The argument is happening because other people think that the searches and warrant are valid and properly executed. Your certainty in your own belief is right does not automatically make it so. Gizmodo will challenge the searches and if they win, the items will be returned, that's the procedure any and every person goes through.
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
The argument is happening because other people think that the searches and warrant are valid and properly executed. Your certainty in your own belief is right does not automatically make it so. Gizmodo will challenge the searches and if they win, the items will be returned, that's the procedure any and every person goes through.
What is really interesting is the judge who granted this search.
How in hell do you not know the rule? Or maybe the person is just too much an Apple fanboy to think twice about going against what Steve Job demands???
I hope Gizmodo counter-sues.
People have to realize, Gizmodo does not have the iPhone anymore, it willingly surrendered to Apple, so it's not a case of Apple trying to get its iPhone back. This is going to be a PR disaster for Apple, showing just how big a control freak Steve Job is.
How in hell do you not know the rule? Or maybe the person is just too much an Apple fanboy to think twice about going against what Steve Job demands???
I hope Gizmodo counter-sues.
People have to realize, Gizmodo does not have the iPhone anymore, it willingly surrendered to Apple, so it's not a case of Apple trying to get its iPhone back. This is going to be a PR disaster for Apple, showing just how big a control freak Steve Job is.
HE TRIED TO RETURN IT!!!!!!From what I've read, California state law considers it theft if someone finds lost property and profits from it without a reasonable effort to track down the owner and return it. Also, knowingly buying stolen property (which in this case it would have been) is illegal.
I know, I know... Gizmodo are babes in the woods, right? They had no idea what they were buying. In fact, they slap down $5K every time someone claims to have a prototype Apple device.
If they thought the device was the real deal, the responsible thing would have been to report the guy shopping it around. If they didn't think it was real, why did they offer $5000 for it? That implies that they knew what it was, and it also implies that they knew it was likely stolen.
I can't think of logical defense for what they did.
But microsoft do get break, they are never scrutinized like apple - Microsoft did fire some guys a few years ago for taking pics of G5 unloading at their campus, there wasn't this much uproar, from what I can recall.
journalists....
Now if only Rahm Emanuel would go drinking german beer in that same bar, maybe he could leave a copy of Dear Leader's official birth certificate..... maybe some journalists could actually show some initiative in investigating obfuscating politicians and show us a certificate with an attending witness to the birth's signature. ..... (I'm not saying he wasn't born where he says he was, but he should provide the real deal like we all have to do when asked for it, he does work for us after all not the other way around).
Now if only Rahm Emanuel would go drinking german beer in that same bar, maybe he could leave a copy of Dear Leader's official birth certificate..... maybe some journalists could actually show some initiative in investigating obfuscating politicians and show us a certificate with an attending witness to the birth's signature. ..... (I'm not saying he wasn't born where he says he was, but he should provide the real deal like we all have to do when asked for it, he does work for us after all not the other way around).
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! this is EXACTLY what i've been trying to explain to people!!!
apple really should be calling on the guy who lost the iPhone and the guy who sold the phone to Gizmodo. Jason Chen didn't know he was buying stolen property, and he was happy to return the iPhone to Apple when they asked for it, no questions asked and no fuss.
the police had no legal reason for seizing Chen's computers and tech gear, i mean really, was that even necessary, since it hasn't been established whether or not he broke the law?
Right, this isn't about protecting journalists from reporting public deeds or relevant news stories. Gawker had an invested interest in stealing a prototype. I can't believe they would even try to hide behind shield laws. They're not reporting on factory workers making gadgets and paying sources to find out inside information about working conditions. There is such a world of difference if one can look beyond the black and white.
I think it's shameful the EFF would try to defend Gawker on this one. It gives their legitimate complaints a bad name.
Again, you are wrong. What you are stating is exactly what got ThinkSecret in trouble. And where is he now?
You cannot pay someone to steal, break an NDA, kill etc.
