EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal

[pastparticiple]

The law considers actions, not intentions.

Bzzzzzzt sorry. Intent is taken into consideration all the time in conviction and sentencing. There is a lot of discretion exercised. Sadly it is not always used fairly.

In any case this has been made way too much of a priority by the DA and police. I am sure there are much more serious and pressing matters to deal with and anyone who thinks their aggressiveness was not due to Apple's political influence is silly. This whole thing is not about justice but rather about egos..Apple's...the DA's....Gizmodo's....publicity all around.

 

[jonhaxor]

+1

People forget is that that phone is worth billions of dollars. Or, put another way, by doing what they did they gave the competition a billion-dollar head start.

It it were a billion-dollar diamond that was the most famous thing in the world, and some guy pocketed it and later sold it to a blogger, no one would claim "journalistic protection".

Fanboys need to get out of the reality distortion field and realize that in the real world, real laws apply to real people.

it was a prototype phone - not the hope diamond, or the mona lisa .. not even sure if it was real or not, and apple's stock went up as a result .. i think somebody else might need to step out of the RDF

 

[MacAerfen]

If those of you siding with the police on this one, should spend a few minutes reading about the "Pentagon Papers" story from the 1971.

In that case, the New York times obtained and published highly classified documents about the Vietnam war. Clearly everyone at the newspaper knew the documents were classified and dissemination of them was unlawful.

However, nobody's home was ever raided in that case or was anyone charged with a crime. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that NY Times could not be prevented from publishing their story.

Obviously, I don't know the complete facts in this case, but it can be easily argued that Gizmodo didn't purchase the phone as much as they purchased the "story" from the person who found the phone.

Finally, Jason Chen is an employee of Gizmodo, therefore I don't see he can be charged with a crime, when it was his employer who obviously paid for the phone.

With the Pentagon Papers are a very poor example as it is an exception as it was deemed that because
"Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction." which meant the information was technically public domain since it was information that had been made part of congressional record so technically in the end it was not considered stolen material.

As for your suggestion that an employee can not be held responsible for a crime because he performed the transaction on behalf of his employer it is a very good thing you do not make laws. If that was the case that an employee was free to commit a crime on the behalf of an employer then there would be a lot of murderers let loose on the street since there have been companies that have hired people to kill people and since they were told to do it they would be out on the street guilt free. Yes the employer does share responsibility and should likely be held as a co-conspirator to commit the crime the end crime was still allegedly committed by Jason.

 

[mtthab]

Lets think of it this way.

Who is more likely informed about the law: any of us posting on this site presumably, the lady from the EFF, or the judge who signed a search warrant for the house of someone loosely considered "a member of the press" and thereby put their professional reputation and maybe job in jeopardy? I'm going to guess its the judge. No judge in their right mind who sign a search warrant on this guy's house unless they were absolutely sure that there was something on the computer or server that was clear evidence of a serious crime. The story about the phone alone was all over the media. This is the kind of warrant nobody wants to sign. I really doubt it would have been written up and executed unless there was solid evidence of a crime being committed. The EFF lady may be right about the shield law, I don't know much about it personally but if this guy is a "journalist" who isn't?

 

[jonhaxor]

Well stated about your own posts.

*sigh*

[/shakes head and walks away]

 

[johnqh]

Bzzzzzzt sorry. Intent is taken into consideration all the time in conviction and sentencing. There is a lot of discretion exercised. Sadly it is not always used fairly.

Yes, you are right. I stand corrected.

 

[johnqh]

*sigh*

[/shakes head and walks away]

*wave*

Have a good life.

 

[Revelation78]

A couple of things you have to keep in mind, even if you don't agree:

Under California law, and most states I might add, if property is found the finder must do his/her due diligence to locate the owner of said property. If the owner cannot be found the property, if above a certain value - in California it's $100, the property must be turned over to a law enforcement agency for a period of time.

This gives the owner time to claim the property, if after that time has expired and the owner hasn't claimed it, then and only then may the finder return and lay legal claim to said property.

If the finder does not do the above stated steps and sells the item, it becomes theft under California law. Due to the device being a prototype and it's value is easily in excess of a million dollars it is a felony.

Giz clearly stated they knew exactly how he, the finder acquired the device and how long it was in his possession and what steps the person did and did not take to locate the true owner. At this point whether they "knew" or not it was stolen, they admitted to buying stolen property.

Thus Giz committed a crime, this leads us to the warrant to search the premises of Jason to locate any and all evidence surrounding his acquisition of said device. You can then throw in Trade Secret violations as well for Giz's part in releasing all of the pictures.


Now you can argue all you want that Giz didn't "know" the device was stolen; according to their article they published on how they acquired the device they admitted to buying stolen property.

 

[ddrueckhammer]

About this "journalist" issue:



Huh? The author of that article is concerned with "student journalists as well as bloggers with a day job"--not people like Jason Chen.

Yeah sorry I misinterpreted the article initially. Still, I think that it is a gray area. If you only are a blogger part time, you aren't protected but if it is your job you are.

