Sidebar Sidebar
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

inkswamp said:
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?
Click to expand...

Another in a long line of bad apples to oranges comparisons.

People who compare cars to cell phones should not be allowed access to a key to a car! LOL

We're talking about a freaking CELL PHONE here people! HELLO!

Ooops I didn't see my previous post, I thought I goofed, sorry for the duplicate post, my bad. :(

But it does raise a point, people are posting so voraciously only this topic, I can't even keep track of what page I posted on! LOL
 
kingofwale said:
I found it absolutely laughable to see people here actually question Gizmodo as a "journalistic website"

Are you serious?

Also, I shall remind people that Gizmodo had several attempts to return the phone to Apple and now had done so after Apple confirmed it was indeed theirs. To put it in an extreme, Gizmodo actually rescued an prototype and returned it to its rightful owner. I don't see Gizmodo asking for 5000 dollars back from Apple, Just fire the guy who lost the phone and move on. People!
Click to expand...

There's very little question that Gizmodo would be afforded applicable protection from revealing sources as a "journalistic website", as you put it.

There's a whole lot of question whether this warrant was served to find a source, or find evidence of a separate felony, among many other questions. My money says the DA already knows the "source", but that's just a hunch.

Arn doesn't have anything to worry about, because Arn is better than buying goods that he knows are stolen in order to intentionally misappropriate trade secrets. He's worried about the slippery slope, but only because he's too close to the situation. There's a clear demarcation between knowingly purchasing stolen property in order to reveal--not matters of legitimate public interest--but trade secrets; and normal reporting. Close analogues, actually, might be the injunctions against various *cough* "news" outlets which have purchased stolen celebrity sex tapes and been barred from publicizing them.
 
MikhailT said:
There's a huge difference between the DAs trying to get the information on the protected sources (That's the shield law and thus would make this search and seizure illegal) and the DAs trying to get the information whether Gizmodo was committing a felony, which has nothing to do with protected sources and thus nothing to do with shield laws.

Gizmodo was obligated by the CA's law to find the original owners, they had no rights to break apart and post the information online, it doesn't matter if Apple did not respond to it or did nothing to find it. I believe CA laws stated 3 years must pass before Gizmodo could claim ownership to it.

Gizmodo/Gawker posted the info that they paid 5000$ for this phone, sorry, no way in hell Gizmodo/Gawker did not know that the phone was not a prototype and stolen if they were willing to pay 5000$ for this. That action alone will come back to bite Gizmodo in the ass, big time.

Journalism is not a license to break any laws you wish. That's complete bull****.

Update: Even if Gizmodo and Gawker did not know it was stolen or just simply lost, as for me, it does not justify them acting as a**wipes and using it as an exclusive item to jack up the clicks to get money. The information posted on the Apple's employee was a complete ass move on their part as well. Gizmodo or Gawker has lost all my respects for just that action alone. F**k them.
Click to expand...

QFT baby.

Please read that post a few times. The search has nothing to do with the story. It has everything to do with the property. If Giz bought photos, no problem. But they bought (or intended to buy) software and/or hardware. And thats a problem.

can some one write an FAQ so we don't have to read all these weird arguments from people who have their facts backwards, are trying to argue that the phone wasn't technically stolen property, or where people can just read what happened plus relevant portions of CA law before they even post that "they don't know if the phone has been returned or not"?

And while I am at it, can we also get the teabaggers out of here/warned? The cops executed a search warrant related to receiving valuable property. Its not a fascist police state today more than it was yesterday. Not to mention, that discussion belongs elsewhere. No one is going to come steal your pr0n.
 
Pack it up folks the EFF, a.k.a Anti-Intellectual Property Rights / a.k.a. Software Socialists, have spoken so you might as well stop posting.

Since these guys hate Apple with a passion, disavow any intellectual property rights, and think all data belongs to the people, how could they have a bias?

Power to the People!!!
 
ddarko: Are you a trial attorney? If so, which area? I'm a litigation consultant and might be interested in speaking with you.
 
HyperZboy said:
Another in a long line of bad apples to oranges comparisons.

People who compare cars to cell phones should not be allowed access to a key to a car! LOL

We're talking about a freaking CELL PHONE here people! HELLO!

