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
There was no SWAT team. It was a computer task force. He wasn't even home when they arrived. Stop making things up. Also, stop writing LOL at the end of every sentence. Nothing you're saying is all that funny.
Some of you people posting need to think before you post instead of misinterpreting the arguments of each side and their respective consequences or indications.
This law is to protect our First Amendment rights. Without protections of confidential sources, their would be no free press.
The law apparently requires additional procedural and perhaps substantive requirements for the search and seizure of a journalist's information pertaining to a source.
This is not to say, as has been pointed out, that journalists can get away with crimes or assist in criminal activity. They just have protection of their sources.
This law is to protect our First Amendment rights. Without protections of confidential sources, their would be no free press.
The law apparently requires additional procedural and perhaps substantive requirements for the search and seizure of a journalist's information pertaining to a source.
This is not to say, as has been pointed out, that journalists can get away with crimes or assist in criminal activity. They just have protection of their sources.
For those that don't seem to understand how this hurts Apple:
1. Sales of the 3GS probably have gone down.
2. Competitors have seen what new features the iPhone is going to have before Apple is ready to release it.
3. Apple is now committed to include features they may not have intended to include as people will be expecting them.
For those saying it isn't long till we see this iPhone I am assuming are Apple employees with advance release notice since though most people expect this phone at WDC there is no garauntee Apple planned on releasing this at all then. Yes there is evidence this is a late model prototype it doesn't mean it is the only model Apple is considering nor does it mean Apple could not have planned changes if this is not.
As for those trying to defend that Gizmodo didn't do anything wrong we have two tales here.
1. They bought the story and the guy asked them to return the phone on his behalf.
-That would suggest that they knew it was an Apple product and thus didn't have to disassemble it before contacting Apple. They made no legitimate effort to return it to Apple till they had squeezed as much profit out of it as they could. Which if that was the case they are responsible for disseminating trade secrets or other companies IP
2. They bought the phone knowing it was stolen to identify that it was an Apple product. That means they knowingly bought stolen product as regardless of whether this was an Apple phone or a fake it was not the sellers possession to sell.
Either way you look at it they are in the wrong and as such the authorities have every right to gather evidence and journalistic protection does not allow for journalists to commit crimes to get their story. God help everyone if that were the case.
1. Sales of the 3GS probably have gone down.
2. Competitors have seen what new features the iPhone is going to have before Apple is ready to release it.
3. Apple is now committed to include features they may not have intended to include as people will be expecting them.
For those saying it isn't long till we see this iPhone I am assuming are Apple employees with advance release notice since though most people expect this phone at WDC there is no garauntee Apple planned on releasing this at all then. Yes there is evidence this is a late model prototype it doesn't mean it is the only model Apple is considering nor does it mean Apple could not have planned changes if this is not.
As for those trying to defend that Gizmodo didn't do anything wrong we have two tales here.
1. They bought the story and the guy asked them to return the phone on his behalf.
-That would suggest that they knew it was an Apple product and thus didn't have to disassemble it before contacting Apple. They made no legitimate effort to return it to Apple till they had squeezed as much profit out of it as they could. Which if that was the case they are responsible for disseminating trade secrets or other companies IP
2. They bought the phone knowing it was stolen to identify that it was an Apple product. That means they knowingly bought stolen product as regardless of whether this was an Apple phone or a fake it was not the sellers possession to sell.
Either way you look at it they are in the wrong and as such the authorities have every right to gather evidence and journalistic protection does not allow for journalists to commit crimes to get their story. God help everyone if that were the case.
I'm glad some others are realizing this. I honestly didn't know Gizmodo from Gizmo the mogwai. I just took a look at the site and it looks like a blog. Just because you post information about something doesn't make you a journalist.
Now it's obviously not a concretely defined term, but I think most of us can agree on most of what journalism is. Journalism should usually be pursuit of facts and non-biased unless it is labeled as commentary or opinion. I would also say it usually doesn't involve paying $5,000 to get a story, which is what Gizmodo did. That's what the tabloid rags and fluff shows like Inside Edition do.
