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

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

food for thought

Let's turn it around. What if instead of a phone, it was a document left behind exposing collusion and possible crimes by senior management at a corporation? The document is "owned" by the corporation.

If the finder of the document asks the LA Times for a finder's fee, what would they do? Would it be wrong?

It's a gray area.

 

[ninewaters]

Gizmodo had dashed so many users' dreams about Iphone and make us suffered. It is the website that should go down down down.

They do not practise any journalistic's ethics, I do not think they deserve any protection under the law.

Way to go Apple, you should have hired mafias too, so after the police went off you can get the mafia to bash up those scums.

 

[SteveSparks]

He had Gary's contact information on Facebook, and said he was going to contact him the next morning after he sobered up a bit, which is fair, but the next morning, it was bricked, so he no longer could access his profile on the phone. And have you ever searched on Facebook for "Gary Powell"? I just did, and there are a lot of people out there with that name. So which Gary Powell on Facebook is the right Gary Powell? Until he became famous on the internet after the leak, with his face plastered all over the web, you wouldn't know which one it is.

Except that the contact information was published by Gizmodo, before it was deleted. They both the finder and gizmodo had the contact infromation.

I bet there is not more than 1 or 2 people on facebook that would have replied to that message in short order or not dismissed it as spam. There is no excuse ...

 

[snowmoon]

Let's turn it around. What if instead of a phone, it was a document left behind exposing collusion and possible crimes by senior management at a corporation? The document is "owned" by the corporation.

If the finder of the document asks the LA Times for a finder's fee, what would they do? Would it be wrong?

It's a gray area.

That sounds like it would be protected under 1st amendment principals of "newsworthy and accurate" disclosure no matter how the journalist come to be in possession of the documents. It's a totally different story than what we have here.

 

[mcnicks]

Let's turn it around. What if instead of a phone, it was a document left behind exposing collusion and possible crimes by senior management at a corporation? The document is "owned" by the corporation.

You are making a public interest argument. There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what is interesting to the public. Revealing the design and internals of a prototype consumer product is not in the public interest.

 

[fribhey]

He had Gary's contact information on Facebook, and said he was going to contact him the next morning after he sobered up a bit, which is fair, but the next morning, it was bricked, so he no longer could access his profile on the phone. And have you ever searched on Facebook for "Gary Powell"? I just did, and there are a lot of people out there with that name. So which Gary Powell on Facebook is the right Gary Powell? Until he became famous on the internet after the leak, with his face plastered all over the web, you wouldn't know which one it is.

first, it's GRAY Powell, not GARY Powell... there are 86 Gray Powells on facebook. do you honestly think it's hard searching through 86 profiles ESPECIALLY when one of them says "Employers: Apple Computer, Inc."

secondly, you think it's so hard to find the right "Gray Powell" yet Gizmodo didn't seem to have a problem finding his facebook page, his twitter page and his flickr account:
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

so what where you saying again?

it's funny how gizmodo can publish information about Gray Powell and ruin his life yet they blurred out all of Chen's information in the search warrant.

 

[snowmoon]

Let's turn it around.

Let's turn this around. What if theft of trade secrets and other crimes were vulnerable to "checkbook journalism"? It would essentially legitimize corporate espionage, create a viable marketplace for secrets, and allow media to buy high interest crimes auctioned off to the highest bidder.

 

[SteveSparks]

Let's turn it around. What if instead of a phone, it was a document left behind exposing collusion and possible crimes by senior management at a corporation? The document is "owned" by the corporation.

If the finder of the document asks the LA Times for a finder's fee, what would they do? Would it be wrong?

It's a gray area.

Except that is not the same in any way. Its not the information contained inside the iPhone we are talking about right now but the actual device. The document, 1 sheet of paper is not worth > $100. A device even a fake device that looks like an iPhone would be worth > $100. The fact that Gixmodo paid $5000 for the device makes it worth > $100.

 

[Zer0]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

 

[ericmooreart]

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!

Professional journalist do it all the time. How do you think they get their hands on terrorist videos

 

[chrmjenkins]

Let's turn this around. What if theft of trade secrets and other crimes were vulnerable to "checkbook journalism"? It would essentially legitimize corporate espionage, create a viable marketplace for secrets, and allow media to buy high interest crimes auctioned off to the highest bidder.

This. I think the severity and nature of the crime supersedes any protection afforded by the protection proscribed in the law.

 

[SteveSparks]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

I think the lawyers getting paid $500hr can write up more detailes that will sell in court...

 

[ct2k7]

• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

They had Grey's information. They didn't make sufficient attempt to return the device. Gizmodo held it in their possession for a week. Apple had to demand the return of the device.

