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
Dal
everyone knows that both federal and state laws in California are for the protection of steve jobs and steve jobs alone. apple's creepy cult-like secrets automatically trump both journalistic freedom and integrity.
And? Are you saying Apple should get special treatment because they make iPhones?
Why do the police work more aggressively in this case than any other "stolen" item case? I will tell you why...influence...which joe average has none of.
Mark > If I found something, it's mine, it's not stealing, and it's only my conscience to give it back or not. If I decide to sell what's mine ('cause I find, and didn't steal) I can do it.
karolyn while I agree with a small part of what you say that terrorist comment was harsh. I don't think you really meant that.
What country are you from by the way?
What country are you from by the way?
The EFF is not always right. I applaud their involvement in all of their matters. They are often the only one to stick up for the little guy.
In this case I think they are wrong. The fact that these guys from Gizmodo are 'journalists' is immaterial. They committed a crime. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the journalism shield. They weren't reporting on a story, they were creating it and in the process broke the law.
In this case I think they are wrong. The fact that these guys from Gizmodo are 'journalists' is immaterial. They committed a crime. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the journalism shield. They weren't reporting on a story, they were creating it and in the process broke the law.
Wow the amount of GUILTY before trial people here is scary. To think they would make up juries is terrifying.
Define the difference. Journalism is not a clearly defined profession, and it certainly does not require one to be under contract with a newspaper or TV station. But yes, courts have already accepted blogging as a journalistic activity in the past and a certain company in Cupertino had to learn that lesson the hard way.
No, you can't, because NO European country has a law that explicitly says that whatever you find belongs to you. In Germany, for example, you have to deposit the finding at a local police station or "Fundbüro" and can only claim ownership after one year if the original owner does not show up and collect his property.
Let's wait to see where she is from before we declare that as fact. Germany is a very rigid place so it doens't surprise me it would be as you say there....some other EU nations are not as rigid.
Why has no one asked the most important question?
Did the seized Macbook Pros have "File Vault" turned on, and if so, did Apple provide a backdoor to bypass the encryption to the DA's office?
I hope we get an answer to the question of whether there is a secret back door out of all this.
Did the seized Macbook Pros have "File Vault" turned on, and if so, did Apple provide a backdoor to bypass the encryption to the DA's office?
I hope we get an answer to the question of whether there is a secret back door out of all this.
I'm beginning to suspect that this whole thing was a marketing plot by Apple. Usually they don't get news headlines until the product has been officially unveiled, but in this case they get tons of more free publicity (first the images, then the news that the phone was lost, then these investigations, then the results of investigations etc)... they can build up the hype and keep this going on until the iPhone 4 will be officially revealed. New strategy for Apple, and believable only once when it happens for a first time.
Other than the pay for it what you describe is a part of investigative journalism. Shield laws help keep the press a free and potent part of US society.
Mark > If I found something, it's mine, it's not stealing, and it's only my conscience to give it back or not. If I decide to sell what's mine ('cause I find, and didn't steal) I can do it.
Only in crapy countries like USA you will get police search for thatI'm so happy that I live in Europe. All you do, it's talk about freedom, but the thing - you don't have freedom in USA, only some ******** law and stupid police, so that's why terorist bomb yoy, 'cause they to - don't like stupid people
So if I find your car parked somewhere I can have it?
Your ignorance is astounding.
Under California law the person who found the phone had a responsibility to try and return it to the owner. Did he? Well here are the things we know:
1. He did not notify the staff at the bar he had found a lost phone and give it to them. This is the most common and accepted behavior in bars. You find something? Give it to the bartender. You lose something? Ask the bartender.
2. He did not contact the owner of the phone. If he had he could have returned it. We know that he was able to obtain the owners information off the phone since he provided it to Gizmodo and the phone had been remotely wiped before he contacted them by his and their own admission.
3. He made a bad faith effort to contact Apple. seriously, who is going to believe some random dude calling in and saying, "hey I have this prototype". Very few people knew of this particular phones existence and I'm guessing none of them work the phone lines. This assumes his claim is true. Given his behavior wen have no reason to believe it is.
