Just because you (may) have broken a law does not mean that the government can use any means necessary to try and convict you. They still have to work within legal means to attempt to convict you. I don't understand why there is so much confusion here.
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
You don't have facts, you have statements, interpretations of the "facts' that so far, haven't actually been verified by independent source and a complete misunderstanding of the law and a overbearing confidence in your own infallability. You seem to think that Gizmodo's story, whatever it is, should be taken at face value and accepted as truth. The police want to carry out their own investigation and ascertain what happened since all we have is Gizmodo's own account. That's how police investigations work.
I'm quite comfortable where my feet are but I think you must be in pain with the stick that's stuck up your bottom.
Gizmodo bought stolen property. Gizmodo was told straight out that the seller found it at a bar. The engineer being irresponsible is not a legal defense for gizmodo. They still bought stolen property with the seller blatantly telling them they were. Have you talked to a lawyer about this situation? I am guessing no you haven't. I have( my dad).
It doesn't matter that Chen didn't know it wasn't stolen. He has no rights to break it apart and post that information online, that's stealing Apple's IP or "misappropriating it".
Imagine this, a person finds a lost wallet. He tries to return the wallet a few time, calling the numbers in the wallet. If nobody respond, he should've turn it into the police. He doesn't do that. What did Jason Chen do? He took out all the secrets inside that wallet, share the information online with everybody on the planet, and then call the people. He didn't even call the police to say it was lost. Sorry, Jason Chen is not in any rights here. No matter how much you try to justify it or him.
Let's assume he called Apple customer services and said (completely truthfully): "I have your phone and it doesn't work and it doesn't look like the one on the website and I want to return it to you. And your engineers are drunken idiots.". What would you expect customer services to do?
Excuse me, but that is what searches and seizures are there for: To find evidence whether someone broke the law or not. The police gets a search warrant if they convince a judge that there is a good chance of finding evidence of a crime.
If you look at the Gizmodo site, you will find the police informed Chen (roughly) that he should get the door repaired and send the bill to the police. If the police intentionally comes when you're not at home, I guess that would be criminal damage. On the other hand, the British police can and does perform raids where the smash through the door as quick as possible instead of knocking when they are afraid that residents would destroy evidence otherwise.
There was a case just last week in new jersey where a judge ruled that bloggers did not fall completely under the shield law. Because of this there could be precedence to look at these laws in California as well.
Clearly I don't have much experience with warrants being issued for my home or my property
So it's perfectly normal to knock someone's door down to execute a search warrant. All the police have to do is make sure the resident isn't home. How tough is that in this era of GPS enabled phones?
I still feel it is an inappropriate use of force. Was there imminent danger that the police were under, or was there imminent danger of losing whatever data it is they were searching for?
While there was no harm to people, the property damage is real. Let me guess, it's the responsibility of the property owner to repair the damage even if the accused is found not guilty?
Christ, there are some idiotic comments in this thread.
Let's review what we know for sure: Gizmodo paid $5000 for a prototype phone they knew in advance the seller didn't have the legal right to sell. They knew the name of the Apple engineer and didn't try to contact him by phone, email, facebook, or by stopping by the Apple campus. Everything else is unknown.
Was it really found in a bar? That's what the "finder" claims, but this is also the same person who sold lost/stolen goods so he/she has motive to lie. Was the Apple engineer even in that bar? We don't know that for sure. The finder allegedly had access to his facebook profile from the cell phone before it was bricked, so the "German beer" update could have been the finder faking it. The finder could've been a pickpocket or a mugger or a burglar for all we know. Gray Powell has never made a public statement, so we don't know his side of the story and how the phone was actually acquired.
The police are investigating a crime. Once Gizmodo paid $5000 to purchase the lost/stolen phone they inserted themselves into this process. It's not about whether bloggers are journalists, it's about whether the Gizmodo editor knowingly purchased stolen goods. It appears he did, as the phone was received bricked so they must've been told the name of the Apple engineer rather than discovering it after it was purchased. This would still be a crime even if he didn't work for Gizmodo and there was no story. If they had only paid $5000 to hear about and see the phone and take pictures (but not purchase it) they'd probably be in the clear and a search to get the name would be illegal.
Let's review what we know for sure: Gizmodo paid $5000 for a prototype phone they knew in advance the seller didn't have the legal right to sell. They knew the name of the Apple engineer and didn't try to contact him by phone, email, facebook, or by stopping by the Apple campus. Everything else is unknown.