Hickman
Consistent and wrong. They are implying that anyone can get away with anything because they are journalists. That is simply wrong, and my reason for disagreement.
arn
I've read about that and according to what I've heard, California state law requires much more effort than the guy who found the phone made. Also, if he is unsuccessful at finding the rightful owner after such an effort, he is only allowed to claim ownership after 90 days. That's CA state law.
So, you can stop repeating this. He did not make the required effort, in the eyes of the law. It was not legally his property to sell.
Boy, you have such a grasp of the facts in the story, don't you?
They didn't buy the phone itself. They bought the story. The finder wanted to return the phone to its rightful owner and couldn't confirm it was Apple and didn't trust that the bartender wouldn't just sell it once he realized it was valuable. When Gizmodo bought the story, he asked them to take on the task of returning the phone to its rightful owner -- which they did. The phone was returned before the police were involved.
Now go back to doing whatever it is you were doing before you put your foot in your mouth here.
I am a lawyer and there's nothing unusual about this warrant or how it was executed. The entire point of a search warrant is legal authority to enter premises WITHOUT the permission of the homeowner. People seem to think this is unusual when in fact, it's perfectly normal. No search warrant requires police to wait until the resident is home.
I think people are getting this search warrant confused with "no knock" warrants, where police do not have to announce themselves prior to entering a home. Those warrants are issued only searches where there is a threat of harm to the officers that may arise from the advanced announcement. That type of warrant was not issued or used here. Presumably, the officers knocked, announced their presence and when Chen did not respond, they entered the resident. Completely normal.
There's a difference between journalism and conspiracy to commit theft.
When two people have something that BOTH know doesn't belong to them and a monetary trade is made that is conspiracy to commit theft.
When two people have something that BOTH know doesn't belong to them and a monetary trade is made that is conspiracy to commit theft.
If Jason Chen is that stupid, then what is Gizmodo employing him for? If he is that honest, then what's to explain their take apart report on the item? They are hardly innocent unless one is highly biased and stupid.
This continuously amuses me when people state things like this. So this EFF specialist seriously believes that a California judge approved a search warrant for equipment at the request of the police without knowing the law? Honestly? I think if I was a betting man on this I would probably go with the judge on this. On its own I am pretty sure buying stolen materials for personal gain is not something that shield covers in this case. This isn't a case of a journalist breaking in to a building to uncover some heinous crime. This is about a blogger trying to increase their page hits to increase their profit. And in the case of this a subpeona would not be practical as I am sure there would be "accidental" deletion of the data on those computers if they had asked politely for it. Protection for journalism does not protect someone if they are suspected in a crime themselves. And for the fear mongers I truly am glad we live in a world where seizures like this can occur as no individual should be safe to commit crimes under the "protection" of being a journalist.
I mean Gizmodo's only excuse for this action was that "they didn't know it was a legit Apple product" prior to buying it. I don't see how that is a legitimate excuse at all. Even if it was a Chinese knockoff they still purchased something they knew the holder of was not the legal owner of. I mean they even examined it to make sure it was what they wanted before they handed over the cash as they wanted to make sure they were not getting ripped off which clearly means they knew before they handed over the cash that it was what it was. Gizmodo without a doubt knew what they were buying and that it wasn't the sellers to sell. And as for the person who made a "legitimate" attempt to return the phone. That complete crap. A legitimate attempt to return it would have been to turn it into the bar tender, to contact the owner directly or at the very least leave your name and number at the bar. He failed to do all of that. He took it off the premises and sold it less than a week after coming into possession of it. Anyone defending this guy is a morally questionable person and should be ashamed of themselves for defending such a person.
Instead of acting honestly they took photos like crazy, disassembled it and posted everything they could to pump up traffic and profit as much as possible. Do they honestly expect the public to believe they didn't know how to get in touch with someone at Apple? If they were trying to be honest they would have used their contacts to get through to Apple and confirmed it, but then they already knew it was legit and didn't want to confirm it so they could publish it and claim "oh we didn't know for sure".
This is a high profile case which is probably why it is moving slowly and I sincerely doubt the police are acting without being very careful to avoid any misconduct. Gizmodo crossed the line on this and they need to get beat down.
