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

[wovel]

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.

Purchasing stolen property and divulging trade secrets protected under California law is not actually in his job description (Once he is arrested you will see Gawker shove him out and quote exactly what I just said).

Dude, seriously... Wtf...

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.

I am not aware of any finder keepers countries in Europe and we have heard from several European lawyers over the past few days. Are there parts of the EU ruled by Pre-Schoolers?

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.

No NDA is required to be in violation of the trade secrets law. No point in rehashing this stuff again , if you are too lazy to read it yourself.

It's funny how no one was putting down Gizmodo when they broke the story.

You should re-red the first thread on that story over here, you are confused.

That's ridiculous.

Going back to the video tape analogy that you made, the argument can still be made that they were purchasing the opportunity to examine it. It's obvious that they wouldn't have intended to keep it. The written request was of no material value beyond paper and ink.

They said they bought it. The written request was worth hmm about half a million hits in the separate story they ran with it. Extortion is exactly what it was, they even brag about it on there site. You are trying to defend the indefensible, some times that is OK when there is some moral principle stake. There is nothing over there but suck.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

Who cares? We are a rumor site and we want leaks. I really dont know whats with all of you

Of course you don't. You don't know what it's like to have your stuff compromised because nobody wants it! Figures when stating a sig with an iPod for crying out loud like you own something he he. An iPod? Cmon, that's all you have to brag about in your sig?

 

[Denarius]

Actually, on consideration, I think the legal case against Jason Chen for receiving stolen goods is pretty good if he believed it to be a genuine Apple item at the time of purchase.

 

[Anuba]

Somehow I think we don't read the same things. The employee that was fired apparently showed an iPad 3G to Wozniak _and others while photos were taken_. And, of course, this was reported by - guess who - Gizmodo who really has all reason to stir up public opinion against Apple right now.

On the other hand, I have seen claims of police corruption, about DAs being in Apple's pockets, totally irrational. The general public sees a $5000 payment for a phone and knows that something very, very dodgy was going on.

I don't think we read the same things, no, seeing as I live in Sweden. These news are making the rounds all over the globe, and international media coverage is like a game of Chinese whispers. Facts are lost (or distorted) in translation, stories are tweaked to fit everyone's favorite narratives, throw in a bit of politics and soon enough you have a different story altogether. Right and wrong don't matter, the bandwagon goes where it wants to go and it has pretty much decided to go against Apple already.

Aftonbladet (half serious newspaper, half tabloid, sort of like the NY Times and LA Times and USA Today and National Enquirer all rolled into one -- it's a small country) picked up both stories, and here's a rough translation of the latest one:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/pryl/article7028858.ab

"Bought secret iPhone - risks jail time"

Gizmodo editor suspected of receiving stolen goods

American technology blog Gizmodo attracted worldwide attention last week after publishing intricate details about Apple's new iPhone model. Now the editor behind the blog is facing charges of receiving stolen goods.

Last week's massive iPhone scoop may end up costing Gizmodo dearly. The bloggers admitted to having paid $5,000 for the phone -- something which made authorities, with Apple in front (sic), see red.

Now one of the site's editors, Jason Chen, is suspected of receiving stolen goods, and over the weekend the police conducted a raid in his home where four computers and two servers were seized along with other items.
- I had been out to dinner with my wife, and when I returned the police were halfway through raiding my home, says Chen in a statement.

Apple behind raid
The decision to conduct a raid has stirred up a heated debate in the US. Critics allege that the editor, in spite of being a "mere blogger", is a professional journalist and therefore protected by shield laws. It has also been uncovered that Apple – who are notoriously tight-lipped regarding information about new, unreleased products – are board members of REACT, a police task force specializing in computer tech related crime.

Left prototype in bar
The debacle started after an Apple engineer left an iPhone prototype at a bar in California after celebrating his birthday. After the finder had tried to return the phone to Apple, who dismissed him as a liar, he sold it to Gizmodo who dissected the phone and published exclusive details on the hardware in the next generation iPhone.

Translated reader comments:

"Raid? Jail? Pathetic!"