So he didn't/couldn't/wouldn't find the owner. What was he legally obligated to do next? Simple. Turn it over to the police.
What was he legally NOT allowed to do? Sell it.
Under California law what he did is considered theft. Whether he actually just found it at the bar (wouldn't surprise me if he stole it off the guy), he broke the law by selling it.
It gets better! By purchasing the phone Gizmodo/Jason Chen ALSO broke the law by knowingly taking possession of stolen goods. They claim they bought it from a guy who found it not stole it right? Doesn't work that way. In order for them to be protected they would have to pass a sniff test, i.e. could it reasonably be concluded that they believed it was not stolen. The short answer is well, no. Here's the longer answer.
1. This person told them he found it at a bar. Since the law requires that he find the owner/turn it over to the police, it was known stolen at that point,
2. They reasonably believed it was an Apple prototype, else they would not have shelled out $5,000 to purchase it after having physically inspected it. Since they, as a gadget blog knew Apple had not yet released for sale the device they were buying at that point they were knowingly purchasing goods which could not have been obtained in a legal manner.
So Gizmodo purchased a stolen prototype. Big deal it's just a phone, worth a couple hundred bucks. Slap on the wrist right? Wrong.
The value of the device as a prototype would be significantly higher than any street vAlue of an eventual product. Further Gizmodos own admitted purchase puts the value perceived at at least $5000, enough to qualify as a felony, i.e. jail time.
Basically Gizmodo f'ed this up royally (as did their legal counsel). Had they simply paid for pictures of the device or information on the device they very likely would have been safe. However, by dealing in a physical stolen (not lost, legally it's regarded as stolen because it was not returned or given to police) goods they crossed a line. Journalists are NOT protected when committing a crime simply by writing a story about it.
This is not an abuse of power by the police or by Apple (they can only initiate civil action, a warrant is a criminal investigative tool, which would be at the behest of the District Attorney). This is the carrying out of legitimate law enforcement in the investigation of a possible felony.
In conclusion I suggest that you avail yourself of one of Europes many fine institutions of learning (Oxford, La Sorbonne, etc.) such that you do not come off as ignorant and bigoted in the future as you did in this post.
I don't buy this evaluation of the situation which reads Gizmodo as performing an important function in supplying the 'truth' to the American (and wider) public that should be protected.
I would expect that the shield laws in question exist to protect journalists (and their sources) when they are reporting on something which contains itself an element of criminal, fraudulent or nefarious activity. This means for example, that if the journalist was reporting on corruption, a source could give them information on that corruption without fear of reprisal. The difference here is that Gizmodo is not reporting on something which concerns a threat to the American public's security or rights, it is reporting on the design of a consumer product.
This is my personal opinion, but I do not think that kind of journalism needs protection. After all, the only thing it achieves is publicity for Gizmodo (and revenue in terms of advertising hits from the Website), the sating of the public's curiosity (which is an indulgence, not a right), and a damaging effect on Apple's presumably well planned publicity campaign. Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to protect their privacy anyway, and what right has a journalist to break it down?
I would expect that the shield laws in question exist to protect journalists (and their sources) when they are reporting on something which contains itself an element of criminal, fraudulent or nefarious activity. This means for example, that if the journalist was reporting on corruption, a source could give them information on that corruption without fear of reprisal. The difference here is that Gizmodo is not reporting on something which concerns a threat to the American public's security or rights, it is reporting on the design of a consumer product.
This is my personal opinion, but I do not think that kind of journalism needs protection. After all, the only thing it achieves is publicity for Gizmodo (and revenue in terms of advertising hits from the Website), the sating of the public's curiosity (which is an indulgence, not a right), and a damaging effect on Apple's presumably well planned publicity campaign. Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to protect their privacy anyway, and what right has a journalist to break it down?
Hmm. When I was in J school paying for tips, much less buying stolen property to get a scoop, was neither considered ethical or covered by a journalist's freedom of speech.
As for Apple's "cult-like" secrets, the iPhone in question was unreleased and unannounced. Therefore, legally, it could be considered a "trade secret," just like any work-in-progress or other private formula that any other company has the right to keep secret. There is nothing "cult-like" about that. It's the normal course of business.
