Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[saltcured]

Don't know why, but even on the Internet, it shocks me that so many people immediately (a) side with Gizmodo "against the man", (b) speculate that Apple ordered or otherwise influenced a raid on Jason Chen's house, and/or (c) shrug the whole thing off as no big deal.

First off, who cares that an Apple employee lost the phone? Does that suddenly mean that someone who finds it can do whatever they darn well please, without regard for ethics, and without responsibility or consequences for their actions? Think what you will, but I was raised to do "the right thing". There will always be dishonest people in the world, but if someone found something belonging to you, would you rather they were honest or a crook? Wouldn't a decent person have given the phone to the bartender or contacted the owner directly to return it? Personally, I think the guy who "found" it deserves what's very likely coming to him.

Has anyone considered the precedent it would set if Gizmodo weren't held accountable for this episode? Would it suddenly become okay for any journalist to purchase stolen (or "lost") property to get a scoop? What if a "journalist" purchases something stolen directly from a company's campus, and claims he didn't know it was stolen? This could easily become a slippery slope of shady reasoning, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the legal process is moving into action. Well done.

I'd venture a guess that Apple isn't the only company in Silicon Valley that cares about the outcome of this. Even though Apple is easily the most secretive tech firm in the valley, nobody wants to be open to these kind of risks and not be able to do a darn thing about it.

Well said.

 

[kmiahali]

I would just love to see what Apple releases in June. Will Steve Jobs pull out an iPhone that looks like the prototype and pretty much say, you've seen this before, and here it is? Or will they redesign it (most likely not) after this whole Gizmodo and drunk guy fiasco?

 

[quagmire]

Even if they get the seizure called unlawful and the evidence gained by the seizure is inadmissible, wouldn't the articles Chen wrote be evidence enough to put him behind bars? Just need a printer and an internet connection to be able to print out the articles/evidence of Chen saying out right that he knew the prototype he bought was lost and found by the seller and the lengths the seller went through to return it to Apple.

 

[R3tard]

Difference is this involves trade secrets which can have a much much larger impact and Gizmodo earned money from the process.

It is still under investigation if they are found to have do nothing wrong then it will end here however the police had enough evidence to believe that a crime was committed and are acting on it, i.e. doing the job they are supposed to do.

I sure hope if I lose my phone with my "trade secret" application I wrote, but haven't released yet, the police track down the culprits and break in their doors SWAT style!

 

[Cartaphilus]

You have that right. I think it is just a matter of time EFF and a few other digital rights groups start to jump on this. If their reasoning that is that if they are just "web only" and not print they cannot claim journalist privilege, this can turn into a landmark case.

A conviction for receiving stolen goods is hardly a landmark. The fact that you were motivated to connive with a thief, to pay him $5,000, and then to take apart the stolen goods you illegally obtained so you could make money through page hits to your website doesn't make you any less a criminal.

This is not about whether one is a print, broadcast, or internet journalist; this is about whether or not you committed a crime.

 

[lifeinhd]

Difference is this involves trade secrets which can have a much much larger impact and Gizmodo earned money from the process.

If I set to work building my own phone (as an individual, not for a company) that I planned to someday sell, and it was stolen, even if I argued it was a "trade secret" I doubt the police would give the case a second glance. The ONLY reason they took action on this case is because it was backed by a company as large as Apple with $40B in the bank.

Well, that, and the fact that Gizmodo made it so easy. Police don't like difficult cases.

EDIT: R3tard beat me to it.

 

[LagunaSol]

Stay tuned for Jason Chen and Nick Denton's next online appearance, here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/

 

[kiljoy616]

And that's why apple have been so quiet on the matter, why would in not be suprised if we hear next it was stolen and not lost.

If they are good prosecutors that what they will say even if its not true.

 

[gusnyc]

Now playing victim in a blog nearby...

The really stupid part of all this is Apple didn't have to do a thing, Gizmodo have given the police all the information they needed with their posts over how they obtained the phone.

It's very clear they knew who owned the phone, that the person who'd found it didn't take any serious efforts to return it (considering that just leaving his number at the bar would have done it) and that they were paying money for a device that was not the legal property of the person selling it. They then published all this information for the world to see while bragging about how clever they are. Oopsie.