Either way, I still don't think Chen is protected if he is the party being investigated.

 

[ColourMeRedd]

Bs

Its ironic how all of these people who are screaming for justice on Apple's behalf are the ones who patrol sites like this in order to find out what Apple will do next. ***** get over it. You guys pretty much know what the next iPhone is going to look like now. If you guys didn't you'll be spending more time speculating just like every other Apple product. Gizmodo feeds you guys the information you so dearly seek yet you think they should get shafted?

Maybe when this episode is over, Steve Jobs himself will make sure that the guy who lost the phone (pardon me, I mean "iPhone") offs himself.

With all BS and legal jargon aside, if you see yourself as someone loves tech why would you want to see Gizmodo get punished and guys like Gray Powell get shunned. At the end of the day, a beast is being fed. Our thirst for development and knowledge of future products. Do you want it or not? If you do shut up otherwise, why are you reading?

 

[Wharrgarbl]

it was a prototype phone - not the hope diamond, or the mona lisa .. not even sure if it was real or not, and apple's stock went up as a result .. i think somebody else might need to step out of the RDF

That phone is worth massively more than the Hope Diamond.

If that scoop allows the competition to reduce the number of iPhones sold in a single quarter by only 10%, it will have cost Apple more than the value of the Hope Diamond. It will have cost Apple many times the value of the Mona Lisa.

Buying stolen property that contains trade secrets worth billions of dollars and giving those secrets away to the world (for a profit) is not journalism.

 

[pastparticiple]

Its ironic how all of these people who are screaming for justice on Apple's behalf are the ones who patrol sites like this in order to find out what Apple will do next. ***** get over it. You guys pretty much know what the next iPhone is going to look like now.

That is the root of the emotional attachment here. They wrap their lives up in this speculation and now that the truth is out early they are feeling left without a purpose.

And Wharrgarrbl...Apple is not going to lose money because people saw the phone early. All of the fanboys here will still buy 2 each and so will the average joe who would have anyway. Nobody is going to decide not to by because they got a look at it a couple months early. There has been no "millions" of loss to Apple.

 

[Revelation78]

Its ironic how all of these people who are screaming for justice on Apple's behalf are the ones who patrol sites like this in order to find out what Apple will do next. ***** get over it. You guys pretty much know what the next iPhone is going to look like now. If you guys didn't you'll be spending more time speculating just like every other Apple product. Gizmodo feeds you guys the information you so dearly seek yet you think they should get shafted?

Maybe when this episode is over, Steve Jobs himself will make sure that the guy who lost the phone (pardon me, I mean "iPhone") offs himself.

With all BS and legal jargon aside, if you see yourself as someone loves tech why would you want to see Gizmodo get punished and guys like Gray Powell get shunned. At the end of the day, a beast is being fed. Our thirst for development and knowledge of future products. Do you want it or not? If you do shut up otherwise, why are you reading?

Actually I'm most disappointed with how Giz ousted Gray. Up until then I knew they had broken the law, if Apple didn't care, why should I. I cared when Giz committed the despicable act of tarnishing Gray like they did.

 

[gwangung]

Its ironic how all of these people who are screaming for justice on Apple's behalf are the ones who patrol sites like this in order to find out what Apple will do next.

That's not ironic. That's just poor thinking from you.

Wanting information doesn't mean all ways of getting that information is acceptable.

Put some thought into it next time.

 

[MacAerfen]

Its ironic how all of these people who are screaming for justice on Apple's behalf are the ones who patrol sites like this in order to find out what Apple will do next. ***** get over it. You guys pretty much know what the next iPhone is going to look like now. If you guys didn't you'll be spending more time speculating just like every other Apple product. Gizmodo feeds you guys the information you so dearly seek yet you think they should get shafted?

Maybe when this episode is over, Steve Jobs himself will make sure that the guy who lost the phone (pardon me, I mean "iPhone") offs himself.

With all BS and legal jargon aside, if you see yourself as someone loves tech why would you want to see Gizmodo get punished and guys like Gray Powell get shunned. At the end of the day, a beast is being fed. Our thirst for development and knowledge of future products. Do you want it or not? If you do shut up otherwise, why are you reading?

Speculating and stealing trade secrets are two very different things. Rumors by definition are unproven and as tech fans it is fun to speculate and then see if the rumors were right. In this case Gizmodo stole information and caused potential financial hurt to a company as well as public humiliation and possibly ruined a persons career. The people on these forums may enjoy speculating or even hearing rumors from "insiders" but draw the line at supporting illegal actions. Gray Powell is only getting shunned because of the irresponsible behavior of a proclaimed journalist site what has lost any credibility by their questionable actions.

 

[jaykk]

I think Gizmodo is screwed either way. Its apple's trade secret, and by claiming they purchased stolen property, they gave up their entire right to that info.

 

[pastparticiple]

That's not ironic. That's just poor thinking from you.

