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
all of that could be done by transplanting iPhone 3gs innards into a new case too. There are bad Chinese knockoffs and really good ones. No one knew until it could be inspected.
John Gruber on the shield law:
So apparently:
Going after Engadget (who declined to purchase the phone) for the name of the "finder"? Protected by the shield law.
Going after person (who also happens to be a Gizmodo editor) for allegedly purchasing stolen/lost goods? Not protected by shield law.
So apparently:
Going after Engadget (who declined to purchase the phone) for the name of the "finder"? Protected by the shield law.
Going after person (who also happens to be a Gizmodo editor) for allegedly purchasing stolen/lost goods? Not protected by shield law.
As is becoming increasingly evident, Darbyshire doesn't know what she's talking about:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html
The search under way at 9:45 pm - that was when Chen got home, we do not know when the police started the search, could have been just before or hours - was properly within the allowed time period and does not qualify for legal purposes as "night." "Night" defined for search warrants under California Penal Code is after 10 p.m.
Fortunately, clicks/views also correspond well to "sh*t people are interested in reading", so I think we're good.
arn
It's not really their business to know or not know, is it? They had the name of the Apple engineer in advance-- since they received it bricked so must've been told his name by the "finder". They could've called/emailed/Facebooked the Apple engineer to ask if it was a knockoff... also if he wanted his phone back.
California penal code allows an individual to purchase a known-stolen item, if the person's intent at purchase is to return it to its rightful owner. Under this circumstance, they do "have a right", and won't be prosecuted.muskratboy said:
Chen/Gizmodo can make the argument that:
a) they didn't believe the seller's story in regards to how the device originated
b) that upon viewing it, they wanted to see whether it was a legitimate Apple prototype, or simply a knockoff device
c) that if it did turn out to be a legitimate device, that they were purchasing it with the full intention of returning it to Apple.
Any of these situations would essentially exempt him from prosecution.
Journalists? Really, you call these bloggers journalists now.
I have a blog does that make me a journalist?
I post opinions on web sites and make other comments, does that make me a journalist.
Let's define what a journalist is.
A journalist is someone who reports the news, not someone who creates the news to drive people to a lousy web site. Not someone who does something with the knowledge that it is wrong. I would like to think that there are some journalists that have better sense and some integrity. I know, I know not likely but one can only hope that such a thing still exists.
I have a blog does that make me a journalist?
I post opinions on web sites and make other comments, does that make me a journalist.
Let's define what a journalist is.
A journalist is someone who reports the news, not someone who creates the news to drive people to a lousy web site. Not someone who does something with the knowledge that it is wrong. I would like to think that there are some journalists that have better sense and some integrity. I know, I know not likely but one can only hope that such a thing still exists.
It also had different identifying codes then to a 3GS, original, and 3G. So that rules out a transplant.
Again, I also doubt the Chinese knockoffs have gone so far to totally spoof the device so iTunes and OS X sees it as an iPhone to such an extent. Especially since it also displayed the connect to iTunes screen implying it running the iPhone OS.
It doesn't exempt him from posting the trade secrets contained in the phone itself, if they broke the iphone apart to determine the legitimacy alone, that's fine. Posting that information online isn't legal.
Good luck. It's not a clear line anymore, and one that is up for constant debate.
arn
I assume the code is directed at:
Code:
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected
with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire serviceThe point is? The law doesn't say the search must be "concluded" by 10 pm, it says it must be "served" by 10 pm if there's no special permission granted for a night search. It's not disputed they served the warrant by 10 pm. This is an argument that will get Darbyshire nowhere. They will have better luck with the shield law because that is a legitimate grey area. I still don't think they will win but it's certainly a stronger argument.
I'm sure the judge knows the law. What he probably didn't know is that Chen was (under Calif. law, anyway) a journalist. What you - and the other couple of posters who have made this point - have missed is how warrants are issued.
Issuing a SW is an ex parte proceeding, which means that there is only one party in front of the judge. In this case, the detective who wanted the warrant issued. All the judge knew about Chen was his name on the warrant - neither he nor an attorney were present to argue why the warrant shouldn't be issued. (Which is probably why Calif. law prohibits the use of warrants to obtain 1070 information).
California law is (oddly) very clear on this. Evid. Code Sec. 1070 protects sources and "any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public." As long as this information was obtained or prepared in connection with communicating with the public, this information is covered. (This language is copied verbatim from the Calif. Const., Art. 1, sec. 2b).
Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 1524(g) says simply, "(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code."
So, again, this is really not hard.
So reporting about a G8 summit to drive people to your channel and websites like oh say CNN, FOX, CNBC and BBC is different and more jouirnalistic than reporting about tech news to drive people to your channels/sites? Interesting way you think.
And it all could have been an elaborate story/hoax like the iHome elevator picture.
Hickman
Thank you for stating the obvious. I couldn't have said it better myself.
But don't bother trying that sanity on an Apple FANBOY!
Trust me, the Steve jobs Reality Distortion Field WILL WIN OUT!
