Authorities Begin Evidence Examination in Gizmodo iPhone Case

[darknightnf]

To me, this is a little unfortunate that Apple is pushing for blood in this case.

So what Gizmodo bought a copy of their new phone that one of their employees lost. Once the employee lost the phone, no matter who found it should not be found legally liable for taking pictures of it and posting it online before returning the phone (of course in this case Gizmodo did not return the phone... but that is besides the point). To me it is Apple being petty.

If someone lost a regular cell phone, and someone with a blog picked it up and started posting pictures saying "look at this cellphone I found", it is not a criminal matter. The same thing if someone found a cell phone and took pictures of it to post online saying "I found this cell phone, if yours, please come and get it".

Really, Apple should keep better tabs on their prototype devices. I don't really feel sorry for Apple at all in this case. Boo hoo the big conglomerate had their "surprise" released a few days early. Apple shouldn't be so secretive with details as to what is coming out soon anyway. Really it is a way to screw consumers with shady media tactics anyway...

 

[RaZaK]

Why negative ratings???

Which rational person on here would allow someone to take his\her hard-earned work without permission (paying $5,000 to some third-party who found it does not mean you have permission) and parade it around the Internet? all-the-while, thumbing your nose at the rightful owner when he\she asks for it back NICELY.

I hope there are legal repercussions for the idiots at Gizmodo as well as the idiot who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo. I know for legal semantics they only bought the "rights to examine the phone", but we all know what really happened.

Gizmodo bought stolen property and tried to be wise @$$es when Steve asked for it back. I hope they all go down for that.

 

[tingly]

Negative ratings can be for "boooo gizmodo," "boooo apple," or "boooo macrumors."

To me, this is a little unfortunate that Apple is pushing for blood in this case.

All they've done so far is report the phone as stolen and knock on the finder's door. Pushing for blood would be suing Gizmodo or the people involved into bankruptcy which should be a long ways off if ever. Apple's main beef seems to be the alleged extortion and criminal charges may satisfy Apple with that.

So what Gizmodo bought a copy of their new phone that one of their employees lost. Once the employee lost the phone, no matter who found it should not be found legally liable for taking pictures of it and posting it online before returning the phone (of course in this case Gizmodo did not return the phone... but that is besides the point).

Gizmodo returned it eventually. Hard to agree with the logic since it wasn't just a phone. Carelessness should never forgive subsequent felonies cuz Apple didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and make them break the law. Adults should be able to refrain from committing something as serious as a felony. If they can't, they need to be separated from society for awhile. It's serious enough that had they pulled the 3 strikes trigger before in California, they either could be going to prison for 25-to-life or could be 1 step away from it.

To me it is Apple being petty.

The county DA is who is pursuing the case. Felonies are never "petty."

If someone lost a regular cell phone, and someone with a blog picked it up and started posting pictures saying "look at this cellphone I found", it is not a criminal matter. The same thing if someone found a cell phone and took pictures of it to post online saying "I found this cell phone, if yours, please come and get it".

THis situation is "I found your cell phone, I sold it to someone who broke it, posted trade secret info about it, extorted the real owner, then returned it." Your example is lawful. What actually happened can put people in prison for a few years.

Apple should keep better tabs on their prototype devices.

I'll agree with that one.

Apple shouldn't be so secretive with details as to what is coming out soon anyway. Really it is a way to screw consumers with shady media tactics anyway...

It's a way for Apple not to put itself at a competitive disadvantage. I'd somewhat agree if the rest of the cell phone industry was open, but I don't know of any companies who are.

 

[Cartaphilus]

If someone lost a regular cell phone, and someone with a blog picked it up and started posting pictures saying "look at this cellphone I found", it is not a criminal matter. The same thing if someone found a cell phone and took pictures of it to post online saying "I found this cell phone, if yours, please come and get it".

And because you can freely post photos of plans you found for Napoleon's invasion of Russia, does that lead you to conclude that you can freely post secret plans for the deployment and disposition of U.S troops in Afghanistan or Iraq?

 

[Mark Booth]

And because you can freely post photos of plans you found for Napoleon's invasion of Russia, does that lead you to conclude that you can freely post secret plans for the deployment and disposition of U.S troops in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Excellent analogy to counter that fellow's ridiculous logic.

Too bad we have to wait so long for the excrement to hit the fan with regard to criminal charges. I enjoy watching the justice system catch up with criminals when they so richly deserve to be caught.

Mark

 

[tingly]

I keep wishing for a fast-forward button. If only the defense attorneys weren't doing their jobs…

 

[gnasher729]

I've been thinking about what if everyone pleads the fifth, gizmodo articles aren't admissable, Gizmodo says the articles are all lies, things like that. A lot of evidence that we see may not make it to a jury.

