The person you're replying to was correct. Gizmodo detailed plugging it in and getting the "connect to iTunes" message... which was useless because there is no firmware or OS to download for an unreleased phone. It hadn't been "bricked" as in "wouldn't power on", but as in "wouldn't get past a boot screen."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The person you're replying to was correct. Gizmodo detailed plugging it in and getting the "connect to iTunes" message... which was useless because there is no firmware or OS to download for an unreleased phone. It hadn't been "bricked" as in "wouldn't power on", but as in "wouldn't get past a boot screen."
When they sell it to someone else before following legal (or common sense) requirements to return the item to the owner.
LOL! Yeah, that excuse is going to hold up in court.
"Your honor, I only bought the stolen item so that I could return it to its owner." *sob*
It's the new Twinkie Defense.
Hilarious.
("Oh, small addendum: I snapped a few pics and posted story after story about it on my website with the intent of financial gain.")
He replied to a person saying that gizmodo plugged it in and it identified itself as an iPhone. He said they couldn't plug it in because it was bricked. I replied they were able to plug it in to get the info the person he replied to said they got.
They are not protected from warrants unless the warrant is to find information related to a source they are protecting. In this case the only way this is against the law is if the police seized his computers to gain information on the source of the phone. In this case if they are investigating him of purchasing stolen merchandise or any other crime that he himself committed then yes the warrant will stand up just fine. And no he does not have to be charged with a crime for a warrant to search and seize to be implemented.
Sadly for you, the California code is not so stupid as to define "journalist" as any EFF-bashing blogger who happens to give himself the name. The definition may be a bit tricky in the modern era, but clearly Chen falls under it (professional, full-time) and you do not.
Apple did not initiate the investigation. They cannot demand a criminal investigation.
It doesn't matter who "dropped the ball" if there was a criminal act it should be investigated.
So it was found unlocked then?
but it can easily be argued that the person is not familiar with the individual apps. If you have contact info on the phone background there is no way the seller or gizmodo could have had plausible deniability as to their intent.
If you had found it and asked around, it is a judgment call as to whether you tried hard enough. If the contact info is right in front of your face, there is no doubt that it is theft at that point. Gizmodo would not have done this since it would be too risky for them. Same goes for the guy who found it.
Heck, apple could have just had a third party service for them to contact so it did not give anything away.
Yeah, I guess any tween can start up a website, call himself a journalist, and cry "Shield Law!" to protect himself from his own idiocy.
I hope this goes to court. Should make for some real entertainment - and education.
The alleged crime was conducted in California so regardless of whether there was an order to commit said crime from another state where it is not a crime is irrelevant. And in this case Jason Chen would still be guilty even if he was instructed to do this by his boss from NY. If you are instructed to commit a crime and proceed to commit a crime you are still held responsible. So if he did something without checking to see if it was legal than that is his own fault and as such deserves punishment even if it was at the instruction of others. As well if someone did order him to buy this phone despite having been told by the seller it was found then that person could also be extradited to California as co-conspirators to commit a crime even if it was not a crime in their state since they were ordering something done in a state where it is.
Also, consider the police may already have the source if the story is true. The finder put in a ticket with Apple and presumably left some kind of information.
I wouldn't be so hasty about that. There's a lot of grey area that hasn't been explored yet. For example, where is the distinction between investigating, reporting, aggregating, and commenting? The first two have differing levels of protection; the latter two, afaik (I could certainly be wrong, but they're not mentioned in the materials mentioned so far) look like they're unprotected. How much of Chen's work is which? Is work product related to aggregating fair game if it's on the same hard drive as work product from interviews with sources for a corporate malfeasance story? Who knows. Not many of us I'd wager.
Section (g) of 1524 states in its entirety:
The relevant portion of 1070 reads that contempt charges (or, via 1524, warrants) may not be brought
Note the "or". It does not have to be just about sources. Any unpublished information gathered during journalistic activities is protected, even if that information pertains to something other than a source.
I am sick
God I am sick of this story. Now we have police over reaction, when will it end? Jesus, the damn phone will be in general circulation before we are done with this.....help me....
God I am sick of this story. Now we have police over reaction, when will it end? Jesus, the damn phone will be in general circulation before we are done with this.....help me....
No, as EFF themselves point out--unless the crime in question is the receipt of the information itself. I wonder how broadly "receipt" is interpreted... what's the line between receiving and inciting?
That's what I was trying to get at. I didn't word it very well. They better lawyer up fast back east. The cops may have seized the computers to find out who to extradite.
Not trying to be snarky here, but is this really true?
It would seem like a very easy to abuse defense.
"I bought the stolen car to give it back to the owner, your honor."
Or do you mean that as long as you actually do return it, there is a CA statute that applies?
You are taking my words extremely literally. Let me clarify.
Obviously, shipping products (like your iMac) are sold at retail and ownership is hard to determine if you find one.
A prototype is not available to the public and ownership can be reasonably assumed to be that of the manufacturer.
I mentioned the logo because, if the prototype had a plain back, then it would be very hard to determine whose it was (without taking it apart).
I think the logo on the back gave the Finder a pretty good hint.
The counterfeit issue is certainly relevant. Determining if Gizmodo *knew* what they had before they bought it is likely to be the important issue.
The EFF -- or a couple of prominent members -- have a bug up their ass about Apple. Fine. Let 'em use other phones. But it's a huge step from there to say that this was a legitimate act of journalism. They're not investigating a leak from a concerned insider that Apple is making its next phone out of TORTURED ANIMALS!!! -- they're looking for evidence, with a warrant, to establish whether a theft, and the reception of stolen goods, took place. There is no other way to solve this legal question but to investigate it. The law itself has been California law for generations. Steve Jobs didn't invent it to screw Cory Doctorow.
You'll recall Judith Miller. The illegal act that was being investigated then was, did Cheney out the name of a CIA agent? If a reporter chooses to get in the middle of that -- particularly a reporter who aided in the commission of that felony -- then all these anxious cries for "immunity" and "press freedom" are nonsense.
It's one thing to cover for a source who told you how Cheney decided to commit a felony. It's quite another to clam up about the commission of the felony.
I don't know if a felony took place, of course. How to decide? Well, you do an investigation. And this task force convinced a judge that a search would be called for. Seems like a correct decision to me.
People have to get over their "mean daddy" psychoses about Jobs. He ain't their daddy, he's a very smart businessman with a design sense, and if you cross him, he'll sic his legal team on you. In this case, they warned Gizmodo a few months ago when they offered $100,000 to see an iPad before release. That, Apple legal warned them, was solicitation of a felony, ha-ha.
Apparently Gizmodo consulted their Brit lawyer, where the law is very different, because the British haven't invented anything since the tea cosy.
I believe that the relevant issues have been worked out in California already. The key thing is that the work be paid and (ideally) full time. If the courts start getting into what counts as "real" journalism, a lot of newspaper reporters could lose their protected status (who can say what's aggregation or how many interviews someone did?). Almost no one will be arguing that professional bloggers deserve protection, but only if they do serious, investigative (whatever that means) journalism.
In any case, such an argument kind of undercuts itself in this case. Is the prosecution supposed to argue a) this guy is not a real journalist discovering new information, just an aggregator, and at the same time b) we want to subpoena him for some unknown information he has gathered as a non-investigative aggregator?
The question is "what work". They do have to define what "real" journalism is, case-by-case, because the statute speaks in broad classes not precise definitions.
I seriously doubt that Chen's status as a journalist is questionable, I was speaking to what looked like a broader, blanket argument on your part. Sorry if that was misinterpreted.