I doubt most non techie types and bloggers in the long run will care one way or the other. Sure some journalism people also care, keeping in mind that while this is news the current mess of the financial system is bigger news.
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
I doubt most non techie types and bloggers in the long run will care one way or the other. Sure some journalism people also care, keeping in mind that while this is news the current mess of the financial system is bigger news.
Oh it happens.How can the government, Judges, and police officers not have a clear understanding on whether the action they are about to take in unlawful or not??
Ask the nearest black guy.
How do we know that Apple didn't push a message to the phone "Please return this phone at once by calling xxx-xxx-xxxx"...
If you found any old iPhone in a bar - and had a strong suspicion that the person who had been sitting next to you was the owner - would you try and return it by phoning Apple? Or would you simply leave your contact details with the bar staff/leave the phone with the bar staff for the guy who lost it to collect? Another question. Do you think that the latter option is diificult to carry out?
It's definitely worth a lot if it's genuine, but worthless if not! It really does hinge on the reasonable effort bit, but also whether Gizmodo believed that a reasonable effort had been made. At this point I'll run with SportGuy's thoughts on leaving it to the courts and certainly revisiting the bar does seem reasonable, but equally Apple did fail when their employee dismissed it without making enquiries. Reasonable effort is a pretty woolly phrase, so that will definitely be down to the court.
Handing the lost item to the police is the real definition of trying to return an item. Not a phone call.
He didn't start to disassemble it "immediately".
One night he found what looked like an iPhone 3G/3GS. It was late and he was probably as drunk as Gray Powell so he just brought it home.
The next day he examined it and noticed some funky stuff. It looked like it had a case on (badly cut holes around buttons, connector etc), but how can a case be the exact same size and shape as the phone inside it? So he fiddled with it a little and the top part of the case came off, and the phone fell out. Have you even seen the Gizmodo video about it? There's no "disassembly" involved, it takes 2 seconds to open the fake case.
I don't see anything fishy about that part of the story.
Good point. He never contacted the person carrying the phone. Really makes the case. If you try to return the phone to apple then you know it is a secret phone, thus selling the phone is stealing. Buying the phone is purchasing stolen property.
You just made the case for the DA.
I'm no lawyer...
I'm no lawyer... and I don't have the time to search the 635 messages already posted on this story [now 677 - I'm a slow typer], to discover if we've had any informative lawyerly posts thus far, but it does seem to me as though the Gizmodo guy, Jason Chen pushed his luck just a bit too much.
First of all, he seems to have knowingly obtained, for the relatively high price of $5000, a pre production, development G4 Apple iPhone, an item he [at some point] knew did not belong to the person he bought it from. He then appears to have made what might be described as inadequate attempts to return it to its rightful owner.
This is his biggest problem as far as I can tell. Surely he's on very sticky ground if he's trying to defend that action [or lack of it], whether taken before or after he knew the item's ownership status, as an act of journalism.
What he did next was GREAT journalism, and I think we all applaud him for it.
Indeed, every bone in my body wants to defend the enterprising act of bringing us this exciting sneak preview, not least because it's a gorgeous phone who's appearance has galvanized my resolve to wait for the release of the new iPhone before upgrading.
But this is not Watergate, Apple isn't Nixon's White House, the mystery 'finder' of said development iPhone isn't 'Deep Throat' and Jason Chen is neither Woodward nor Bernstein. Sorry, I couldn't fit G. Gordon Liddy in there, unless we want to cast him as the hapless Apple employee who's forgetfulness precipitated all this fun!
Chen appears to have obtained lost or stolen property, and kept it. Precisely what crime that would be in the USA, I'm not certain. Nor am I certain what procedure the law enforcement officers should have taken in their efforts to obtain proof for their case. And whilst the raid seems to have been heavy-handed, I don't regard Jason Chen's actions as those of a responsible citizen - as one would normally employ that term.