Do you know how to make an exact Coca-Cola? Nope. You know why? It's a trade secret. I guess Coke as creepy "cult-like" secrets too b/c they keep the formula locked in a bank vault and only about 3 people have access to it at any given time.
Yes, legitimate journalism. But if we are going to permit "journalists" to buy stolen merchandise as part of their work then we are not going to have a "free" society because that essentially legalizes theft. What if an art writer wants to do a full in-depth analysis of the Mona Lisa. Maybe he should just arrange to have it stolen, pay the thief, and then the Mono Lisa is his to write on. Maybe the writer decides to cut it in bits to see if another painting in behind it. No prob. That is his journalist's prerogative. Anything for a story, right? Of course, he'll return what's left back to the museum so no harm done.
you spelled it out perfectly. i couldn't have said it better myself. gizmodo majorly screwed up.
Please, tell me what NDA Gizmodo broke, cause im pretty sure they have not signed anything! If apple emails you thier trade secrets, you are not obliged to keep anything secret, you didn't sign anything that require you to do so.
May I speculate further?
May it also be considered stolen because Apple (or Gray Powell) reported it stolen?
Also, only Gizmodo have ever stated that Gray Powell lost it, who's to say that's true?
May it also be considered stolen because Apple (or Gray Powell) reported it stolen?
Also, only Gizmodo have ever stated that Gray Powell lost it, who's to say that's true?
What I should have said was that Gizmodo, knowing how Apple usually has everything NDA'ed and locked up, should have seriously considered the legality of purchasing a 4g iphone - which isn't even on the market!
Engadget was also offered the iphone 4g and declined to purchase it - because they obviously have better legal representation then gizmodo.
Gizmodo is trying to be cheeky by saying they didn't know it was an iphone prototype - if that's the case, why pay $5000 for it?
Gizmodo isn't obliged to keep anything secret - if information falls into their lap - however they paid $5000 for a stolen device - which is technically grand theft.
Engadget was also offered the iphone 4g and declined to purchase it - because they obviously have better legal representation then gizmodo.
Gizmodo is trying to be cheeky by saying they didn't know it was an iphone prototype - if that's the case, why pay $5000 for it?
Gizmodo isn't obliged to keep anything secret - if information falls into their lap - however they paid $5000 for a stolen device - which is technically grand theft.
Apple asked for the phone and it was given back. I think the fact that state police have reacted in such a heavy-handed manner and that Apple sit on the steering committee for REACT, which is supposed to be primarily to prevent internet fraud, stinks to high heaven.
Not so many years ago, I'd have probably been found guilty of being an Apple fanboy, but quite frankly I'm extremely disappointed in the increasingly arrogant and neurotic manner with which Apple conducts itself. This isn't the first time that this has happened, what was the name of the blog that was forced to be shut down when the editor got a leak of the the Mac Mini specs a couple of years ago? Then there's the brutal way that they've dealt with Adobe, both wrt Flash and more recently locking out Adobe's iPhone development tools, when Adobe software was what kept the Mac going during Apple's lean years.
I still use Apple computers because I'm used to them and I like them, but my (perhaps it was always inappropriate) sense of loyalty has gone. Given that Windows is looking a lot more credible in its latest incarnation, Apple are going to have to do something pretty special to win out on my next computer purchase.
Not so many years ago, I'd have probably been found guilty of being an Apple fanboy, but quite frankly I'm extremely disappointed in the increasingly arrogant and neurotic manner with which Apple conducts itself. This isn't the first time that this has happened, what was the name of the blog that was forced to be shut down when the editor got a leak of the the Mac Mini specs a couple of years ago? Then there's the brutal way that they've dealt with Adobe, both wrt Flash and more recently locking out Adobe's iPhone development tools, when Adobe software was what kept the Mac going during Apple's lean years.
I still use Apple computers because I'm used to them and I like them, but my (perhaps it was always inappropriate) sense of loyalty has gone. Given that Windows is looking a lot more credible in its latest incarnation, Apple are going to have to do something pretty special to win out on my next computer purchase.