipulation of media to save dying company

 

 

Toxic Smoke From Burning Batteries

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

The Axciom Overview

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

How The White House Helps Elon

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

GAWKER EDITOR SAYS, IN COURT, THAT HE WOULD ONLY LIMIT PEDO SEX TAPES TO “FOUR YEARS OLD”. JURY IRKED!

GAWKER EDITOR SAYS, IN COURT, THAT HE WOULD ONLY LIMIT PEDO SEX TAPES TO “FOUR YEARS OLD”. JURY IRKED!

Where Gawker editor draws the line: A sex-tape of a 4-year-old!

 

 

 

By Julia Marsh and Yaron Steinbuch

 

Jurors in Hulk Hogan’s sex video trial on Wednesday heard a videotaped deposition of Gawker’s former editor in chief — saying he’d draw the line at posting the sex tape of a celebrity who is under 4 years old.

 

A.J. Daulerio, 41, was sitting ramrod straight in the Florida courtroom during the awkward moment when he was asked on video by Hogan’s lawyer, “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?”

 

Daulerio answered flatly, “If they were a child.”

 

“Under what age?” attorney Charles Harder asked.

 

“Four,” he said.

 

“No four-year-old sex tapes, OK,” Harder said.

 

A Gawker spokesman later insisted Daulerio was being flippant.

 

“He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear,” the spokesman said.

 

Daulerio, who looked bored throughout the grilling, wiping his eyes and resting his hand on his chin, also claimed he would have no problem if his own hypothetical sex tape was published.

 

Modal Trigger Photo: Splash News

 

“It wouldn’t upset you in any way to have your sexual encounters appear on the Internet?” he was asked.

 

“I somewhat expect that to happen at some point,” Daulerio said.

 

During Day 3 of the trial, jurors seemed distressed by Daulerio’s cavalier attitude about posting the sex tape.

 

One male juror squinted his eyes, pursed his lips and leaned back in his chair while a female juror kept her arms crossed then jotted down notes.

 

A third woman looked down during parts of the testimony as Daulerio sat next to Gawker founder Nick Denton in the front row.

 

On the opposite side sat Hogan, wearing a pinstripe suit and his trademark black bandanna on his head.

 

Daulerio said he first heard about the sex video when it was a story on TMZ in March 2012. He said that in early October 2012, he received an actual copy of the full, 30-minute video from a source.

 

“I watched it and watched it one or two times and then, then decided whether or not we are going to publish some of the contents of it, and was discussing how we could possibly share some of the contents of it, and was discussing how we could possibly share some of the footage on Gawker.com,” he said.

 

He said he turned the tape over to his video editor and “selected various spots of the tape that I considered both newsworthy in the context of our story and had her twiddle it down to whatever the time frame was, I believe it was close to two minutes of footage.”

 

He said he wanted to verify that Hogan and Heather Clem – then-wife of Hogan’s former best pal Bubba the Love Sponge Clem – “were actually having sex, so I believe we did small snippets of those two having intercourse.”

 

Daulerio went on to say that he found the video “very amusing” and “newsworthy” – and would be “somewhat popular” on the site.

 

“Did you give any consideration prior to Oct. 4, 2012, as to whether publishing the Hulk Hogan sex tape would distress Hulk Hogan,” the lawyer asked.

 

“No,” he answered.

 

“You didn’t care, really, did you?” Harder asked.

 

“No,” he said again.

 

“Had you known that Hulk Hogan would be emotionally distressed by this publication you would have still published it, correct?” he was asked.

 

“Sure, yes,” Daulerio said.

 

Harder also showed an email from Denton that said Daulerio “breaks all the rules of orthodox management.”

 

“Is that a positive thing?” Harder asked Daulerio.

 

“I don’t know the exact answer to that but I would assume yes, he enjoyed me breaking the rules of orthodox management,” Daulerio said.

 

Harder read the jury a paragraph from a 2011 GQ profile of Daulerio when he was the head of Gawker’s brother sports site Deadspin.

 

It said: “His tactics -— reporting rumors, paying for news and making Deadspin’s money on stories that are really about sex, not sports — are questionable. His success is not. When he became editor of the site in July 2008, it had 700,000 readers per month. Today it has 2.3 million.”

 

The pseudo-journalist also admitted to paying $12,000 for photos of now-retired NFL player Brett Favre’s penis.

 

He said he didn’t consider the 2012 publication of Duchess Kate Middleton’s naked breasts an “invasion of privacy” because “she’s a public figure” and thought the size of Hogan’s penis was “newsworthy.”

 

In later testimony, Hogan’s longtime attorney David Houston said the sex tape spread like a cancer online after Gawker posted it in October 2012.

 

Questioned by Harder, Houston said he zeroed in on tracking down the culprit responsible for making the video after TMZ first reported its existence in March 2012.

 

He described why he and Hogan went on TMZ Live at that time to talk about the tape

 

“If it were a sex tape out there I felt it incumbent upon me as counsel to try to find it and essentially put a bullet in it,” Houston said.

 

In a clip played for the jury, Hogan said that he didn’t know who the woman was because “the truth is it wasn’t just one brunette … I was running pretty wild there for a few months.”

 

“The purpose naturally was to announce if anyone goes forward with this thing we’re going to find him and we’re going to prosecute him,” Houston said. “At that point we were desperate for knowledge.”

 

Two porn sites reached out to Hogan to buy the steamy footage – Vivid.com and Sex.com.