"So these are Apple's true colors? How can they do this to a person they ignored when he first tried to return the phone? Oh well, guess it's time to boycott Apple and their future products. This is far from OK."

"I feel ashamed for owning multiple Apple products. If they can't keep track of their stuff, it's their own damn fault."

"Seriously Apple, I'm gonna have to boycott you now. This is beyond the pale."

"I own an iPhone myself, and it's alright, but it's my first and last. This whole thing makes you wonder if Apple's board of directors is made up of North Koreans, how else could they be such control freaks? A frightening and very, very SICK company."

"Using MobileMe feels so secure now... not. iPhone.... yikes... this whole thing makes me afraid of the dark."

"Journalists being prosecuted on dubious grounds, eh? Sounds like China."

"People shouldn't give their hard earned money to companies like Apple, who are notorious for exploiting people, threatening people and spreading fear at their manufacturing plants. Acquire some taste, avoid their junk."

"A despicable act on Apple's part, they'd better clean up their act fast. Using Mac, iPhone etc is starting to feel awkward. It's downright nauseating that Apple are actively involved in some police task force. That's the wrong way to go. Apple's image used to be anti-establishment, and now they've joined forces with Big Brother. They've gone too far.

Aftonbladet got some key details wrong, of course, but that's nothing compared to what'll happen in other markets of Apple's... France, Japan, China... it's not good PR, trust me.

 

[kinnetics]

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.

I agree completely with all that is said here. It is still the fault of Gray Powell, and thus Apple, for losing the prototype. Even though Gizmodo is a blog, it is owned by Gawker Media and I consider it journalism because they do indeed report on the events, issues, and trends of the tech world. In the end, I believe Gizmodo will win this and Apple will come out looking like a bully.

 

[Denarius]

Left prototype in bar
The whole brouhaha started after an Apple engineer left an iPhone prototype at a bar in California after celebrating his birthday. After the finder had tried to return the phone to Apple, who dismissed him as a liar, he sold it to Gizmodo who dissected the phone and published exclusive details on the hardware in the next generation iPhone.

I wasn't aware of that part. If Apple had told the finder that it wasn't theirs then the finder's responsibility to Apple surely can't hold water.

 

[wolfshades]

Actually, on consideration, I think the legal case against Jason Chen for receiving stolen goods is pretty good if he believed it to be a genuine Apple item at the time of purchase.

He also believed it be "lost" not "stolen". So the case against him is circumstantial at best.

 

[Anuba]

I wasn't aware of that part. If Apple had told the finder that it wasn't theirs then the finder's responsibility to Apple surely can't hold water.

Well, "dismissed him as a liar" is Aftonbladet's shoddy translation/interpretation. The guy tried calling Apple's support line and they thought it was a hoax. It's an attempt of sorts to return the phone, but not a "reasonable effort" according to various internet lawyers.

 

[GroundLoop]

After 5 years of following this website, I'm finally moved to post. The anti-government attacks in this chain is completely out of touch with reality.

Fact: Gizmodo published an offer to pay for an item/activity that in all likeliness would have taken an illegal act to acquire/perform.

Would anyone like to start citing case law on this type of activity? Anyone who makes a public offer to pay someone to commit an illegal act for their benefit doesn't deserve any protections.

What you state is true (and this is why Think Secret shut its doors). Question is who approached whom? Did the thief approach Giz or did Giz approach the thief? I imagine the thief approached Gizmodo to sell the phone since Gizmodo wouldn't have had any idea that it existed outside Apple's walls.

 

[Carniphage]

Not really as by definition Gizmodo is not a news medium as 90% or more of its posts are just repeating what others have said. Researching and investigating new information is not there intent. They only seek to gather other sites works and aggregate them for profit. Google is not a news medium and neither is Gizmodo.

A writer is not by definition a journalist and a journalist is not by definition a writer.

So what you are saying is that someone who writes about celebrity gossip for a newspaper is more of a journalist than someone who writes reviews of technology for a website?

just checking

C.

