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

[tingly]

Affirmative, although to level the playing field entirely it would be nice if the victim in this case got to stand in line along with the other, less prominent victims. When regular Joes have been deprived of their cellphones somehow, it's not customary for the police to immediately dispatch large teams who raid houses and seize half the property therein.

I agree with that, but I'll add this. It's not customary for trade secrets from a lost phone to be published in a series of articles, for people to publish evidence against themselves all over a website, or get national publicity for it.

Why would pursuing someone who stole something from them tarnish their image???

The RIAA, Metallica/Napster type of logic would make that happen.

Just something I had on my mind last night, Apple is usually pretty cool about rumors and pix and mostly does nothing or occasionally sends a quick 'remove' letter, but this just went way too far.

 

[kironin]

Gruber has it correct,

Actually, it’s very apparent, and quite simple. They’re looking at Jason Chen and Gizmodo on felony charges for buying stolen property. This police raid was not about what Gizmodo published.

 

[dejo]

Here's how it went down, allegedly, from the perspective of the Apple reps who got the call...

Allegedly, according to whom?

 

[megadon]

I don't care what happens to who, I saw the next gen iphone, and now I can make a better decision about my next phone. As long as I'm happy, I could care less who's property gets stolen. (unless it's mine obviously)

 

[SteveSparks]

Apple can not interfere in a criminal investigation. And whether the person who lost the phone is an Apple employee or not does not make anything the seller or buyer did legal or right. They reported a crime as anyone is expected to do.

They can interfere if they want "obstruction of justice" to be part of the new Apple. At this point its in the Criminial Legal System... Apple has no part other than witness.

 

[SteveSparks]

Actually i did give them an unbiased version. And you don't know me personally so you don't know what i can or cannot do. Let's talk about this now. Seems like your idea of Unbiased would be someone who hates apple. I Don't hate apple and if that makes me a fanboy in your eyes. Then oh well. Because i could care less what you think.

But you don't know me or anything about my life and i would suggest that you don't comment like you do.

Have a nice day

If someone smack talked about my "nana", I'd flame them

/flame on!

 

[SteveSparks]

PS. How did you fanboys become the Johnny Cochran legal team all of a sudden?

/humor

We have all degree in the Steve Jobs School of Lawism. Have you read the any of the Apple License and SDK documents?

 

[megadon]

They can interfere if they want "obstruction of justice" to be part of the new Apple. At this point its in the Criminial Legal System... Apple has no part other than witness.

are you making stuff up for fun?

Chen’s equipment was seized by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, after Apple Inc. approached local police on account of “lost/stolen” real next generation iPhone 4G HD which was reviewed and dismantled by Gizmodo last week (read the complete story here).

http://www.gadgetsdna.com/seizing-gizmodo-editors-computer-on-lost-iphone-4g-hd-was-illegal/2599/

 

[calderone]

are you making stuff up for fun?

Chen’s equipment was seized by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, after Apple Inc. approached local police on account of “lost/stolen” real next generation iPhone 4G HD which was reviewed and dismantled by Gizmodo last week (read the complete story here).

http://www.gadgetsdna.com/seizing-gizmodo-editors-computer-on-lost-iphone-4g-hd-was-illegal/2599/

As has been stated. Apple can approach the police and ask for an investigation. The police have to decide whether they want to act.

In fact, this is how many criminal investigations are started.

1. Person does something wrong.
2. Victim reports it to the police.
3. Police look at the facts and decide whether or not to investigate it.

This means that the decision is up to the police.

 

[ct2k7]

Allegedly, according to whom?

Gizmodo of course. Now, would an Apple employee risk publicly speaking? I doubt it.

 

[Anuba]

Why would pursuing someone who stole something from them tarnish their image??? In my book it would be much worse if they just sat back and said "We'll let it slide for the sake of positive PR."

The usual suspects are going to rage about Apple no matter what they do. Joe Q. Public is just going to shrug his shoulders and say "Hmm, I guess I'd better not sell the next cell phone I find at a bar."