Wanting information doesn't mean all ways of getting that information is acceptable.

Put some thought into it next time.

Again....all information that doesn't come through official channels has been obtained by breaking some law/NDA. The only reason people are upset here is because Apple got embarrassed. If it were anyone else but their god they wouldn't care and would likely be pointing and laughing.

 

[ColourMeRedd]

Actually I'm most disappointed with how Giz ousted Gray. Up until then I knew they had broken the law, if Apple didn't care, why should I. I cared when Giz committed the despicable act of tarnishing Gray like they did.

How did Giz "tarnish" Gray? Gizmodo is known for being clever and witty with their stories. Given that Apple is company that meticulously maintains secrecy along, Giz took witty shots at Apple. So what? Plus, Giz alluded to a story about some dude killing himself because he lost some iPhones as well. Man up, don't be a punk. Its sad such things happen.

 

[BigPrince]

Curious...Has anyone spelled out the trade secrets that were divulged?

Are the pictures of the device and what they revealed considered trade secrets?

 

[MacAerfen]

That is the root of the emotional attachment here. They wrap their lives up in this speculation and now that the truth is out early they are feeling left without a purpose.

And Wharrgarrbl...Apple is not going to lose money because people saw the phone early. All of the fanboys here will still buy 2 each and so will the average joe who would have anyway. Nobody is going to decide not to by because they got a look at it a couple months early. There has been no "millions" of loss to Apple.

Since we do not know when this iPhone will be released there is very likely going to be a loss to Apple. When this became public like this and made main stream news it devalued the iPhone 3GS as many people who may have purchased that model will likely wait till the next one comes meaning their will be a surplus stock of phones that are not selling and will have to be sold cheaper if they are sold at all. Not only will this affect Apple but also resellers who carry the phone who will now have purchased phones to sell that may not sell because of this.

 

[ColourMeRedd]

That's not ironic. That's just poor thinking from you.

Wanting information doesn't mean all ways of getting that information is acceptable.

Put some thought into it next time.

Frankly, that's not what I'm concerned with. I frankly don't care how they got the info. What I am saying is that people on forums like these are getting exactly what they want. That is, legit information.

And too many people here are acting like they are legal experts when they are not.

 

[Revelation78]

How did Giz "tarnish" Gray? Gizmodo is known for being clever and witty with their stories. Given that Apple is company that meticulously maintains secrecy along, Giz took witty shots at Apple. So what? Plus, Giz alluded to a story about some dude killing himself because he lost some iPhones as well. Man up, don't be a punk. Its sad such things happen.

So the whole article about him being a drunken-frat boy that can't remember the last time he had his iPhone on him isn't tarnishing him? What if I said Giz was lying and I was there and never saw him take a drink? That now becomes defamation on Giz's part and opens them up to further liability.

Giz only has the word of the "finder" that Gray was drunk. Giz isn't going to be stupid enough to call the "finder" up to testify as to Gray's condition. Gray on the other hand can call up witnesses that could potentially state the opposite to Giz's story.

See how they've tarnished this guy? Even if everything Giz claims is true, posting an article about him like they did was just poor on Giz's part.

 

[MacAerfen]

Again....all information that doesn't come through official channels has been obtained by breaking some law/NDA. The only reason people are upset here is because Apple got embarrassed. If it were anyone else but their god they wouldn't care and would likely be pointing and laughing.

Speculating and undocumented or provable rumors are not necessarily breaking a law. For example people that observe trends in products or product availability and research purchases by Apple and make observations on that are not breaking laws. This is not only very specific information it is exact information obtained through questionable methods. People are upset because this is not a rumor this is stolen information being used by one company to their own profit and potentially costing another company revenue due to it.

 

[pastparticiple]

It's pretty simple...if you don't want to be the center of attention don't deal with things that will make you that center. I don't feel sorry for Gray because he took a sensitive piece of equipment from a company known to have draconian policies out drinking...yay common sense.

As much as I dislike journalism Gizmodo was just doing it's job.

Everyone who is getting attention here either loves it or should have known better. But ruining people's lives over it (ie putting Chen in jail or suing him into oblivion) is spiteful and nothing else.

 

[ColourMeRedd]

So the whole article about him being a drunken-frat boy that can't remember the last time he had his iPhone on him isn't tarnishing him? What if I said Giz was lying and I was there and never saw him take a drink? That now becomes defamation on Giz's part and opens them up to further liability.

Giz only has the word of the "finder" that Gray was drunk. Giz isn't going to be stupid enough to call the "finder" up to testify as to Gray's condition. Gray on the other hand can call up witnesses that could potentially state the opposite to Giz's story.

See how they've tarnished this guy? Even if everything Giz claims is true, posting an article about him like they did was just poor on Giz's part.

If you were truly hurt for Gray, start a crusade for him. Really dude? The guy forgot a pretty important device there. And it belonged to a damn secretive company. Dude f'ed up. Apple itself would probably make sure to see that the guy, even of his talent, would never land a decent job again.