 

[jlseattle]

Search Warrant

My belief that what is happening is illegal. By buying the iPhone from someone he didn't conduct anything against the law. A person can buy legal goods from another person. Plus he returned the phone as soon as Apple formally requested it back stating it was their property. And from a journalist point of view he is completely covered. This is a police/court bumbling around themselves if I have ever seen it. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a suit brought against the courts/police on this search warrant. There should be. And that will send a clear message back to Apple that they need to reprimand the employee that lost the phone, not the journalist that is doing their job. But the outcome of this will shut off Apples contacts within the police department and Apple will know that their actionable steps are now limited to getting the device back and reprimanding the employee.

I'm a huge Apple user and love the product. But I think that this level of harassment has gone too far. They need to take appropriate actions. If my employee had lost a device I was producing and it got onto the web. The employee would be responsible. Not the people that put it on the web... Oh well in due time.

 

[bobajoul]

Sheesh

This whole thing has the feeling of "ready, fire, aim" from both sides. Taunting Apple wasn't smart, neither was breaking down the door because of a search warrant, neither was going to the mats right away. All have a black eye on this one.

 

[Denarius]

He also believed it be "lost" not "stolen". So the case against him is circumstantial at best.

Apparently, under California law, if the owner is unknown, the finder still had a responsibility to turn the article over to the authorities if its value is more than $100. An Apple branded product that corresponds to nothing available currently and that they say is not theirs can be reasonably be believed to be worthless. On the other hand Gizmodo gave him $5000, but that doesn't mean to say that it wasn't a hoax and still actually of no real value in itself, as Apple's statement to the finder indicated.

 

[ibwb]

I said this about two hundred posts ago, but it seems the trade-secret issue died a little and we are talking more about the issue if some sort of theft occurred. I'd like to hear about this potential trade secret infraction as I think this is potentially the most serious infraction in this mess...

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

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


Someone suggested that now a rival company can imitate the design before Apple releases there phone...I suggested that the design could be copyrighted and furthermore its difficult to know if this phone is even going to be the final prototype so we can't be sure this is a final design....but I guess thats where it gets sticky with it being a potential "trade secret"

I think Apple is going to sit on the trade secret aspect for a while, and watch what happens with the criminal aspects of the case. If there are convictions or guilty pleas on the theft angle the trade secret case becomes stronger.

As far as that goes, Gizmodo may have been able to get away with publishing the exterior photos. I'd bet that the trade secret case will focus on their decision to publish photos of the internals. This was irresponsible and negligent of them as there is no reasonable case that they had a right to take the phone apart. Further, the internals provided substantial information to competitors (such as the fact that Apple plans to advertise on battery life).

 

[VenusianSky]

What the heck? A civil liberties organization focused on the digital world. Now I've seen it all. We truly will be at the mercy of Skynet one day, and it will have lawyers.

 

[bobajoul]

methods

The one thing I do not see commented on is the first step in this disassembly process. IF you found an iphone, would you immediately see if it was unusual and start to disassemble it to discover a prototype? That part of the story has always sounded fishy- If I found it and had honest intent, would try to return it. Would not try to pry apart, as that would destroy someone else's property forever. So the intent here was never to return in original condition. The story does not track. We will find out as the process unravels, but you may find it was a theft.

 

[trrosen]

He also believed it be "lost" not "stolen". So the case against him is circumstantial at best.

When sold they are the same thing. Case is rock solid.

Note Gizmodo has never claimed they thought the phone was lost. In fact they have stated it was stolen. What they claim is even though the sellers story would make the phone stolen they weren't sure it wasn't really a fake the seller made. Sorry, but that will never hold water in court.
When faced with the scenario of its a. Stolen or b. Fake what reasonable person would make the purchase since your out the $5000 either way.

 

[Anuba]

All have a black eye on this one.

Yes, all except Lufthansa. Their letter to Gray Powell was a brilliant little marketing ploy with lots of feelgood attached to it. Lufthansa +1, Apple -1, Gizmodo -1.

 

[pmz]

Neat. So I can knowingly acquire stolen property (pay for it), tear it apart, photograph it and not worry about going to jail as long as I am a journalist?