And for all those saying this is a rumor site it is. This is not a rumor, this is not someone taking a fuzzy picture from across the street and speculating on what is coming, or watching market trends and making guesses. This is someone basically stealing information and making it public hurting a company and so yes the Apple fans are making a distinction. In fact this is a very important case in the technical industry as this will determine how tech fan sites are governed. While this is an Apple employees fault in loosing the phone, it was a prototype device and dissemination of information about it seriously hurts the company that produces it and many companies are going to be nervous in seeing what happens in this, because after all this accident could happen to any major company.
I mean Gizmodo's only excuse for this action was that "they didn't know it was a legit Apple product" prior to buying it. I don't see how that is a legitimate excuse at all. Even if it was a Chinese knockoff they still purchased something they knew the holder of was not the legal owner of. I mean they even examined it to make sure it was what they wanted before they handed over the cash as they wanted to make sure they were not getting ripped off which clearly means they knew before they handed over the cash that it was what it was. Gizmodo without a doubt knew what they were buying and that it wasn't the sellers to sell. And as for the person who made a "legitimate" attempt to return the phone. That complete crap. A legitimate attempt to return it would have been to turn it into the bar tender, to contact the owner directly or at the very least leave your name and number at the bar. He failed to do all of that. He took it off the premises and sold it less than a week after coming into possession of it. Anyone defending this guy is a morally questionable person and should be ashamed of themselves for defending such a person.
Instead of acting honestly they took photos like crazy, disassembled it and posted everything they could to pump up traffic and profit as much as possible. Do they honestly expect the public to believe they didn't know how to get in touch with someone at Apple? If they were trying to be honest they would have used their contacts to get through to Apple and confirmed it, but then they already knew it was legit and didn't want to confirm it so they could publish it and claim "oh we didn't know for sure".
This is a high profile case which is probably why it is moving slowly and I sincerely doubt the police are acting without being very careful to avoid any misconduct. Gizmodo crossed the line on this and they need to get beat down.
And for all those saying this is a rumor site it is. This is not a rumor, this is not someone taking a fuzzy picture from across the street and speculating on what is coming, or watching market trends and making guesses. This is someone basically stealing information and making it public hurting a company and so yes the Apple fans are making a distinction. In fact this is a very important case in the technical industry as this will determine how tech fan sites are governed. While this is an Apple employees fault in loosing the phone, it was a prototype device and dissemination of information about it seriously hurts the company that produces it and many companies are going to be nervous in seeing what happens in this, because after all this accident could happen to any major company.
So... this guy is a journalist and not a lonely blogger and his investigative journalism, you know the kind like 60 Minutes USED to do on CBS and the perverts at MSNBC do on their show "To Catch a Predator" when they should be doing a show on Pervert Politicians called "To Catch a Senator or Congressman" and it didn't help him in the eyes of the law!
LET'S NOT EXPRESS ONES POLITICAL FRUSTRATIONS......THIS IS MACRUMORS YA'LL (THINK APPLE)
Sure, you can claims the EFF is wrong in their interpretation of the law. They certainly may be, though I put more trust that they are familiar with the law than most random forum posters.
arn
THEY DIDN'T STEAL A PROTOTYPE, THE PROGRAMMER WAS IRRESPONSIBLE AND LEFT IT AT THE BAR.
Do you not understand? This is not the same as sneaking into Cupertino and stealing the iPhone from a vault. Gawker RETURNED the iPhone back to Apple when they requested it, hell, they didn't even know if it wasn't just a Chinese ripoff.
/rant
The seller said quite blatantly to gizmodo that he found the prototype at the bar. Gizmodo can't claim, " Oh we thought it was a fake so we bought it anyway". That is not a legal defense. When the seller said he found it, Gizmodo should have been weary about buying it. But, they were too worried about getting a big scoop then the legal ramifications of it being legit.
I suspect that "news gathering activities" will be found to be different than "stolen property gathering activities".