 

Vivid’s letter said: “We understand that you believe this tape was filmed without your permission. Whatever the case we would still like to dis the opportunity to work together as we feel this would be one of the best selling celerity sex tapes of all time.”

 

Sex.com’s letter said: “We are truly serious about working with you. This isn’t some shameless press opportunity, we have an open check book.”

 

“We want no part in the dissemination, we weren’t in this to sell the sex tape,” Houston said.

 

He said he first saw the tape at Gawker.

 

“I saw a video depicting my client having sex, oral sex, standard sexual intercourse, took great pains to display his penis and even went so far as to demonstrate what everyone was saying to each other in that tape by virtue of incorporating subtitles,” he said.

 

Houston pleaded with Denton in an email a day after the tape was published.

 

“I’m asking you, please, as a fellow human being, to take down the video,” he said.

 

Houston said he sent 60 cease-and-desist letters asking various Web sites to remove the video.

 

The former pro wrestler, whose given name is Terry Bollea, is suing Gawker Media for $100 million for posting an edited version of the sex video.

 

Gawker is defending the publication by arguing that Hogan had talked openly about his sex life before, including on Howard Stern’s radio show.

 

Filed under gawkerhulk hogantrials

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;”> 

 

 

The FAA Safety Secret

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

Ex-Gawker editor admits Hulk Hogan’s penis had no news value

Ex-Gawker editor admits Hulk Hogan’s penis had no news value

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The ex-Gawker editor who posted an online sex tape of Hulk Hogan was body-slammed in court Monday, with the pro wrestler’s lawyer using his own words against him to show that he didn’t take the $100 million lawsuit against his former employer seriously and repeatedly joked about child pornography.

Hogan’s lawyer, Shane Vogt, got ex-editor A.J. Daulerio to admit that he didn’t care whether he was protected by the First Amendment when he posted the footage.

“It didn’t really matter if it was a morbid and sensational prying into someone’s life, that didn’t matter, did it?’’ Vogt asked.

“No,’’ Daulerio replied.

The ex-editor also was hammered as he tried to claim that he was just kidding when he said in a 2013 deposition that a celebrity sex tape involving even a child over age 4 would be newsworthy enough to post.

Vogt noted that Daulerio never said he was making a tasteless joke or tried to retract or explain anything at the time.

“You read your deposition carefully, didn’t you? … That’s your signature, isn’t it?” Vogt asked Daulerio at the start of the second week of Hogan’s invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the website and its former editor in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Daulerio replied yes to both questions.

The former editor got himself in trouble again by repeatedly contradicting himself over why he showed Hogan’s erect penis in the footage.

He had claimed in his deposition that it was to add “color” to his online commentary on the tape, then said under direct examination it was because he considered the footage newsworthy.

But under cross-exam, he changed his tune again, reverting to his original claim that it was “to add some color to my commentary.”

“Mr. Bollea’s penis had no news value, did it?” Vogt asked Daulerio, referring to Hogan by his real name, Terry Bollea.

“Uh, no,’’ Daulerio admitted.

He then added snarkily, “I included images of his penis because that is sometimes what happens when two people have sex. There are nude body parts involved.’’

At one point, Daulerio was asked to read for jurors what he wrote about Hogan’s penis at the time: that it “appears to be the size of a thermos you’d find in a child’s lunchbox.’’

Vogt noted that Daulerio didn’t care whether the tape “would have emotionally distressed” Hogan, with the former editor replying, “That’s not my job.”

The laywer said, “You put that out in the public because you believed it was true and interesting, right?”

Daulerio replied, “Yes.”

Daulerio told Gawker’s lawyer that he could have published a much racier version of the video.

He said he received the full 30 minutes of footage showing Hogan romping in a canopy bed with Heather Clem, the wife of his best friend, radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge, from an anonymous source.

But Daulerio said he posted “well under 10 seconds” of sexual activity — and the rest was “banal conversation” between the two.

“I take it this was not a highlight reel of the most graphic sexual material,” Gawker lawyer Michael Sullivan asked.

“No, not at all,” Daulerio answered.

“I wanted the more innocuous and banal conversations between Mr. Hogan and Ms. Clem. I wanted to focus on the things being said.”

But he did give the jury a sneak peak at the awkward timeline of the tryst.

Daulerio described how Bubba told his wife and best friend, “You guys go ahead and have fun now,” after the WWE champ “was performing oral sex on Heather Clem.”

As Daulerio described the bawdy scene, Hogan buried his head in his hands, which he had in a praying position.

Daulerio said he got a $2,000 bonus the month the footage was posted.

He added that he grew up rooting against Hogan in the ring and was instead a fan of Rowdy Roddy Piper and Mr. Wonderful.

Gawker publisher Nick Denton is expected to take the stand Monday afternoon.

Share this article:

What is The Nevada Gigafactory?

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

The Story of A Car

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

Silicon Valley…Out of ideas?

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

Electric Car Adventures

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation


third-tesla-model-s-catches-fire.mp4

THE SILICON MOBSTERS: The Dirty Side of Silicon Valley

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

SONG: Election Blues – Too Many Crooks

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

The EyeOpener -Exposing In-Q-Tel

The EyeOpener -Exposing In-Q-Tel

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

History: The Business Plot

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

The NTSB and the Boeing Dreamliner

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

 

NTSB says Dreamliners Lithium Ion Battery is a danger, so why did Steven Chu give these batteries billions of dollars?