Like someone said earlier, it's the Metallica/Napster/RIIA logic. It doesn't matter to the public who's right and wrong from a legal POV, all they want to know is who's the David and who's the Goliath so they can root for the little guy. I see this happening all over the web already, and it's not just Apple haters... like all platform communities, the Mac community has a share of paranoid anti-establishment anti-government anti-surveillance libertarian/anarchist zeitgeist types who love a good conspiracy theory. They like Apple because of the anti-establishment image the company projects, or at least used to project, being post-hippie Silicon Valley types in Birkenstocks who make all their public appearances in 'casual Friday' clothes rather than suits. So when Apple joins forces with "the man" to nail some blogger, the company loses a lot of cred and becomes "the other Microsoft" in their eyes.

 

[farmboy]

He's not even anti-Apple. If anyone follows Giz they're generally considered pro-Apple by their own readers almost across the board. But Chen's apparently not enough of a groveling suck-up for the MR crowd so they'd just as soon see him roasted alive for daring to bypass Apple's carefully choreographed circus. This sort of blind subservience to Apple makes Giz's Apple love almost look reasonable by comparison. Unfortunately all this rabid xenophobia just pushes casual fans like me further and further away from the Apple ecosystem.

You're not understanding how serious this is.

What has "not even anti Apple" got to do with it? He may have committed a serious crime with potential damages of tens of millions of dollars or more, for which every state in the country has laws. Which means every person in the country is expected to abide by essentially similar restrictions on their actions. Or do you get to skate because you said a few good thing in the past? Seriously? You don't think there are any problems with the way the guy who found the phone behaved, or Gizmodo? Chen/Gizmodo committed acts that took this all out of the rumor mill harmless fun and speculation and made it into a potentially big criminal case, a violation of state law and perhaps federal law. It's a big deal and it has nothing to do with Apple anymore. Gizmodo brought it upon themselves by dangerous behavior. Kind of like having a campfire in the Los Angeles hills. Actions have consequences.

I'm still trying to figure out how xenophobia or blind subservience apply here. Thank you for correct spelling and grammar, though. Most posters can't handle then vs than, your vs you're, definately, etc.

The District Attorney becomes aware of a crime, either by police report or news report or whatever. He assigns some special detectives to investigate. The initial investigation indicates that a crime may have been committed. The investigators have to get a search warrant by convincing a judge that they have probable cause that a crime was committed--not easy to do. The warrant involves temporary seizure of a computer that may have been used to commit the crime, or contains data relevant to the crime. If it is determined that there is no crime, the guy gets everything back.

I don't get the outrage. If a hacker swiped your mom and dad's life savings, you'd want that investigated, and the guy's computer seized, right? Well, this involves millions of dollars in damages and the DA can't ignore it.

 

[megadon]

As has been stated. Apple can approach the police and ask for an investigation. The police have to decide whether they want to act.

In fact, this is how many criminal investigations are started.

1. Person does something wrong.
2. Victim reports it to the police.
3. Police look at the facts and decide whether or not to investigate it.

This means that the decision is up to the police.

it's not about wanting or not, it's about if they have enough evidence to charge.

But at the same time, if the other party does not want to press charges (Apple) then no charges will go through.

It's usually the same in assault cases where unless one person decides to press charges, nothing will happen.

Obviously Apple feels like the "victim" here even though they're the ones who lost their own phone.

 

[calderone]

it's not about wanting or not, it's about if they have enough evidence to charge.

But at the same time, if the other party does not want to press charges (Apple) then no charges will go through.

It's usually the same in assault cases where unless one person decides to press charges, nothing will happen.

Obviously Apple feels like the "victim" here even though they're the ones who lost their own phone.

Yes, and the police felt they had enough evidence for a raid.

Apple does not decide if criminal charges will be filed, the DA does. Apple can however file a report which can prompt the filing of charges if the evidence is there.