Would I contribute to his defense fund if he was destitute? Probably... after he explained how he squandered his share of the ad revenue this little caper has generated! And that's where the true nature of this issue lies - as usual, where the money is, although in this case, not in the ad revenue itself.
If this was your iPhone or my iPhone, there would have been no raid. It's only because the value of the phone far exceeds even the $5000 he paid for it, that the Police Department got involved at all. In reality, this is the law protecting big business, in a way it would never protect an ordinary citizen, at least not in a property case.
What we're really talking about is the protection of the design and appearance, or intellectual property of a development product: normally a civil legal matter. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of industrial espionage or intent before the fact, on the part of Chen, Gizmodo or its parent company.
Whilst I admire Apple's internal security as part of their highly successful business model, as much or more than I do Jason Chen's bravery in bringing us this story, I do think Apple may lose a few friends with this response.
Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I'm no lawyer... and I don't have the time to search the 635 messages already posted on this story [now 677 - I'm a slow typer], to discover if we've had any informative lawyerly posts thus far, but it does seem to me as though the Gizmodo guy, Jason Chen pushed his luck just a bit too much.
First of all, he seems to have knowingly obtained, for the relatively high price of $5000, a pre production, development G4 Apple iPhone, an item he [at some point] knew did not belong to the person he bought it from. He then appears to have made what might be described as inadequate attempts to return it to its rightful owner.
This is his biggest problem as far as I can tell. Surely he's on very sticky ground if he's trying to defend that action [or lack of it], whether taken before or after he knew the item's ownership status, as an act of journalism.
What he did next was GREAT journalism, and I think we all applaud him for it.
Indeed, every bone in my body wants to defend the enterprising act of bringing us this exciting sneak preview, not least because it's a gorgeous phone who's appearance has galvanized my resolve to wait for the release of the new iPhone before upgrading.
But this is not Watergate, Apple isn't Nixon's White House, the mystery 'finder' of said development iPhone isn't 'Deep Throat' and Jason Chen is neither Woodward nor Bernstein. Sorry, I couldn't fit G. Gordon Liddy in there, unless we want to cast him as the hapless Apple employee who's forgetfulness precipitated all this fun!
Chen appears to have obtained lost or stolen property, and kept it. Precisely what crime that would be in the USA, I'm not certain. Nor am I certain what procedure the law enforcement officers should have taken in their efforts to obtain proof for their case. And whilst the raid seems to have been heavy-handed, I don't regard Jason Chen's actions as those of a responsible citizen - as one would normally employ that term.
Would I contribute to his defense fund if he was destitute? Probably... after he explained how he squandered his share of the ad revenue this little caper has generated! And that's where the true nature of this issue lies - as usual, where the money is, although in this case, not in the ad revenue itself.
If this was your iPhone or my iPhone, there would have been no raid. It's only because the value of the phone far exceeds even the $5000 he paid for it, that the Police Department got involved at all. In reality, this is the law protecting big business, in a way it would never protect an ordinary citizen, at least not in a property case.
What we're really talking about is the protection of the design and appearance, or intellectual property of a development product: normally a civil legal matter. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of industrial espionage or intent before the fact, on the part of Chen, Gizmodo or its parent company.
Whilst I admire Apple's internal security as part of their highly successful business model, as much or more than I do Jason Chen's bravery in bringing us this story, I do think Apple may lose a few friends with this response.
Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
He took it home, under the belief that it was any old iPhone 3G(S), to return it to the owner the next day. When he woke up, the phone was bricked, and he discovered that it was not any old iPhone, but rather what appeared to be an Apple prototype. Since the phone was bricked and he could no longer attempt to contact the owner (Gary) since his contact information wasn't accessible, he tried to contact Apple, who would probably want their prototype back. That didn't work. So he sold it to Gizmodo, probably knowing that the second Giz took pictures of it and put them up online, Apple would be contacting them to return the phone, and as far as I'm aware, they did, and the phone is now back with Apple.
