Sidebar Sidebar
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

People's fanboism is scaring me, I think we all need to realize that the line between bloggers and journalists is RAPIDLY blurring due to the movement of technology. As ProPublica proved winning a Pulitzer, the journalist is no longer the guy on TV, or lady sitting behind a Newspaper desk.

What concerns me is a slippery slope effect. A journalist receives confidential papers from Government X detailing some sort crime and publishes them, the act itself breaks laws, but in the US we protect the right of the journalist to do this because it ultimately benefits the greater populace and our democracy. What if the government came crashing into his/her house seized their computers, claiming similar circumstances of stolen property? Do you consider the Pentagon Papers stolen property?
 
louis Fashion said:
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....
Click to expand...

It's not a felony if Gizmodo commits it? What's the overreaction? It's de facto a felony, they're just trying to see if all the parts of the act took place, and how, and who did it.

I like Jason Chen, but it seems like he got himself jammed between a slimy management and the cops.

Does anybody think that Jobs WOULDN'T call the cops? Why wouldn't he? There is at least material damage, and perhaps a felony or felonies. They thought, obviously, in that ******** British tabloid way, that he'd back down. Not Steve.

I don't think, as a CEO, he had any alternative. Should he just laugh off a theft of the company's secrets?
 
maknik said:
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 Any unpublished information gathered during journalistic activities is protected, even if that information pertains to something other than a source.
Click to expand...

That only applies if they are not looking into the journalist themselves for a crime. In this case if the Police are investigating Jason Chen for a crime then they are well within their rights to do so.

The "or" you refer to is to protect them from being held an accomplice if they are made aware of something that normally would have to be reported. IE: a journalist is interviewing a person who indicates they are going to rob a bank. The journalist is not required to provide that information under that code if the information was obtained while performing journalistic activities, at least not legally, whereas an individual who is not performing journalistic activities who does not report it would be considered potentially an accomplice by failing to report a crime they were made aware of.
 
Oh, and please hand me your Apple Fanboy Card for immediate free parking validation. :D
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure hanging out at MacRumors kind of makes it hard to paint others with this brush...;)

You might get more mileage at CNET though.
 
Macmaniac said:
People's fanboism is scaring me, I think we all need to realize that the line between bloggers and journalists is RAPIDLY blurring due to the movement of technology. As ProPublica proved winning a Pulitzer, the journalist is no longer the guy on TV, or lady sitting behind a Newspaper desk.

What concerns me is a slippery slope effect. A journalist receives confidential papers from Government X detailing some sort crime and publishes them, the act itself breaks laws, but in the US we protect the right of the journalist to do this because it ultimately benefits the greater populace and our democracy. What if the government came crashing into his/her house seized their computers, claiming similar circumstances of stolen property? Do you consider the Pentagon Papers stolen property?
Click to expand...

I don't see a slippery slope between here and there. The law explicitly (not surprisingly considering its provenance) addresses a Pentagon Papers scenario.
 
To be considered journalist, the person (including blogger) must follow some journalism standards.

One of them is that you should check the story from multiple sources.

Gizmodo got a story from the seller. He did not check seller's phone bill to see if he really called Apple. He did not get the CS case number (which the seller said he got) and call Apple CS to follow up on it. He did not interview the bartender. He did not interview the poor Apple engineer.

We got the story as the seller told. Is it real? A lot of people use the story as if that's what happened, but how would we know?

Another journalism ethics code is to protect people's privacy unless there is compelling reason.

Gizmodo revealed the poor Apple engineer's full name! How f'ed up is that?

Can anyone call that journalism? If any of the serious TV station or newspaper did that, guess what the reaction would be from the public?!
 
Macmaniac said:
People's fanboism is scaring me, I think we all need to realize that the line between bloggers and journalists is RAPIDLY blurring due to the movement of technology. As ProPublica proved winning a Pulitzer, the journalist is no longer the guy on TV, or lady sitting behind a Newspaper desk.

What concerns me is a slippery slope effect. A journalist receives confidential papers from Government X detailing some sort crime and publishes them, the act itself breaks laws, but in the US we protect the right of the journalist to do this because it ultimately benefits the greater populace and our democracy. What if the government came crashing into his/her house seized their computers, claiming similar circumstances of stolen property? Do you consider the Pentagon Papers stolen property?
Click to expand...

Oh, please, nervous Nellie. If you steal the Pentagon papers, there's a clear Supreme Court decision that you're cool. If you phone up Cheney's office and help him, perhaps unwittingly, aid the government in a felony, the outing of a covert agent, then the shield doesn't matter. If Jason Chen wants to sit in jail for contempt, it's his choice. I wouldn't cover up for that slimeball he works for, though.
 
Either the police have something up their sleeve or they are complete idiots because the rebuttal that Gawker's lawyer made up seems to be a legitimate defense. However what we don't know is if Chen initiated the transaction and purchased the iPhone with his money and was reimbursed or if Gawker paid upfront and took care of the dealings, leaving Chen to review the phone.
 
Macmaniac said:
People's fanboism is scaring me, I think we all need to realize that the line between bloggers and journalists is RAPIDLY blurring due to the movement of technology. As ProPublica proved winning a Pulitzer, the journalist is no longer the guy on TV, or lady sitting behind a Newspaper desk.

What concerns me is a slippery slope effect. A journalist receives confidential papers from Government X detailing some sort crime and publishes them, the act itself breaks laws, but in the US we protect the right of the journalist to do this because it ultimately benefits the greater populace and our democracy. What if the government came crashing into his/her house seized their computers, claiming similar circumstances of stolen property? Do you consider the Pentagon Papers stolen property?
Click to expand...

