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
Get a grip
I think Jennifer and Gaby need to take a second look at that California State Law, cause they sure are missing a few points here.
You see, ladies, when you've commited a felony it is totally irrelevant if you're a journalist or not. It simply does not matter.
"But I'm a journalist", just doesn't cut it if you stand charged with grand theft or possesion of stolen goods. And yes, the police can actually do what they did, if they have a search warrant. Which they did.
I think Jennifer and Gaby need to take a second look at that California State Law, cause they sure are missing a few points here.
You see, ladies, when you've commited a felony it is totally irrelevant if you're a journalist or not. It simply does not matter.
"But I'm a journalist", just doesn't cut it if you stand charged with grand theft or possesion of stolen goods. And yes, the police can actually do what they did, if they have a search warrant. Which they did.
Hey, they had a warrant, so this wasn't an illegal search and seizure. Maybe the warrant was bad, but that would be a different matter. Certainly, we really should have some review mechanism for warrants. I've seen enough in my life (fortunately never served to me) to know that often they are fraudulently created.
Yet I feel no sympathy for this gizmodo editor. Not just because he's an anti-apple douchebag. But because this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things in Police State America.
Every day, millions of americans are illegally searched, without probable cause and without any warrants being issued, by the TSA.
I'd like to see the EFF (and any other organizations that claim to give a damn about the constitution) up in arms about that.
Further, there is a federal statute that prohibits violating any citizen's rights under color of law. This statute has a punishment of up to 10 years in jail, per violation. Thus all those TSA agents are committing felonies, and a lifetime sentence worth of felonies each day.
Much bigger crime-- millions of illegal searches, and nothing is said. Compared to that, taking this guys computers is small potatoes.
Yet I feel no sympathy for this gizmodo editor. Not just because he's an anti-apple douchebag. But because this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things in Police State America.
Every day, millions of americans are illegally searched, without probable cause and without any warrants being issued, by the TSA.
I'd like to see the EFF (and any other organizations that claim to give a damn about the constitution) up in arms about that.
Further, there is a federal statute that prohibits violating any citizen's rights under color of law. This statute has a punishment of up to 10 years in jail, per violation. Thus all those TSA agents are committing felonies, and a lifetime sentence worth of felonies each day.
Much bigger crime-- millions of illegal searches, and nothing is said. Compared to that, taking this guys computers is small potatoes.
I was under the impression that these kinds of "shield laws" were intended to stop authorities from strong-arming journalists into revealing names of sources who themselves may have committed illegal acts. I've never heard of a law protecting journalists from being investigated for illegal activity committed by the journalist in question.
i don't see what gizmodo did wrong, they didnt steal anything.
-apple LOST thier iphone
don't forget that it was an apple employee who left it in a bar.
-the guy who found it TRIED to return it
he called in and the company bassically blew him off.
-GIZMODO is absolutly journalism.
you can't get upset that he posted this, his job is to post tech rumors. hell even MACRUMORS is considered journalism
-and not to forget, when apple asked for thier **** back, GIZMODO happily returned it.
-------------------------------------
from what i see GIZMODO isnt the bad guy. APPLEINSIDER, ENGADGET, MACRUMORS ETC. post LEAKED product pictures all the time.
they didnt break the law
they didnt steal
and they didn't lie.
apple is blaming the journalist for doing his JOB. INSTEAD of blaming the employed who f'd up and lost it.
thats seems kind of backwords dont you think.
------------------
i'm a apple lover like the rest of you, but this just seems wrong and unfair.
shame on you apple.
-apple LOST thier iphone
don't forget that it was an apple employee who left it in a bar.
-the guy who found it TRIED to return it
he called in and the company bassically blew him off.
-GIZMODO is absolutly journalism.
you can't get upset that he posted this, his job is to post tech rumors. hell even MACRUMORS is considered journalism
-and not to forget, when apple asked for thier **** back, GIZMODO happily returned it.
-------------------------------------
from what i see GIZMODO isnt the bad guy. APPLEINSIDER, ENGADGET, MACRUMORS ETC. post LEAKED product pictures all the time.
they didnt break the law
they didnt steal
and they didn't lie.
apple is blaming the journalist for doing his JOB. INSTEAD of blaming the employed who f'd up and lost it.
thats seems kind of backwords dont you think.
------------------
i'm a apple lover like the rest of you, but this just seems wrong and unfair.
shame on you apple.
You know you're fat & happy when you're totally okay with shredding the Constitution. I hope you guys are in the minority, else this country may some day soon find out what it's really like to have our freedom removed.
bloggers belong to periodicals , as per a previous judgement involving apple..so this is getting interesting
Paranoid much? Your position is just as frightening. I'm all for legal search and seizures, but since I grew up in California, I'm going to come right out and say that there are many stupid laws like this one. Hopefully this case is able to eradicate one more.
Wrong. Gizmodo didn't hire this person to steal the phone. The "thief" approached Gizmodo...And Gizmodo paid...