SWEET!

This is what you call, desperate attempt at grasping any possible strings.

Chen is going down, and rightfully so.

 

[Denarius]

The one thing I do not see commented on is the first step in this disassembly process. IF you found an iphone, would you immediately see if it was unusual and start to disassemble it to discover a prototype? That part of the story has always sounded fishy- If I found it and had honest intent, would try to return it. Would not try to pry apart, as that would destroy someone else's property forever. So the intent here was never to return in original condition. The story does not track. We will find out as the process unravels, but you may find it was a theft.

But it's already been established that the finder contacted Apple and they dismissed it. No harm in opening up something that, based on Apple's dismissal, could well be a worthless hoax.

 

[tdmac]

Left prototype in bar
The debacle started after an Apple engineer left an iPhone prototype at a bar in California after celebrating his birthday. After the finder had tried to return the phone to Apple, who dismissed him as a liar, he sold it to Gizmodo who dissected the phone and published exclusive details on the hardware in the next generation iPhone.[/i]

I wasn't aware of that part. If Apple had told the finder that it wasn't theirs then the finder's responsibility to Apple surely can't hold water.

Well when you read it that way I can understand your reaction but the paraphrasing in Anuba's comments glance over the facts.

The person made a half assed "Attempt". If he even made one at all. This could just be Gizmodo covering their a**. The person supposedly called apple customer care, who would have no clue. Never tried to contact headquarters, never tried to contact the user. Even if you discounted all of this the one thing that he should have done and never did was inform the owners of the bar about the found phone or turn it into the bar. This would have been the first place that the Powell would have called and visited looking for it, which I believe he did. Still under CA law it was not his right to turn it over to Gizmodo anyway. Under the law it is not his. Plain and simple.

He also believed it be "lost" not "stolen". So the case against him is circumstantial at best.

Another ridiculous argument. Does not matter if it was lost or stolen. In the eyes of the law its still not finder's keepers.

 

[pmz]

My belief that what is happening is illegal. By buying the iPhone from someone he didn't conduct anything against the law. A person can buy legal goods from another person. Plus he returned the phone as soon as Apple formally requested it back stating it was their property. And from a journalist point of view he is completely covered. This is a police/court bumbling around themselves if I have ever seen it. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a suit brought against the courts/police on this search warrant. There should be. And that will send a clear message back to Apple that they need to reprimand the employee that lost the phone, not the journalist that is doing their job. But the outcome of this will shut off Apples contacts within the police department and Apple will know that their actionable steps are now limited to getting the device back and reprimanding the employee.

I'm a huge Apple user and love the product. But I think that this level of harassment has gone too far. They need to take appropriate actions. If my employee had lost a device I was producing and it got onto the web. The employee would be responsible. Not the people that put it on the web... Oh well in due time.

HAHAHA. Yeah ok. You'd be a hoot is court! You'd be laughed out the door, in handcuffs.

 

[spazzcat]

Apparently, under California law, if the owner is unknown, the finder still had a responsibility to turn the article over to the authorities if its value is more than $100. An Apple branded product that corresponds to nothing available currently and that they say is not theirs can be reasonably be believed to be worthless. On the other hand Gizmodo gave him $5000, but that doesn't mean to say that it wasn't a hoax and still actually of no real value in itself, as Apple's statement to the finder indicated.

I think someone could argue a prototype product is worth lot of money...

 

[yg17]

But it's already been established that the finder contacted Apple and they dismissed it. No harm in opening up something that, based on Apple's dismissal, could well be a worthless hoax.

+1

The guy made an effort to get it back to Apple, they thought it was a joke. Tough **** for them. Not everyone has Steve Jobs' personal cell number on speed dial. If I were in that situation, I'd probably call their main 1-800 number too, because that's the only number I'd know of to call.

And I bet even if you could call up an executive officer at Apple, they'd probably think it was a joke too.

 

[trrosen]

Gawker wants things both ways.

When they are admonished for violating journalistic ethics they claim not to be journalists.

When they get caught with there hands in the stolen cookie jar they magically become journalists.

Media does not equal press.