If I was in posession of a valuable Apple prototype, I would not return it to a bar, because I doubt it would ever get back to its owner. I'd do the same thing; get it in the hands of a media outlet that has contacts at Apple and is able to get the phone back to them.
At Least All Will Know the Law
While I respect the work of the EFF, their response to the current search warrant is off point and non-responsive.
EFF says: "There are both federal and state laws here in California that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure for their news gathering activities."
Yes. There are also laws (and a Constitution) that protect law-abiding citizens from search and seizure.
But, although Gizmodo might have protection in their "news gathering activities", they have no such protection in their (alleged) criminal fencing of stolen property activities.
At least at the end of this process, US citizens will understand a bit more about the laws that govern their society. Unfortunately, it seems an incredible amount of people who know how to turn on a computer do not understand the common moral imperative that it is bad to commit a crime and immoral (and illegal) to take (and sell and purchase) something that you know belongs to someone else. So I'm all for this civics lesson - too many people are making confused or "feelings"-based arguments, including EFF, without looking at the presented facts (and the admissions to such facts by Gizmodo execs on Gizmodo's website).
To sum up - Journalists are allowed to report on crime; Journalists are allowed to protect their sources (in most instances) who speak to them about a crime or give them documentary evidence with respect to a crime; BUT Journalists are NEVER permitted to COMMIT a crime. That's the big distinction.
While I respect the work of the EFF, their response to the current search warrant is off point and non-responsive.
EFF says: "There are both federal and state laws here in California that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure for their news gathering activities."
Yes. There are also laws (and a Constitution) that protect law-abiding citizens from search and seizure.
But, although Gizmodo might have protection in their "news gathering activities", they have no such protection in their (alleged) criminal fencing of stolen property activities.
At least at the end of this process, US citizens will understand a bit more about the laws that govern their society. Unfortunately, it seems an incredible amount of people who know how to turn on a computer do not understand the common moral imperative that it is bad to commit a crime and immoral (and illegal) to take (and sell and purchase) something that you know belongs to someone else. So I'm all for this civics lesson - too many people are making confused or "feelings"-based arguments, including EFF, without looking at the presented facts (and the admissions to such facts by Gizmodo execs on Gizmodo's website).
To sum up - Journalists are allowed to report on crime; Journalists are allowed to protect their sources (in most instances) who speak to them about a crime or give them documentary evidence with respect to a crime; BUT Journalists are NEVER permitted to COMMIT a crime. That's the big distinction.
Good point. I would think that a public offer to pay a for pre-release copy of the phone could certainly be construed as Gizmodo "approaching" any would-be thief. I'm sure the thief approached Gizmodo, but why them and not a hundred other outlets? Where they aware of the public offer by Gizmodo to reward them for "their services"? Could Gizmodo claim that they weren't sure of the authenticity? Would they have actually paid the money without verifying the authenticity of the product? How does that affect their standing? Is there a record of the alleged transaction? It's going to be an interesting battle for the lawyers and prosecutors.
If he is charged, I hope that if he is charged, they can throw the case out based on this...if so that would be a big "screw you" to the state of California.
It happens in Washington all the time. Journalists get "stolen" (leaked) documents and then publish them. What would the difference be here? That he paid for the phone. The person who found it tried to give back to Apple but Apple wouldn't take it?
Or you could argue that a prototype is worthless.
- It probably doesn't look or act like the final product
- It can't be repaired
- It might not have the final OS
- The final OS might not even install on it (firmware issues)
- It won't be supported
I've received a lot of prototype servers and workstations for testing, and they're mostly dumped after the real models come out - for these reasons. (Often we can save the memory and the disks for the real machines.)
The guy admitted to possessing stolen property which he was told was in fact stolen before he possessed it.
I don't why he should be protected just because he took pictures of it and took it apart and photographed it again and shared them with the world.