Big difference there...
Hickman
he didn't steal anything, he broke no laws, they tried to give it back.....apple blew him off.
and when apple asked for it back, they gave it back.
thats not stealing, if you attempted to return it. and it still isnt stealling when you give it back when apple finnally decided they wanted it back
http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back
Giz is in the right: they did not purposely buy stolen goods. They bought a unique phone of unknown origin. You break the law when you purposely buy stolen goods.
For example, say you bought an peach at the supermarket because it looked delicious and bigger than the other peaches there. It latter turns out that Peach was stolen off a truck headed to an organic market. Should the police seize your credit cards and raid your fridge to see what you've got in there? Maybe they should examine your sh*t for evidence. Stop being haters. Just because Giz went after what looked like to be a goldmine and indeed turned out to be one doesn't mean they are evil or should be unfairly punished.
At the risk of being banned (again) for disagreeing with you, you just linked to an article where you merely assert that the person is wrong. You haven't tried to prove anything or provided an argument.
The shield law protects *sources* that may have committed crimes. Not journalists who commit crimes.
In this case, the crime is the purchase of stolen property. Thus the warrant is legitimate, as the comptuers contain information about that purchase.
Given that said purchase has been admitted publically by gawker, there's not much really out of line with this warrant.
It's just that gawker thinks they somehow are above the law.
Once again, writing about a crime is protected, using a criminal confidential source is protected. Buying stolen property is not protected.
Edit to add: Gawker admits that the phone is stolen, btw, in their response to Apple. So, there's no disputing that they bought stolen goods. Whether they did it knowingly is exactly the kind of issue that will come up in trial.
He did broke the law, why is it so hard for people to understand that if it is not yours, why take it away from a private property and sell it? If it is not yours, just leave it at the bar, otherwise its upto you to take extra measures to find the owner.
Edit : He, meaning, the person who took the phone from the bar, not the blogger
Actually, if you were banned it should be on the basis that you are just plain rude. You can get your point across without the disdainfulness.
You weren't reading closely enough. These people were wrong because they claimed that because of this law "they can do anything they want, act like a journalist and not be punished".
This has nothing to do with being punished or not. This only has to do with the legality of the search and seizure. This does not give journalists free reign at be above the law. That is what the people I quoted were implying. And that is what they were wrong about.
arn
There's a huge difference between the DAs trying to get the information on the protected sources (That's the shield law and thus would make this search and seizure illegal) and the DAs trying to get the information whether Gizmodo was committing a felony, which has nothing to do with protected sources and thus nothing to do with shield laws.
Gizmodo was obligated by the CA's law to find the original owners, they had no rights to break apart and post the information online, it doesn't matter if Apple did not respond to it or did nothing to find it. I believe CA laws stated 3 years must pass before Gizmodo could claim ownership to it.
Gizmodo/Gawker posted the info that they paid 5000$ for this phone, sorry, no way in hell Gizmodo/Gawker did not know that the phone was not a prototype and stolen if they were willing to pay 5000$ for this. That action alone will come back to bite Gizmodo in the ass, big time.
Journalism is not a license to break any laws you wish. That's complete bull****.
Update: Even if Gizmodo and Gawker did not know it was stolen or just simply lost, as for me, it does not justify them acting as a**wipes and using it as an exclusive item to jack up the clicks to get money. The information posted on the Apple's employee was a complete ass move on their part as well. Gizmodo or Gawker has lost all my respects for just that action alone. F**k them.
Gizmodo was obligated by the CA's law to find the original owners, they had no rights to break apart and post the information online, it doesn't matter if Apple did not respond to it or did nothing to find it. I believe CA laws stated 3 years must pass before Gizmodo could claim ownership to it.
Gizmodo/Gawker posted the info that they paid 5000$ for this phone, sorry, no way in hell Gizmodo/Gawker did not know that the phone was not a prototype and stolen if they were willing to pay 5000$ for this. That action alone will come back to bite Gizmodo in the ass, big time.
Journalism is not a license to break any laws you wish. That's complete bull****.
Update: Even if Gizmodo and Gawker did not know it was stolen or just simply lost, as for me, it does not justify them acting as a**wipes and using it as an exclusive item to jack up the clicks to get money. The information posted on the Apple's employee was a complete ass move on their part as well. Gizmodo or Gawker has lost all my respects for just that action alone. F**k them.
From what I've read, California state law considers it theft if someone finds lost property and profits from it without a reasonable effort to track down the owner and return it. Also, knowingly buying stolen property (which in this case it would have been) is illegal.
I know, I know... Gizmodo are babes in the woods, right? They had no idea what they were buying. In fact, they slap down $5K every time someone claims to have a prototype Apple device.
If they thought the device was the real deal, the responsible thing would have been to report the guy shopping it around. If they didn't think it was real, why did they offer $5000 for it? That implies that they knew what it was, and it also implies that they knew it was likely stolen.
I can't think of logical defense for what they did.