So says the EFF
I wonder if that applies to any crime. I run a blog too. So I'm a journalist. Think I'll go kill someone scream shield law when they try to come arrest me. think it will work.
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
So says the EFF
I wonder if that applies to any crime. I run a blog too. So I'm a journalist. Think I'll go kill someone scream shield law when they try to come arrest me. think it will work.
How are you so certain that the law wasn't handled appropriately. I am not completely familiar with search and seizure and I'm definitely not going to just take your word for it. If the law was broken, good for EFF to try and expose it. Although, I'm not certain they will win.
The problem with 99% of you people are that you think you know it all. How about this, instead of posting links to other stupid blogs, articles, etc. why don't someone post ca search and seizure law so that we can all get some education and at least have a rational discussion. I don't care enough to do that, but for the rest of you who do, it would be the most prudent and non-ignorant way of doing things.
Ok, again, Giz is saying the Gray was out drinking. What if he wasn't, does that change your opinion? What if the device in question wasn't left behind, what if it was lifted? You're jumping on the wagon that Gray is a drunken-frat boy that should never have been trusted with a prototype.
Giz could be getting what they deserve...
Gizmodo's job is stealing?
And it is hardly spiteful, is that the defense you would use? Those who break the law should be prosecuted. But I suppose going after any criminal is spiteful, right?
This is starting to get ugly...
Why would they punish the end user and not the middle man? I've seen tons of iPhones on Craigslists that were probably stolen, but they still sell them to others.
This is all about intimidation not really about justice, special fear response unit, that what it should be called.
To understand this debate, know three things:
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
Way different to Florida and Texas law which do not force a finder to have to give it back to anyone if they do not ask it back.
I found this to be so interesting, this is one of the oldest laws I could find, basically finding anything, you must return it. Of course when this law was written when they did not even know how babies where made, I can imagine what backward people created this law.
A federal Privacy Protection Act broadly immunizes news organizations from searches, effectively requiring police to use subpoenas in most cases instead.
Modern laws.
A similar California law prevents judges from signing warrants that target writers for newspapers, magazines, or "other periodical publications," a definition that a state appeals court explicitly extended to shield Apple rumor sites.
Oh this is going to get so interesting in the coming months. .
You can read the full story at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003477-37.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1,
very good insight into how badly and old the laws of California are, it should be interesting to see what the backlash on these old Blue laws. I wonder someone will go after these antiquated laws once and for all.
What I find funny is that if this act of seizing this stuff was in fact illegal, how exactly do the detectives, DA and judge who signed the order *not* know this? Was everyone involved simply oblivious to this? I'd have to assume the judge would know full well what can and can't happen when issuing these types of documents... or am I completely wrong here?
First, sorry about that EBay loss. Second, my point is the intent of the buyer. You discovered they were fake after the purchase, but you would not have spent $2200 for fakes intentionally. You spent $2200 because you truly believed they were real. Gizmodo did not spend $5k for a fake. They intended to buy a real prototype. They would have been disappointed I bet if it had been a fake/clone/knockoff etc. Thanks for making my point. Bottom line is they are hiding behind "a journalist and their source". They sure outed the employee (the original source) quick. Illegal or not, their actions are wrong on many levels.
I'd say the design itself for starters. HTC can now release a model that looks exactly the same before Apple launches theirs.
You are making the assumption that they stole. This is clearly not proven and a matter of opinion at this point. Therefore the rest of your sarcastic question is irrelevant.
I couldn't disagree more. When I think of this situation, I don't even think of the guy being hyped up as a drunk frat boy at all. You're looking way too much into Gray himself. Its obvious the guy messed up. More importantly, a high profile product was leaked.
I haven't seen a single thing yet proving that it was illegal. Just the EFF making crazy comments that disregard that Gizmodo confessed very publicly and proudly to committing an illegal act
Exactly, that tale is all what Gizmodo said. A company that tried a similar stunt via Valleywag over the ipad. A company that said they would do ANYTHING for a story etc.
If they had posted the pics and said 'a source' then certainly shield laws might apply. But they had the device, admitted it, and admitted they paid for it. They did this to themselves.
Totally wrong.
The smartphone world is an incredibly high-stakes game of espionage and one-upsmanship. In a world of 6-month product cycles that can earn or cost billions of dollars, every single iClone maker just got a 3-month head start at beating the king of the heap. They now know the rough (and sometimes exact) hardware specs and exact industrial design on day -90 rather than on day 1.