In this case the exception is made because the journalist can show that it ultimately benefits the greater populace or democracy. As for Jason Chen he would be hard pressed to show how disclosing a companies IP in any way benefits the greater populace or democracy. Good luck with that if he tries.
 
coleridge78 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally agree that there will be a lot of hard cases as journalism becomes less professionalized, with more online, grass-roots citizen journalism. At that point (which may be now!) we're going to have a big mess on our hands. Though if it became much harder for police to get warrants to search the computer of everyone, that would be fine by me.
 
america: land of protected freedoms

Buy a stolen phone/car/whatever, blog about it, (for money,) and the constitution protects you.

Sweeeeeeet.

Now I understand what "land of the free" means: if you lawyer up, you can be a criminal and still go free.

729.jpg
 
Let's forget about the laws and forget about Apple.

The fact that Gizmodo revealed the poor engineer's name is unforgivable. I hope they get screwed, on moral ground, for that.

If some blog site did some story like this on Microsoft product and screwed an MS engineer's career, I would say the same.
 
Jakeoster said:
Either the police have something up their sleeve or they are complete idiots because the rebuttal that Gawker's lawyer made up seems to be a legitimate defense. However what we don't know is if Chen initiated the transaction and purchased the iPhone with his money and was reimbursed or if Gawker paid upfront and took care of the dealings, leaving Chen to review the phone.
Click to expand...

That brings another interesting question - whether the investigated "crime" is by Chen himself, or whether the whole organization would be in trouble.
 
Jakeoster said:
Either the police have something up their sleeve or they are complete idiots because the rebuttal that Gawker's lawyer made up seems to be a legitimate defense. However what we don't know is if Chen initiated the transaction and purchased the iPhone with his money and was reimbursed or if Gawker paid upfront and took care of the dealings, leaving Chen to review the phone.
Click to expand...

In this case it does not matter if Chen paid with his own money or on someone elses' behalf. You are not absolved of a crime because someone else made you do it. It is your own responsibility before taking any actions, job related or otherwise to ensure that you are legally able to do this. In this case Jason should have checked to see if purchasing this was legal prior to doing so. If after checking state laws it was found that it was illegal, Jason is legally obligated to refuse to proceed. If Gawker were to fire him for refusing to proceed then he could in turn sue them for improper dismissal since no company can legally fire you for refusing to perform an illegal action.
 
MacAerfen said:
In this case it does not matter if Chen paid with his own money or on someone elses' behalf. You are not absolved of a crime because someone else made you do it. It is your own responsibility before taking any actions, job related or otherwise to ensure that you are legally able to do this. In this case Jason should have checked to see if purchasing this was legal prior to doing so. If after checking state laws it was found that it was illegal, Jason is legally obligated to refuse to proceed. If Gawker were to fire him for refusing to proceed then he could in turn sue them for improper dismissal since no company can legally fire you for refusing to perform an illegal action.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for Chen. However, it makes a difference whether his boss is also in hot water.
 
Journalist?

So Gawker says Jason Chen should be protected from this particular search and seizure under journalistic shield laws. Interesting, considering what his boss, Nick Denton, had to say about the company in terms of journalism.

"We don't seek to do good," says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. "We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
Click to expand...
 
johnqh said:
Let's forget about the laws and forget about Apple.

The fact that Gizmodo revealed the poor engineer's name is unforgivable. I hope they get screwed, on moral ground, for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was classless, pointless too. I had been considering quitting gizmodo for a month or so and that made the decision easy. I did peek a few times since, tho. :)
 
razor

If I lost my motorola razor under the same circumstances the police would tell me they were very sorry, but they had some do-nuts to investigate. Come on.
 
in other news

i found $25 on the sidewalk the other day .. looked around for someone looking for dropped money, but just ended up keeping the money

is that also considered theft?

i'm getting a little annoyed that the prevailing opinion still seems to be if one "finds" an object and profits from it - then he's a thief .. i'd always thought that stealing involved removing from someone's possession or breaking, entering and removing objects from a person's place of residence (more aptly what happened here in the subpoena, warrant, and police confiscation) .. not necessarily picking something off the ground in a public place, or social establishment .. i guess you could argue that a phone left in an establishment is ultimately the responsibility of said establishment .. but do you realize how many people have lost cell phones in subways or bars and have never seen them again?

now - is Jason Chen posing a threat to society with his journalistic blogging such that he requires this level of investigation? perhaps he should comment .. no wait - the police took all his computers, storage devices, cell phones, and cameras .. talk about being pushed off the grid - not fun.
 
Again there is no law that protects a journalist from being investigated for a crime themselves. The shield defense is designed to protect recognized journalists from 2 things.

1. Being held in contempt for refusing to name sources and having warrants issued to search their belongings for information on the source

2. Prevent journalists from being held legally responsible for failing to provide information gathered during journalistic activities. IE failure to report a felony or having their possessions searched to find information about something they failed to report.

If a journalist commits a crime and the police are investigating said journalist for that crime then shield does not apply.
 
louis Fashion said:
If I lost my motorola razor under the same circumstances the police would tell me they were very sorry, but they had some do-nuts to investigate. Come on.
Click to expand...
Your motorola wouldn't be opened up for the revealing of trade secrets, plus cops knew who the suspects were in this case.
 
MacAerfen said:
That only applies if they are not looking into the journalist themselves for a crime. In this case if the Police are investigating Jason Chen for a crime then they are well within their rights to do so.

The "or" you refer to is to protect them from being held an accomplice if they are made aware of something that normally would have to be reported...
Click to expand...

Do you have case law or examples to support that interpretation? The statute seems pretty clear -- no "except if the journalist is accused of a crime" tacked on anywhere. After all, journalists are often accused of crimes (eg, for not disclosing information); such an exception would allow the protections of 1524(g)/1070 to be evaded in almost all cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back