1. Why would the Gizmodo articles not be admissible?
2. You can't plead the fifth _and_ say the articles are all lies at the same time.
3. Apple did actually receive a totally damaged phone from Gizmodo. Which proves that Gizmodo did have a phone belonging to Apple in their hands. And I am sure Apple can prove it is the phone they handed out to their employee.
4. There is a witness who called the police (the finder's roommate) who saw the phone, who did already testify that the finder _knew_ who the owner was and still sold it.

 

[tingly]

1. Stranger things have happened.
2. It's a list of things I pondered, not things that would happen in a single scenario.
3&4. I know, but I'm trying to think of what the defense could possibly do.

 

[darknightnf]

You may all have a lot to say about Gizmodo and what they did, but I bet it did not stop you from reading the blogs/posts/macrumor reports about the phone and what new features it contained.

Yes, Gizmodo not giving the phone back when asked was a problem and prob a felony, however reporting on what they found in a journalistic manner should not be a crime.

In regards to this comment:

And because you can freely post photos of plans you found for Napoleon's invasion of Russia, does that lead you to conclude that you can freely post secret plans for the deployment and disposition of U.S troops in Afghanistan or Iraq?

It is hard to draw a comparison here. What you are saying, if I phrase it in a different light, is that if you were a journalist and found documents proving mass murder/torture of detainees etc in Iraq or somewhere, you should have to keep it under wraps because it is not your place to report such findings due to the fact that the documents you found belong to the army? I call BS on your logic.

And if you don't think every other news agency in the world does not purchase information (hard documents or "soft" stories from others) you need a serious wake-up call. The only difference between other news agencies and Gizmodo is that they got caught and did not play it very smart in regards to where their information came from.

 

[grs]

...Yes, Gizmodo not giving the phone back when asked was a problem and prob a felony, however reporting on what they found in a journalistic manner should not be a crime.

***

It is hard to draw a comparison here. What you are saying, if I phrase it in a different light, is that if you were a journalist and found documents proving mass murder/torture of detainees etc in Iraq or somewhere, you should have to keep it under wraps because it is not your place to report such findings due to the fact that the documents you found belong to the army? I call BS on your logic.

Nobody here contends that Gizmodo will be prosecuted for engaging in journalism, so you can rest easy. They may, however, face charges relating to the theft of valuable property. If so, protections afforded to journalists likely will not be available to them. Their "journalism" may be used against them in the same way any defendant's words are used against him, as evidence of the crime he's charged with. Your example would therefore be more apt if a journalist published documents relating to his own criminal activity.

 

[tingly]

Yes, Gizmodo not giving the phone back when asked was a problem and prob a felony, however reporting on what they found in a journalistic manner should not be a crime.

It's not a crime, is it, just a tort (lawsuit material)?

The public's need to know may be outweighed by eventual damage to Apple. If opening the phone proved that Apple was contracting a Chinese sweatshop, I'd be more forgiving of Gizmodo.

 

[JediZenMaster]

It is hard to draw a comparison here. What you are saying, if I phrase it in a different light, is that if you were a journalist and found documents proving mass murder/torture of detainees etc in Iraq or somewhere, you should have to keep it under wraps because it is not your place to report such findings due to the fact that the documents you found belong to the army? I call BS on your logic.

And if you don't think every other news agency in the world does not purchase information (hard documents or "soft" stories from others) you need a serious wake-up call. The only difference between other news agencies and Gizmodo is that they got caught and did not play it very smart in regards to where their information came from.

That's different because that's an issue for the Hague and a crime against humanity. But the impression i get from your post and way of thinking is that you think that Apple doesn't have a right to safeguard its trade secrets.

And they do have a right and your right most people did read the news on Gizmodo but we didn't know how it was obtained. Had i know that i wouldn't of clicked on the link because that's showing that i support a org that has no kind of Ethics at all.

Gizmodo has gotten themselves into trouble and has shot themselves in the foot because the inside access they had to apple when they did to the right thing is now gone.

All companies safeguard themselves all the way down from GM to apple to walmart. You can defend Giz and Chen all you want but it will not change the fact that what they did was wrong.

So keep putting various shades of lipstick on that pig myfriend but it is still going to be a pig no matter what.

 

[wreckshop]

Excellent analogy to counter that fellow's ridiculous logic.

Mark

It's a stupid analogy and if u really think its valid ur an idiot. The position of our forward deployed troops is classified and revealing classified information is against the law and also possibly a treasonous offense. We're talking about our national security and the lives of troops and u really think thats on the same level as finding some damn iphone in a bar and taking pics of it and posting them on the web?

 

[tingly]

It's obviously an exaggerated analogy to illustrate a point, not meant to be an equivalent situation. Both cause damage, at least theoretically so far for Apple.

 

[DavidJHupp]

Yeah! Haven't you seen enough Law & Order to see how Jack McCoy does it?

Best. Post. Ever.

 

[LagunaSol]

I can't believe people are still defending the tools involved in this crime, particularly after the affidavit was released.

 

[eastonaltree]

The well of human stupidity has no bottom.