Apple is the victim. Under California law the phone was stolen. It does not matter how it was removed from Apple's possession. We also do not know with certainty that the phone was lost, but it doesn't matter.

 

[cocky jeremy]

As has been stated. Apple can approach the police and ask for an investigation. The police have to decide whether they want to act.

In fact, this is how many criminal investigations are started.

1. Person does something wrong.
2. Victim reports it to the police.
3. Police look at the facts and decide whether or not to investigate it.

This means that the decision is up to the police.

So.. finding an iPhone, trying to return it, then selling it after not finding the owner is wrong? Is buying a found iPhone wrong when the person selling it tried to find the real owner? This whole thing is complete crap and it needs to be dropped. The guy tried to contact Apple, they didn't believe him, so he sold it. Gizmodo did nothing but help Apple build hype for the new iPhone. Apple already won from this whole thing. Just drop it and be done with this stupidity.

 

[429323]

Now, explain why you believe that this case differs not one iota from the Pentagon Papers case. Then explain why Bartnicki and DVDCCA v Brunner may indicate that the law is not as black and white as you would apparently like it to be (thank god).

As I stated I am not a legal scholar and would need to read your references to see what case law has dictated and been upheld in these cases. But as has been proven over and over before and the Constitution and common sense tells us, local state laws do not supersede the bill of rights.

And yes, for better or worse TMZ, the National Enquirer and even Gizmodo meet the basic tests for "News Outlets/Journalism".

Again, what do people not get about this? It appears that the seller can be prosecuted under California law. Law enforcement cannot however seize and rip through anything protected by the bill of rights seeking to find evidence without it being challenged.

Chuck

 

[tingly]

Apple could decide (in a sense) if their testimony were vital to the case, but it isn't. Apple doesn't have a say mainly because the criminal code violations are against the State.

I don't see how a civil case could happen this year if Apple ever bothers. I read on a California lawyer website that Apple could ask for triple damages which I'd think would shut down Gawker with probably some agreement that its employees wouldn't work for similar websites for a few years.

 

[gwangung]

So.. finding an iPhone, trying to return it, then selling it after not finding the owner is wrong?

You seem to be taking the word of the person who "found" the iPhone at face value.

That seems rather...stupid.

 

[frogger2020]

Unfortunately for you, my dad is a lawyer. So my posts have merit here.

Wow, so daddy's a lawyer and that make you an expert in law? I suppose you are an internet tough guy too???

 

[LagunaSol]

So when Apple joins forces with "the man" to nail some blogger, the company loses a lot of cred and becomes "the other Microsoft" in their eyes.

So to preserve that anti-establishment vibe, Apple should just imply "Go ahead and steal our stuff and tell the world about it - we don't care."



If the guy had found it, taken some pictures of it, put them online, and returned the phone to Apple, there wouldn't be as serious a legal issue and Apple could probably settle for a "cease and desist" and be done with it. Since the guy sold it (profit) to a website that knowingly bought a stolen prototype (stolen because the owner's identity was known) and bragged about it in post after post to generate traffic (profit), the situation has changed dramatically.

Had the guy been smart about it, he would have just sold photos of the phone to Gizmodo. Like the paparazzi do. Legitimate gossip rags probably don't typically buy stuff owned by celebrities and "found" by paparazzi for their stories (i.e. a lost cell phone full of personal photos and contact info), and if/when they do they expose themselves to significant legal peril.

Knowing the owner's name but selling the phone anyway was a really boneheaded move (as was Gizmodo's buying the phone), and PR or no PR, the law is the law.

So.. finding an iPhone, trying to return it, then selling it after not finding the owner is wrong?

Perhaps you should read the previous 20 pages of comments, plus the 30 pages of comments on the other thread, to understand things aren't as simple as you imply?

(Oh, and yes, based on the law and the way the finder went about things, it is wrong.)