I don't why he should be protected just because he took pictures of it and took it apart and photographed it again and shared them with the world.
He had the contact information for the guy on Facebook, why not send him a message? "Did you loose your iPhone at a Bar? I have it call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx".
Okay, firstly I said that you can either leave your contact details with the bar staff or leave the actual phone. If you suspect that the bar staff are going to steal it (there's an irony for you...), you could just leave your contact details at the bar and ask them to get in touch if anybody turns up to claim the phone (which Gary Powell did do on a number of occasions).
Secondly, you really think that the most direct way back to get the phone back to Apple is through a 'media outlet'? How about taking it to an Apple Store, or taking pictures of the phone to give to Apple to convince them that it is genuine, or giving it to the Police, or phoning Apple again...
This has probably been covered already, but I assume that intellectual property is protected, even from journalists.
Is that right?
For example, of a person stole the source code for Adobe Photoshop, does a journalist have the right to purchase and publish it, or would that intellectual property be protected from such action?
I don't know if my example is entirely analogous, but I think it may be close.
Is that right?
For example, of a person stole the source code for Adobe Photoshop, does a journalist have the right to purchase and publish it, or would that intellectual property be protected from such action?
I don't know if my example is entirely analogous, but I think it may be close.
Different temperaments, talents & convictions...
Interesting reading this thread is.
Two sides to the case, as seen in many posters arguments/rebuttals; thats what makes a good story more interesting. But is my opinion that this story is short some very real and invaluable details; most of which we may never know.
There are a couple of things within this story itself that remain unclear, unproven, and not known.
Nobody knows if the phone was lost or stolen from Mr. Powell- It doesn't matter what the story on Gizmodo states.
Whom was Mr. Powell at the bar with? As it being his birthday (so it is claimed), how many friends and companions were celebrating this event? As common sense would dictate, nobody goes to the bar alone to celebrate ones own special day.
Why did the other tech blogs pass on this device? Better yet, why didn't another tech blog pick up the device and become a hero behind closed doors with the company it belongs to? Journalism or not, I suspect the other sites voted with their conscience and a prudent decision was made to avoid the potential hazards of such a story. Hence what we have here...
Either way, some of the comments in the boards are top notch, others make me wonder how some people can actually say such nasty things so freely. I guess that's what makes the internet unique to all individuals the world over.
Everyone has there own temperaments, talents, and convictions- I find it intriguing, to say the least how they are all shared on these and other boards. I only wish slandering people could be removed from posts, as it takes away from intelligent arguments, positions and heartfelt beliefs.
Interesting reading this thread is.
Two sides to the case, as seen in many posters arguments/rebuttals; thats what makes a good story more interesting. But is my opinion that this story is short some very real and invaluable details; most of which we may never know.
There are a couple of things within this story itself that remain unclear, unproven, and not known.
Nobody knows if the phone was lost or stolen from Mr. Powell- It doesn't matter what the story on Gizmodo states.
Whom was Mr. Powell at the bar with? As it being his birthday (so it is claimed), how many friends and companions were celebrating this event? As common sense would dictate, nobody goes to the bar alone to celebrate ones own special day.
Why did the other tech blogs pass on this device? Better yet, why didn't another tech blog pick up the device and become a hero behind closed doors with the company it belongs to? Journalism or not, I suspect the other sites voted with their conscience and a prudent decision was made to avoid the potential hazards of such a story. Hence what we have here...
Either way, some of the comments in the boards are top notch, others make me wonder how some people can actually say such nasty things so freely. I guess that's what makes the internet unique to all individuals the world over.
Everyone has there own temperaments, talents, and convictions- I find it intriguing, to say the least how they are all shared on these and other boards. I only wish slandering people could be removed from posts, as it takes away from intelligent arguments, positions and heartfelt beliefs.
Hahaha, wasn't the purchasing of an unauthorized device and posting it on the web with detailed information illegal? Wow . .