 

[Anuba]

You are making a public interest argument. There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what is interesting to the public. Revealing the design and internals of a prototype consumer product is not in the public interest.

Right, it's not public interest but I wouldn't make too much of the trade secret aspect either. A year ahead of release it might have been very devastating to give the competition a close look, but what good is it 8 weeks ahead of launch? Attention boys, we have 5 weeks to clone the new iPhone and start up mass production, and 3 weeks to plan the marketing of the clone!

Giz also didn't open the really interesting part with the logic board, all you see is a battery and some other "duh" stuff. The front-facing camera is visible from the outside so that's no disassembly heureka moment, and the remotely disabled software was just iPhone OS 4 which Apple has already shown the public anyway.

The only real damage done was that it probably killed iPhone 3GS sales and screwed up Apple's media attention cycle (they wanted all eyes on the iPad and the new MBPs until the official iPhone launch).

 

[chrmjenkins]

Right, it's not public interest but I wouldn't make too much of the trade secret aspect either. A year ahead of release it might have been very devastating to give the competition a close look, but what good is it 8 weeks ahead of launch? Attention boys, we have 5 weeks to clone the new iPhone and start up mass production, and 3 weeks to plan the marketing of the clone!

Giz also didn't open the really interesting part with the logic board, all you see is a battery and some other "duh" stuff. The front-facing camera is visible from the outside so that's no disassembly heureka moment, and the remotely disabled software was just iPhone OS 4 which Apple has already shown the public anyway.

The only real damage done was that it probably killed iPhone 3GS sales and screwed up Apple's media attention cycle (they wanted all eyes on the iPad and the new MBPs until the official iPhone launch).

Perhaps they won't meet them at market, but it could give them two months head-start on a device regardless of when it ships. Moreover, it gives others insight into how Apple field tests their devices, meaning that others can use this angle to try and sniff out an inside look. Apple could also argue that it has had to restructure its testing process as a result, meaning financial loss. There are a lot of angles they can take as to how this damages them. (not that they're the ones arguing in a criminal case)

 

[fribhey]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

it's the DA who is investigating whether or not a felony has been committed and it was the DA who got a warrant to search Chen's house, not apple.

so how is apple supposed to "be more careful and just shut up" when they aren't the ones gathering evidence to determine whether or not a crime has been committed?

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

It was pretty obvious who the owner was. Its not like this person didn't knew about tech as he knew of Gizmodo.

Secondly, when you find something of value, you turn it over to the police. If the property isn't claimed in X number of days you get it back.

This is no different than finding a bag of money and not turning it over to the police.

 

[samcraig]

Lots of responses here - clearly a heated topic.

My .02 is that no one here has all the facts from all sides of the story. Which is exactly why it will be played out in the judicial system. Without ALL the facts - no one here, lawyer or otherwise can determine what will transpire. It's all conjecture.

I'm no expert, nor will I try to be. But, for example, I served on a Jury where each one of us felt strongly that the defendant was guilty as sin. However, we could not find him guilty because all the evidence presented was circumstantial at best and the prosecuting attorney failed to remove reasonable doubt. And as a Jury member - you can't vote with what you believe or feel - you have to make your decision on the facts presented.

All we have here are a bunch of news stories, blog entries, message board posts, etc. No one here, as I said above - has ALL the facts.

 

[LagunaSol]

[*]Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.

The finder KNEW THE OWNER'S NAME (FIRST AND LAST) AND THE NAME OF HIS EMPLOYER.

Your entire argument crumbles after that point, the only point that really matters in this whole debacle.

 

[ivladster]

:-x

This is where Apple is crossing the line with their abuse of power.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

The finder KNEW THE OWNER'S NAME (FIRST AND LAST) AND THE NAME OF HIS EMPLOYER.

Your entire argument crumbles after that point, the only point that really matters in this whole debacle.

At what point did they find this information out.

 

[Revelation78]

This is where Apple is crossing the line with their abuse of power.

Apple isn't crossing any line, the DA, you know the District Attorney, chose to file charges. It has NOTHING to do with Apple, pull your head out of your arse.

 

[inaka]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

It's unreal that people think this phone was "lost" and then "found" in the first place. Anyone selling the phone for $5k (that obviously didn't own it) probably lifted it and directly stole it off the guy.

 

[LagunaSol]

At what point did they find this information out.

Obviously before the phone was wiped (he found the guy's name on the phone's Facebook app, if I recall Gizmodo's reporting correctly). Which of course would have been before the phone was sold.

 

[Otaviano]

• Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
• Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
• Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
• Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
• Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.
• Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
• Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
• At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.

Will that not sell in the court?

I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!

Yet he managed to discover the owners full name before it was wiped, and still opted to sell it rather than return it.