 

[Cartaphilus]

It's a stupid analogy and if u really think its valid ur an idiot. The position of our forward deployed troops is classified and revealing classified information is against the law and also possibly a treasonous offense. We're talking about our national security and the lives of troops and u really think thats on the same level as finding some damn iphone in a bar and taking pics of it and posting them on the web?

Just as it is against the law to disclose classified information, it is also against the law in California to misappropriate a trade secret, and by dismantling the phone and disseminating photographs of its contents Chen violated the provisions of the California Penal Code.

He will likely be charged (in addition to receiving stolen goods and malicious damage to property) with violating Section 499c(b)(3) of the California Penal Code which provides that "...every person is guilty of theft who...with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another...[h]aving unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret." Under California law, taking a photograph is considered to be the same as making a copy.

A "trade secret", for the purposes of the criminal law, is defined in pertinent part of subsection (a)(9) of PC499c as: "..information, including a... device,
that:
(A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

So, since the innards of a commercially-available cell phone are not a trade secret, one is free to publish photos of it. Since the inside of the prototype Apple phone was a trade secret, Chen and his accomplices violated the criminal statute by making and publishing photographs of the disassembled prototype.

Similarly, Napoleon's plans for the invasion of Russia are today no longer protected by any law protecting their secrecy, and they may be disclosed without civil or criminal penalty; disclosing classified plans of the U.S. military, however, is a violation of Federal law. The nature of the information in both cases is superficially the same (just as an ordinary cell phone is superficially the same as an Apple prototype) but because only one is a legally-protected secret, only the disclosure of that information is punishable by the state.

The disparity some find troubling in the seriousness of the crimes of theft and espionage is fully reflected in their respective punishments: the maximum penalty for theft in California (excluding enhancements) is imprisonment for one year, while the maximum penalty for espionage is death. Nonetheless, the disclosure of protected secrets is in both cases equally a crime.

As others have observed, Chen may have acted on the instructions of his employer who may have also assured him that following those instructions would not violate any law. (The letter to the detective written by Chen's COO, an English lawyer now living in America, is certainly consistent with that latter possibility.) If, based on the investigation, the D.A. concludes that Chen deserves leniency, then in return for a promise of full cooperation (including testifying against his superiors), he may be permitted to plead guilty to some lesser charge and receive a non-custodial sentence. In that case, the real criminal prosecution will be of the responsible officers of Gizmodo and/or Gawker.

But as Mark commented (Knopfler, not Booth), it too often happens that the authorities "punish the monkey, and let the organ grinder go".

 

[Atkins]

It's a stupid analogy and if u really think its valid ur an idiot. The position of our forward deployed troops is classified and revealing classified information is against the law and also possibly a treasonous offense. We're talking about our national security and the lives of troops and u really think thats on the same level as finding some damn iphone in a bar and taking pics of it and posting them on the web?

Analogy:
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity.

 

[Atkins]

You may all have a lot to say about Gizmodo and what they did, but I bet it did not stop you from reading the blogs/posts/macrumor reports about the phone and what new features it contained.

It's not a crime to read and it certainly doesn't justify what they did.

Yes, Gizmodo not giving the phone back when asked was a problem and prob a felony, however reporting on what they found in a journalistic manner should not be a crime.

Nobody here has a problem with "reporting in a journalistic manner". It's just that I can't see the "journalistic manner" here.

In regards to this comment:
"And because you can freely post photos of plans you found for Napoleon's invasion of Russia, does that lead you to conclude that you can freely post secret plans for the deployment and disposition of U.S troops in Afghanistan or Iraq?"
It is hard to draw a comparison here.

Hmm. It's very easy in fact and that is what he did.

What you are saying, if I phrase it in a different light, is that if you were a journalist and found documents proving mass murder/torture of detainees etc in Iraq or somewhere, you should have to keep it under wraps because it is not your place to report such findings due to the fact that the documents you found belong to the army? I call BS on your logic.

I call BS on your "different light". The comparison you are making is completely irrelevant.

And if you don't think every other news agency in the world does not purchase information (hard documents or "soft" stories from others) you need a serious wake-up call.

Purchasing access to data is what I would call "journalistic manner". They kinda purchased the stolen phone here, damaged it and whatnot. Can't see how this relates to the "other news agencies".

The only difference between other news agencies and Gizmodo is that they got caught and did not play it very smart in regards to where their information came from.

Agreed.
1. They got caught
2. To refine: they played it really dumb

 

[Red Delicious]

"b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

C) Hefeweizen consumption not included!
gulp

 

[gwangung]

It's a stupid analogy and if u really think its valid ur an idiot. The position of our forward deployed troops is classified and revealing classified information is against the law and also possibly a treasonous offense. We're talking about our national security and the lives of troops and u really think thats on the same level as finding some damn iphone in a bar and taking pics of it and posting them on the web?

It's stupid only to anyone who's ignorant of law.

That applies in spades to you.

 

[gwangung]

"b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

C) Hefeweizen consumption not included!
gulp

This assumes facts not in evidence here.