Was it really found in a bar? That's what the "finder" claims, but this is also the same person who sold lost/stolen goods so he/she has motive to lie. Was the Apple engineer even in that bar? We don't know that for sure. The finder allegedly had access to his facebook profile from the cell phone before it was bricked, so the "German beer" update could have been the finder faking it. The finder could've been a pickpocket or a mugger or a burglar for all we know. Gray Powell has never made a public statement, so we don't know his side of the story and how the phone was actually acquired.
The police are investigating a crime. Once Gizmodo paid $5000 to purchase the lost/stolen phone they inserted themselves into this process. It's not about whether bloggers are journalists, it's about whether the Gizmodo editor knowingly purchased stolen goods. It appears he did, as the phone was received bricked so they must've been told the name of the Apple engineer rather than discovering it after it was purchased. This would still be a crime even if he didn't work for Gizmodo and there was no story. If they had only paid $5000 to hear about and see the phone and take pictures (but not purchase it) they'd probably be in the clear and a search to get the name would be illegal.
No joke. Wake up people! In fact, it's sad that many of you are so ignorant of what makes this country great. In America, the government cannot legally seize your computer if the computer is used to publicly express your first amendment right (btw, you don't have to be a journalist to be protected by the Privacy Protection Act). If you stick with the facts, Chen was not accused of a crime nor was there suspicion he was about to commit a crime. Now, the D.A. will have to order the return of Chen's computers or seek his agreement before a search may be conducted. Thank god, this is America.
You don't have to be a journalist. Stolen goods are sold every minute of everyday, unfortunately cops don't really care, or lift a finger, especially for a cell phone. Specially for a cell phone that was carelessly lost, a cop would get annoy with me if I call them for such reasons.
Guilty until proven innocent. That is the justice system today. This whole incident might become another OJ situation. The law enforcement team might botch up any and all methods of indicting anyone. Huh? Whatever the warrant had as justification, was lost in translation. Did the judge get woken up and had a pen put in his hand? Was he half awake when he issued it? The night-time search..... the police were there for a few hours... before nightfall? Too many details, none of it concerns me. I, only, wanted to know who the seller of the phone was. The 'glove' that OJ should have been wearing...
You don't seem to understand that the law in question does not care about the fact that the property was lost.
The law says that if you come into possession of property that is not yours then you have responsibility to find the owner and return it or give it to the police.
How you came into possession of that property is completely irrelevant to the Californian law that is being quoted.
Yep that is also correct. So even if Gizmodo can claim ignorance to this, they are still open to a civil suit at least( my dad wasn't sure at the moment I talked to him if publishing trade secrets is a criminal offense) by publishing Apple's Trade Secrets.
It is up to Apple if they want to sue Gizmodo now.
The DA saying they have put a hold on looking at the computers is a joke. Regardless of whether or not it was illegal search and seizure I can almost guarantee you the cops have already looked at the computers etc.
I agree. And I think the judge and police unit acted in accordance with the law.
Regardless of whether you think Gizmodo acted illegally or not, the question begs...
Why is California bankrupt again?
BINGO!
Why is California bankrupt again?
BINGO!
We have a winner.
And one wonders, has the iPhone made Commissioner Gordon's BATPHONE outdated now?
Steve Jobs seems to have his own private iPhone police force! HAHA!
If this story had not already made Apple the laughingstock of Leno & Letterman (which it already has), you can now add the entire world to the joke!
It's just amazing that the world is still talking about this ONE phone!
And it's not even going to hurt Apple as far as I can see.
If anything they should be laughing all the way to the bank!
Didn't they get the Apple employee's Facebook account from the 4g iPhone? If so, a proper attempt would have been to email the guy and wait a week. Phoning the guy's employer does not constitute an attempt to return it to me.
So himself selling instead is perfectly fine right?? Because we both know that Gizmodo just out of the blue offered him 5 grand only after seeing it and that at no time did he suggest that they pay him? You know since he was afraid that the bar tender might sell it..
Perhaps you should try removing your leg from your mouth since you managed to swallow the full thing there.
So, just curious. If you park your car with the keys in the ignition and the door unlocked, does that absolve someone of any guilt when they drive away with it and sell it to someone else who drives around in it showing it off until they get caught?
Is it really your viewpoint that nobody in that scenario is guilty of a crime?