Simple question: why didn't Apple (or owner) just have contact info on the background screen?
That's what I have in case I lose mine. Seems like all of this would have been avoided since it would be very illegal to sell without contacting that email/phone, whatever
That's what I have in case I lose mine. Seems like all of this would have been avoided since it would be very illegal to sell without contacting that email/phone, whatever
I’m going to have to become a blogger. Then the law can’t touch me no matter what I do! I can even buy a truckload of cocaine, for a cocaine story, and no searches will be allowed 
Me too. I have a PSD template, and I use it to add my email address to any image I want to use as wallpaper. Similarly, my Macs are all named with my phone number in the name, and the screensaver set to Computer Name.
Me too. I have a PSD template, and I use it to add my email address to any image I want to use as wallpaper. Similarly, my Macs are all named with my phone number in the name, and the screensaver set to Computer Name.
Simple answer: they knew who the owner was from the Facebook app. It appears the "finder" didn't really want to return it, he wanted to sell it.
Legally, what's the difference? Most people get their news from internet websites nowadays.
No it isn't suppose to be comparable to the level and danger of the crime, every search and seizure has to be the same. The cops should not be giving special treatment to houses just because it is a white collar crime. A crime is a crime and the people innocent until proven guilty.
Here's the fact, Jason Chen already confirmed that he wasn't home when the cops exercise the warrant, that's a fact alone that justify the cops breaking down the door. Cops are not suppose to wait for people, they knock on the door a few time, if no response, they are authorized to take any action to exercise the warrant and breaking down the door is authorized.
Here's the thing, what if Jason Chen knows was sitting across the street and instead of letting the cops in, he is just hiding and calling into his house to do a remote wipe of his data? That's why cops are not suppose to wait for other people.
If the home owner isn't home, they are authorized to exercise the warrant any way they can. There are technologies to destroy evidence remotely, therefore the cops have to get in as soon as possible. They don't need to wait hours for this. The search warrant I believe has the "night search" approved if the information posted by Gawker is true.
Hah...so now you define what journalism is? And you think online news sources are not journalism? You sound out of touch. And your so called "legit" news sources pay informants all the time. Not a news source out there is "unbiased".
Evidence of it being legit without taking it apart was:
A) The Case was solidly built as mentioned by Gizmodo. Typical Apple quality even at the Prototype stage.
B) iTunes recognized it as an iPhone.
C) OS X recognized it as an iPhone
D) It has the 30 pin dock connector.
A and D most certainly are lacking on the Chinese knockoffs. I am not 100% certain, but I do not believe the Chinese knockoffs have spoofed themselves to be seen as iPhones.
They had plenty of evidence pointing to legit Apple iPhone prototype. It took taking it apart to confirm, but evidence certainly pointed towards it being legit.
If you buy something under the speculation that it might be stolen or have trade secrets, it was reasonable to speculate, and it turns out to be true, you're screwed. Gizmodo unwittingly shot themselves in the foot in advance when they speculated on whether it was a prototype when the pix first appeared. The best defense I've heard is that the attempts by the finder to return it constituted abandonment by Apple, but any pre-law bonehead can shoot that one down.
Apple hasn't done a thing. This appears to be a criminal investigation. You, as a private individual, can't actually initiate a criminal investigation nor a criminal case.
If you were beaten up by a thug on the street and wanted to have them prosecuted for assault and battery, you do not have that right.
Now if Apple wanted to sue them for a civil tort, they're well within their power to do that, but it's kinda weird to see search warrants for civil litigation.
It's confusing to see conversations about journalistic shield laws being claimed as perverted in this instance. I don't think any reasonable person is arguing that bloggers are not deserving of journalistic shield laws, the question is at what point do they reach the threshold that such protections are warranted. The ultimate question is how releasing the details of the new iPhone further the public welfare. Unless Gizmodo was revealing criminal acts by anyone in divulging iPhone data or alerting the public to a grave, significant or immediate threat it is exceedingly unlikely that any court would or should give the shield defense merit.