Ooops I didn't see my previous post, I thought I goofed, sorry for the duplicate post, my bad. :(

But it does raise a point, people are posting so voraciously only this topic, I can't even keep track of what page I posted on! LOL
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's not stealing if it's a phone. :rolleyes:
 
For future finders of iPhone 4G, 5G, 6G etc, try emailing <sjobs@apple.com> to avoid any concern of inaction on Apple's part! It'll stand up better in court as a more decent attempt to contact the owner.
 
MikhailT said:
Ignorance isn't a defense. Gizmodo/Gawker had to call Apple for permission to post the information about the iPhone, they didn't. They don't have ownership of the item that was clearly illegal in the first place. The CA laws stated three years must pass before ownership can be applied to the lost items.

The government wasn't raiding a journalist to identify a source, the government was raiding a journalist to identify whether the journalist was attempting to commit a felony. Huge difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with your second paragraph. If gizmodo coerced the guy into selling the phone when he was still attempting to get it back to apple, then that is obviously illegal. And that is an appropriate use of the warrant in my non-lawyerly opinion.

We cannot assume that we know the entirety of the coversations between Gizmodo and the source. There may have been other attempts not discussed either way the warrant cannot legally obtain information on the source that can be used in a court or to get a warrant for the sources home.

Hickman
 
Roller said:
If this ever comes to trial, it'll be interesting to see how Apple makes a case that they were harmed by the disclosure. I suppose they could claim that sales of current iPhone models declined because buyers decided to wait for the new version, but the release isn't that far off. Plus, given Apple's track record over the past couple of years, at least some people would have held off anyway. Apple would also have to show that the leak gave their competitors an unfair advantage. I suspect that opposing attorneys might even posit that this gives Apple a leg up by keeping the new iPhone buzz even higher than it would be otherwise.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Apple is not affected hugely, trade secrets are trade secrets and they are protected by laws. Nobody have any rights to post that information without the owner's permission. If Apple doesn't go after Gizmodo, every other sites will be trying to do the same thing that Gizmodo did and claim the same defense that Gizmodo did and it wouldn't be applied to just Apple, every company is affected by this.
 
kresh said:
Pack it up folks the EFF, a.k.a Anti-Intellectual Property Rights / a.k.a. Software Socialists, have spoken so you might as well stop posting.

Since these guys hate Apple with a passion, disavow any intellectual property rights, and think all data belongs to the people, how could they have a bias?

Power to the People!!!
Click to expand...
Ignorant comment of the week!

The EFF is one of the only companies defending technology rights to us today and I have my utmost respect for them. They've fought against hundreds of unlawful cases in which corporations have tried to take advantage of the average Joe.
 
Gizmodo tried to take a bike out of Apple. But instead it got a whipping it will never forget!!! :D
 
inkswamp said:
Okay, so it's not stealing if it's a phone. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is the level of enforcement is supposed to be somewhat comparable to the level and danger of the crime.

This hardly qualifies as a terrorist attack or SWAT team case! LOL

Yet it's being handled like a stereotypical California high speed chase with a drug lord! LOL

Doors kicked in... FREEEZE!!!! LOL

Just too funny. Get your hand OFF THE PHONE..... NOOOOOW!
 
A law firm who specializes in first amendment cases said California's shield law comes into play only if one purpose of the seizure was to gather evidence against the finder, a journalistic source. The law might not apply in this case because of the rest of the story, but they want to ensure that charges don't get thrown out over the seizure. They may be fine, but not take the risk and return it.
 
quagmire said:
There is a difference between posting speculation and rumors of details of Apple's next products. It's another to actually buy the prototype from a seller that had no right to sell it and then take it apart and post the actual details for everyone else to see.
Click to expand...

Until Gizmodo took it apart, they were speculating that it was an iPhone prototype. It could have been an imported knockoff or some other industrial designers mockup.

Hickman
 
HyperZboy said:
All I'm saying is the level of enforcement is supposed to be somewhat comparable to the level and danger of the crime.

This hardly qualifies as a terrorist attack or SWAT team case! LOL

Yet it's being handled like a stereotypical California high speed chase with a drug lord! LOL
Click to expand...

