Are people seriously in agreement with the government RAIDING your personal home and destroying your life because you had in possession a device you bought from someone and already returned to the owner?
Oversimplify much?
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
Oversimplify much?
I guess not only are Apple products made in China, but it looks like the local authorities are acting like China as well.
Love it or hate it, what Jason Chen and Gawker did was journalism. Simply substitute "national enqurier" for gawker, and "john edwards" for iphone, and I think you'll get the idea.
Press freedom is one of the foundations of this country, and it's a pretty high bar to cross when you raid the home of someone exposing a corporate product, which gizmodo had every right to do.
Apple and the San Mateo PD are in pretty deep on this one. I'd reach a decision pretty quickly before the feds step in, and just give back the stuff.
Apple shiuld just come uo with some other surprise for June. I'm sure they have plenty.
Love it or hate it, what Jason Chen and Gawker did was journalism. Simply substitute "national enqurier" for gawker, and "john edwards" for iphone, and I think you'll get the idea.
Press freedom is one of the foundations of this country, and it's a pretty high bar to cross when you raid the home of someone exposing a corporate product, which gizmodo had every right to do.
Apple and the San Mateo PD are in pretty deep on this one. I'd reach a decision pretty quickly before the feds step in, and just give back the stuff.
Apple shiuld just come uo with some other surprise for June. I'm sure they have plenty.
You realize that right now that the police could ask Google or any company running a 'cloud' server for data and it's up to the company to decide if they will turn it over or not. A warrant might not even be required.
The privacy laws that would affect your own data on your own computer might not apply to a cloud server.
And heaven forbid that data is on cloud servers spread out across the world, subject to the whims of multiple countries idea of privacy and freedom.
Although you do have a point: Some crimes require the physical hardware to prosecute (not just copies of the data). That would be hard in a cloud that has data distributed over hundreds of hard drives wolrdwide.
I'm not surprised by this. I understand what the guy did was wrong, but raiding his house? Really?
Let me get this straight
Every blogger in the US can accept stolen goods as long as they post a few hundred misspelled words about it. Extra credit if you spell "lose" with an extra "o" like every single commenter/blogger/'journalist' on the interwebs.
I'll accept someone like Edward R. Murrow cracking open a prototype for the good of mankind, but some clown at Gizmodo who can barely take a blurry photo of the thing?
Every blogger in the US can accept stolen goods as long as they post a few hundred misspelled words about it. Extra credit if you spell "lose" with an extra "o" like every single commenter/blogger/'journalist' on the interwebs.
I'll accept someone like Edward R. Murrow cracking open a prototype for the good of mankind, but some clown at Gizmodo who can barely take a blurry photo of the thing?
BELOW is the best post so far in this thread:
I agree with the below post, and have really started to wonder about half the people here....
I agree with the below post, and have really started to wonder about half the people here....
You don't get it at all, obviously ....
First of all, just having any old web page claimed to be a blog doesn't quite cut it as being protected as a journalist. Like most things, the claim has to pass some sort of "acid test" proving it is what you claim it is ... a valid "news site" people are reading/using. I think by the level of traffic and quantity of updates alone, Gizmodo would have *no* trouble justifying such a claim. Someone's personal web site slapped up on their free 5GB of web storage bundled with their broadband account probably will have a tough time claiming that makes their writing into journalism.
Secondly, "journalist shield law" simply means the police/govt. can't come in and seize their equipment when investigating a claimed crime. (Their computers likely contain a lot of information unrelated to what's being investigated, and some of that info may be legally protected from the eyes of law enforcement.) Instead, they have to do their investigation without the seizure - and subpoena what they need in court. If a journalist STEALS or even simply BUYS stolen property - he/she is not "off the hook", but there's a proper procedure for dealing with the situation.
First of all, just having any old web page claimed to be a blog doesn't quite cut it as being protected as a journalist. Like most things, the claim has to pass some sort of "acid test" proving it is what you claim it is ... a valid "news site" people are reading/using. I think by the level of traffic and quantity of updates alone, Gizmodo would have *no* trouble justifying such a claim. Someone's personal web site slapped up on their free 5GB of web storage bundled with their broadband account probably will have a tough time claiming that makes their writing into journalism.
Secondly, "journalist shield law" simply means the police/govt. can't come in and seize their equipment when investigating a claimed crime. (Their computers likely contain a lot of information unrelated to what's being investigated, and some of that info may be legally protected from the eyes of law enforcement.) Instead, they have to do their investigation without the seizure - and subpoena what they need in court. If a journalist STEALS or even simply BUYS stolen property - he/she is not "off the hook", but there's a proper procedure for dealing with the situation.
Apparently the Judge who signed the search warrant did not...
Yeah, because a judge's decisions have never been appealed and subsequently overturned.
Are you kidding me, man? When they come to your house and take your computers, we'll see how you feel. And don't think that just because you don't do anything illegal, it'll never happen. No one has proven that Gizmodo has done anything legal yet either. Just because you THINK you know they've done something illegal doesn't mean we just throw the Constitution out the window.
How is this argument even happening? Are people seriously in favor of having cops come to your house and take your stuff in violation of search and seizure laws??? Wake up!
BELOW is the best post so far in this thread:
I agree with the below post, and have really started to wonder about half the people here....
And now you want a lawyers take on this situation?
Point D is now in dispute, but my dad does not believe he is covered. So we'll see. But, points A-C is 100% certain.
Their position is consistent. Since gawker has admitted to buying stolen property, which is an illegal act, and are now claiming that because they are journalists they cannot have warrants served against them, those people were right to point out that gawker is claiming that they are above the law.
You haven't addressed the legality of the search and seizure, because the law in question-- as I pointed out-- protects sources, not journalists.
OR put another way, to make the position you're taking, you'd have to show that the purpose of this seizure was to get at some third party (A source) and not to find evidence of a crime on the part of Chen's.
I was actually really interested in this whole story when it was developing but, quite honestly, it is now becoming stale and a little boring.
This is highly unlikely. I mean, where would Gizmodo get $40 to pay for a Microsoft prototype?
That's the issue. Those claiming this search is wrong seem to be presuming that the purpose of the search is to go after the protected source.
But there's no evidence (that I'm aware of) that this is the case.
Don't think they are doing this for page clicks as you mentioned. They must protect and defend the laws to the full extent. Seems to me the police/DA may have some more serious pressing matters too attend to.
I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one... For those of greater legal knowledge than me:
Has the property in question verified as having been returned to Apple?
Is it highly unusual to have a "knock down the door" warrant when the alleged crime is not one of violence? I don't know Jason Chen's background (criminally speaking) but if he has no record was that a way over the top method for entering the house to execute the warrant? Wouldn't waiting for him to return have sufficed?
Has the property in question verified as having been returned to Apple?
Is it highly unusual to have a "knock down the door" warrant when the alleged crime is not one of violence? I don't know Jason Chen's background (criminally speaking) but if he has no record was that a way over the top method for entering the house to execute the warrant? Wouldn't waiting for him to return have sufficed?
I am not convinced that a shield law should protect anyone that posts information knowing the item is stolen, especially a video of them