That's enough time to prep and possibly even ship products that compare favourably to this iPhone (in the eyes of joe public) before it is even announced!
In a hundred-billion-dollar market, that's no joke.
I mean avoiding this exact situation is why Apple is so secretive in the first place for chrissakes! Why do you think they spend a bajillion dollars keeping themselves as the most secretive company on the planet?
Jason Chen's crime just undid all that work. Apple would burn 10 Mona Lisas if it could undo the harm that was just caused.
Think of it this way.
Let's say Gizmodo did *not* report on the lost phone, while everything else happened exactly as it did. An apple employee lost an iphone at the bar, a suspiciously intentioned person found the iphone and approached gizmodo. Gizmodo decides to pay $5000 to see the phone. They take it apart, they thoroughly examine it, but they don't break it. They put it back together. It is obviously the real thing. They return it to Apple.
Nothing would happen.
So now we add in the fact that they *did* report on the iphone. It is their job to uncover rumors and post about tech news before it even happens. So they write up the iphone story of the year and publish it to their site. And suddenly it now warrants a raid.
So tell me this, do you honestly believe the fact that they reported on this information that they are suddenly criminals? Sure, they may have opened the door wide for a civil lawsuit. But come on, they are NOT criminals!
Let's say Gizmodo did *not* report on the lost phone, while everything else happened exactly as it did. An apple employee lost an iphone at the bar, a suspiciously intentioned person found the iphone and approached gizmodo. Gizmodo decides to pay $5000 to see the phone. They take it apart, they thoroughly examine it, but they don't break it. They put it back together. It is obviously the real thing. They return it to Apple.
Nothing would happen.
So now we add in the fact that they *did* report on the iphone. It is their job to uncover rumors and post about tech news before it even happens. So they write up the iphone story of the year and publish it to their site. And suddenly it now warrants a raid.
So tell me this, do you honestly believe the fact that they reported on this information that they are suddenly criminals? Sure, they may have opened the door wide for a civil lawsuit. But come on, they are NOT criminals!
You saying I am totally wrong doesnt make it so. I disagree with you and still think Apple will not lose money. Unfortunately. After the way they are behaving they deserve it.
Help me out here, how is it obvious? Are you basing your assumptions squarely on what Giz reports? What if Giz isn't being truthful or providing all the details behind their acquisition the said device?
Apple will lose money. The more people know, the more will hold off getting an iPhone.
I'm not sure on this aspect, but did Giz strip down the phone before it paid up for it?
Under other state laws yes it has bearing on a case, if someone does not actually reach and steel your property, but finds it say on the floor or left in the bathroom then it makes a big difference, this is not to say that they can keep your property if you ask for it, but its not considered theft.
You must keep that in mind when thinking about the Law, theft is a state law and each state can say what ever they want. California has some really old laws they don't want to change, and these laws can be very intrusive to just ordinary people. Easy to understand if you take time. There are a lot of other blue laws that certain states have, which many here would probably feel nerves if they realized that police will enforce them when someone in power asks.
An assumption based on the facts as presented by Gizmodo. But I suppose those are irrelevant.
And your reasoning for the rest of my "question" being irrelevant is quite flawed considering they were distinct topics.
I wrote already about this, but California theft law does show that in their eyes yes they stoled. Every state makes the law as they see fit.
Now the key to the case is if a judge will uphold this old state law or move in a different direction.
I don't care how he lost it. I don't what he was doing it the time. All I know is that he lost a damn important device. I don't think anything terrible of the guy. It seems like you're riled up with the Gray guy. What's the deal fella?
You're right and wrong at the same time. The moment money was exchanged for the device it became a crime. If they didn't post about it the police would never have gotten involved and no search warrant would have been issued, etc...
Apple would have swept the whole thing under the rug and Gray would have notified the police that he got his phone back.
So you're right and wrong.
Knowingly paying for something that doesn't belong to the seller to begin with isn't against the law? Since when?
So which is it? First you people say Gizmodo isn't telling the truth...now you say you make substantial judgments based on their 'facts'.
But then (not taking into account any legal matters), wouldn't you be skeptical to have actually acquired an iPhone months before it comes out despite how legit it may appear?