Having said that, it would have done Gizmodo well if it wasn't so giddy about revealing how it acquired the iPhone and at what price. Rings bells of suspicious behavior and in a place like Silicon Valley you should expect law enforcement to be vigilant about trade secret issues. The economic value of companies like Apple, AMD, Intel and HP can simply not be measured and lackadaisical enforcement of key issues like that are not likely to be tolerated.
If you were beaten up by a thug on the street and wanted to have them prosecuted for assault and battery, you do not have that right.
Now if Apple wanted to sue them for a civil tort, they're well within their power to do that, but it's kinda weird to see search warrants for civil litigation.
It's confusing to see conversations about journalistic shield laws being claimed as perverted in this instance. I don't think any reasonable person is arguing that bloggers are not deserving of journalistic shield laws, the question is at what point do they reach the threshold that such protections are warranted. The ultimate question is how releasing the details of the new iPhone further the public welfare. Unless Gizmodo was revealing criminal acts by anyone in divulging iPhone data or alerting the public to a grave, significant or immediate threat it is exceedingly unlikely that any court would or should give the shield defense merit.
Having said that, it would have done Gizmodo well if it wasn't so giddy about revealing how it acquired the iPhone and at what price. Rings bells of suspicious behavior and in a place like Silicon Valley you should expect law enforcement to be vigilant about trade secret issues. The economic value of companies like Apple, AMD, Intel and HP can simply not be measured and lackadaisical enforcement of key issues like that are not likely to be tolerated.
Are you kidding me?
Your don't need the contact info on the background. If you find an iPhone, you can get his(and his friends' contact info in the phone app, the email app, the contacts app, the Facebook app. Actually, the "founder" even got the owner's name.
Everyone is in on it. How many pages of comments has MacRumors had on this "scandal"? The entire tech community is getting millions of clicks because of it.
Every website is in it for clicks (even MacRumors or else they wouldn't post anymore on the topic).
Hickman
That says a warrant can't go after info for the source. Notice nothing about going after the journalist himself.
Gawker Media's COO, Gaby Darbyshire, responded to the seizure with a letter stating very clearly that this was illegal on grounds that:
* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.
OK now this is funny. This was a stupid thing for them to post. Section 1070 only applies if the police were seizing the equipment to find the source. In this case if they are seizing the equipment to determine if Chen was participating in the purchase of illegal goods it is perfectly legal for them to take his equipment.
* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.
OK now this is funny. This was a stupid thing for them to post. Section 1070 only applies if the police were seizing the equipment to find the source. In this case if they are seizing the equipment to determine if Chen was participating in the purchase of illegal goods it is perfectly legal for them to take his equipment.
so all those pictures of the insides were just... for apple to be sure it was theirs?
And you understand your HOUSE is in no way like the AIRPORT, right? The first time they show up in your living room (or on the street) and search you... THEN you've got a point.
they do. they don't have the right to buy property which doesn't belong to the seller. As soon as they paid for the actual object, their "rights" took a big hit.
actually, he did. unless the finder lied to him. he tells the story the way we've heard it... then any reasonable person knows they can't legally buy it.
I know, redundant... but as everyone else is starting to understand... NONE OF THIS MATTERS. They bought property that didn't belong to the seller. which equals stolen property. tada!
which of course... none of this is related to the actual thread. lol.
i would think Giz would have a much better case if it was just INFORMATION they acquired. as soon as it became an actual object they bought... oops.
wrong. Chen got home at 9:45. The cops said they had been there for a few hours. Now, I don't know what time they got there, or when "night" starts. But the search didn't start at 9:45.
source is Gizmodo. Can't link cause my copy/paste isnt working due to software restrictions.
You have hit the nail on the head. After all, Arn didn't quit his medical practice to focus on MacRumors for the fun of it.
He must be smiling pretty big right now as well!