You seem to have some Rodney King-esque image in your head of how all this was handled by the police. Were you a witness to the seizure of these computers or do you just have a really active imagination? ;)
 
pirateyarrr said:
Bottom line is, illegal search and seizure is still illegal. What Gizmodo did may have been illegal as well, but that's no excuse for the government to start violating search and seizure laws. If you're on the side of the government in this one, you better take a long hard look at what you want your government to be in the future.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it any better myself!
 
John Kotches said:
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?
Click to expand...

Probably not very. But they are going to do the same thing if you are home or not, so what difference does it make? If you are one of those types who think the cops might plant evidence or steal, do you really think you standing there is going to make a difference when there are 2-4 cops going through your stuff?

[/QUOTE]
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?[/QUOTE]

No. But the rule has to apply to everyone. What guarantee do they have that Chen will even come home? What if he is out of town? What if a friend comes by, does that count? For computers, the data could be set to remote wipe. Should cops just sit outside everyones house until they can execute a search warrant? That's totally nonsensical.

While it sucks to have your house invaded like that, thats how it works.
 
This case is getting very interesting

1. We will get to see whether bloggers are considered journalists. In previous apple vs leak case, the judge did not think so. However, i would say that gizmodo's work is close to journalism in this case.

2. We will get to see whether the shield law applies to criminal investigation. Do journalists/bloggers get a free pass to break the law?

Actually, the DA probably has enough evidence to pursue without taking this step - to convict gizmodo. Giz's posted story is as close to a confession as you can get. However, it didn't reveal the founder/thief's name(although it had no problem to reveal the name of the poor apple engineer). So the cops is probably trying to find any leads to the thief at this
moment.
 
pirateyarrr said:
Bottom line is, illegal search and seizure is still illegal. What Gizmodo did may have been illegal as well, but that's no excuse for the government to start violating search and seizure laws. If you're on the side of the government in this one, you better take a long hard look at what you want your government to be in the future.
Click to expand...

But what if the police tried to contact Chen at his cousin's house and his cousin didn't know what they were talking about? Surely, that would reasonably mean it'll be okay for them to take whatever is his and do whatever they like with it when he's not around? Even legally sell Chen's computer to Engadget for $5,000. According to pro-Gizmodo posts in the other thread at any rate. ;)
 
I'm 50/50 with this Federal/State law. If Journalists can perform illegal activities to gain access/compile news and use this law to protect themselves.... That's one scary ass law to mess with.

EDIT!!!!

arn said:
sigh... I know there's a race to try to post to be funny/cute/whatever... but if you took a second to read:

No, this simply says they can't use a warrant to get the information (they have to subpoena you). You could presumably still go to jail.

arn
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, I see. This makes more sense now. Thanks for pointing this small (VERY IMPORTANT) piece of information Arn.

Now my next comment is... I wonder if the Juice was worth the squeeze? Gizmodo will NEVER be invited to any event with Apple in the same room. Guaranteed!

(NOT GAURANTEED)

Peace said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer but I'm sure any evidence used against Chen would probably be thrown out if it was actually used against him. I watch a lot of LAW and ORDER SVU :)
 
chembox said:
Ignorant comment of the week!

The EFF is one of the only companies defending technology rights to us, normal Joe's, today. I have utmost respect for them,
Click to expand...

I'll raise you with giving your post the "Most absurd of the Month". The EFF could care less about the average Joe. They make money terrorizing companies in the same manner that Jessie Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" does.

Your utmost respected group even litigates against companies using GNU IP rights of others to do so, even against the rights holder's wishes!

They are scum, leeches even.
 
inkswamp said:
You seem to have some Rodney King-esque image in your head of how all this was handled by the police. Were you a witness to the seizure of these computers or do you just have a really active imagination?
Click to expand...

Forcing entry implies a level of force unreasonable for this event. A REASONABLE person would force entry if there was a life in danger, a violent criminal in there, danger to the public like a bomb, fire etc. It is wholly UNREASONABLE to break the door down in this case. They also wanted to do it alone so that they were not watched and their actions recorded...they manipulated the rules to their favor.

The reasonable thing to do would be to wait there while contacting the home owner and then he could unlock the door and no damage done. It was an abuse of power....of what they CAN do but SHOULDN'T. It doesn't earn you an respect from the masses when you behave this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back