 

[farmboy]

it all depends on your definition of "reasonable effort"

This is all apples fault. They messed up and let some idiot go out with the prototype, they lost it and didn't notify their employees that they were looking for it, so when the person called to report the iphone found, the employees had no idea, and just brushed him off.

ya, lets send the guy to jail and throw away the key!!

No, it depends on the statutory definition. Sorry, not buying it as reasonable. I don't believe Gizmodo's version of the thief's version of the alleged conversation. Even if you do, he first identified the owner yet failed to call a local number to contact him. He failed to notify him on Facebook. He failed to give the phone to the bar. He failed to send it to Apple in the mail. He failed to ask the *tech support* guys to put him through to Apple security or switchboard or engineering, or even Powell's voice mail, or anything like that. He failed to drive 15 miles to Apple's campus and hand it over; he would have been rewarded had he done so (though maybe not 5K). No, not a good faith effort. And no points for brainpower, either, that's a given. Because then he compounds his own problem by selling it for a sum 15x what an iPhone sells for, which is a clear indication that he knew exactly what he had and it's considerable value beyond face value as a phone. So he knew it had incredible value but he only tried to call....let's see...a tech support line. Sure.

 

[gwangung]

re's how it went down, allegedly, from the perspective of the Apple reps who got the call:

I work for AppleCare as a tier 2 agent and before the whole thing about a leak hit the Internet the guy working next to me got the call from the guy looking to return the phone. From our point of view it seemed as a hoax or that the guy had a knockoff, internally apple doesn't tell us anything and we haven't gotten any notices or anything about a lost phone, much less anything stating we are making a new one. When the guy called us he gave us a vague description and couldn't provide pics,

I'm not sure that's going to be termed a "good faith effort" based on this information, given that this was a verbal description with no pictures. Even if the proper channels were alerted with proper information (and it's by no means clear that AppleCare is the proper channel), it's not clear that the prototype could have been returned given the ambiguity of information. If it was at Apple and/or pictures given, yeah, I think that's good faith, but verbal descriptions only? Hm.

 

[megadon]

No, it depends on the statutory definition. Sorry, not buying it as reasonable. I don't believe Gizmodo's version of the thief's version of the alleged conversation. Even if you do, he first identified the owner yet failed to call a local number to contact him. He failed to notify him on Facebook. He failed to give the phone to the bar. He failed to send it to Apple in the mail. He failed to ask the *tech support* guys to put him through to Apple security or switchboard or engineering, or even Powell's voice mail, or anything like that. He failed to drive 15 miles to Apple's campus and hand it over; he would have been rewarded had he done so (though maybe not 5K). No, not a good faith effort. And no points for brainpower, either, that's a given. Because then he compounds his own problem by selling it for a sum 15x what an iPhone sells for, which is a clear indication that he knew exactly what he had and it's considerable value beyond face value as a phone. So he knew it had incredible value but he only tried to call....let's see...a tech support line. Sure.

actually, the "owner" of the phone is Apple Inc. Not Joe Blow from Facebook.

So he did contact the right people.

 

[gwangung]

As I stated I am not a legal scholar and would need to read your references to see what case law has dictated and been upheld in these cases. But as has been proven over and over before and the Constitution and common sense tells us, local state laws do not supersede the bill of rights.

And yes, for better or worse TMZ, the National Enquirer and even Gizmodo meet the basic tests for "News Outlets/Journalism".

Again, what do people not get about this? It appears that the seller can be prosecuted under California law. Law enforcement cannot however seize and rip through anything protected by the bill of rights seeking to find evidence without it being challenged.

Chuck

Given that they got a warrant, given that Gizmodo was accused of being a part of the crime (which was NOT for publishing the pictures, by the way), what don't YOU get?

 

[gwangung]

actually, the "owner" of the phone is Apple Inc. Not Joe Blow from Facebook.

So he did contact the right people.

Actually, no. Not in a good faith effort.

(Add: I mean, come on...he had the name of the person it was assigned to. How easy can it be to make a good faith effort?)