It's also very interesting to see Gizmodo's legal response which seems to hinge on a blog being a 'newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication' and I'm not entirely convinced that's how the legal system sees it. On a related note it's telling that even the Giz legal rep comes across as a bit of a dick when you read his 'this man is a journalist' letter.

Just for the sake of completeness I really hope Giz get nailed to the wall. Their chequebook journalism leaves a bad taste in the mouth but their exposing of the poor schlub who lost it, both naming him and publishing his picture, was ethically despicable and a clear attempt to boost their own readership by throwing him under the bus. For that alone I'd love to see them get a massive smackdown from the courts.

I agree with you completely!

Gizmodo = unethical jackasses.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Thats Gray Powell's fault. Also its apples. They can't be expecting an immature 27 year old guy to not get drunk.

That's not apples fault. 27 Years old is an age where most people act like ADULTS. Not Druken Frat boys. Apple did what any other employer would have done. Trusted someone to be mature about his job. Now People on this board defend gray like he is the victim but he is not. He was immature because most people who work for apple act like adults. I give blame where Blame is done.

If i F*CK up at my job then guess what? It's not my employers fault its MINE. The same thing with gray. But yet the Apple haters and irrational ass hats can't seem to get that

 

[katiepea]

apple just doesn't care

been an avid mac user for well over a decade here, there used to be thousands of reasons for brand loyalty in my eyes. in the past 2 years tho every single one of them have disappeared. i've sold over 20 apple products in attempts to completely wash my hands of this company. they have lost interest in developing products that are enjoyable and consumer friendly, and are now focused on screwing their customers and raking in as much dough as possible at the expensive of everything that ever made them good. this is the nail in the coffin for me. first the app store, and it's closed nature, it's censorship, now this...cmon apple, you are a brazen joke. i don't care if you are so rich you can't see over the stacks of your gold coins. nobody interested in the furthering of technology from a consumer friendly point of view thinks your policies or products are worth a dime. you can keep selling this nonsense to the ed hardy tshirt wearing retards, but times will catch up. you've made enemies of adobe and google, and don't think they're ready to destroy you, and capable of doing it also. you're selling a device that you market as a way to get news content and a journalistic freedom tool. however you ban newspaper articles, editorial comments, and pulitzer prize winning articles from your device, THEN you violate the constitution by having an illegal police search of a journalists home just for reporting on a device that YOU lost. get over yourself apple. i sincerely hate your company, and no, i'm not an android, blackberry, windows, linux fanboy. i'm a hurt post-apple fanboy and i'm grotesquely disgusted with your politicts on and off the 'tech field' maybe you should start worrying about developing new products instead of censoring content, you haven't really released a new product in 4 years, the iphone/ipod have barely changed and the ipad is just an enlarged version, even running the identical OS. your new imacs have major cause for quality concerns, and your brand spanking new macbook line are heating up to over 217 degrees F. can't wait for that myriad of issues to start hitting tech blogs. spend more time worry about what YOUR'E doing and not journalists. or just go away forever.

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

the thing that i dont understand is the whole situation. ill give an example:

say u buy a nice statue for ur garden from ur local shop. and then u get a knock on ur door a week later, its the police they say that statue is a artifact that was on the black market. they question u and u say o i bought it from this guy. the guy u bought it from dug it out of the ground in Jerusalem. the artifact belongs to the country it was founded. so the guy who illegally dug the artifact up and sold it goes to jail. u on the other hand wont u will only be required to give the item back then u will got to jail if u dont. so the only investigation should be if the guy u got it from got it legally, if he did then its u can keep it.

so in the case of the lost iphone the only investigation should be if the guy who found it got it because he stole it or actually waited 24 hrs and waited for the guy to pick it up. since the iphone was not on the open market the guy who found it might not of known it was a proto type, we have no proof if he did or didn't. even if he called apple and the costumer service or a number on the site and did not find help then it is legally his. the bar could verify if he left it there and no one picked it up and apples call records can prove if he called. one more thing if he turned into the police it is most unlikely apple would of found it unless the apple employee went to the police, witch can also be confirmed ( and again would have to wait 24 hrs i think).

in conclusion all thees aspects should be checked out, and i feel that the seizing of gizmodos editors computers are an unnecessary act. they do have the right to investigate but they should go through the aspects of the case i mentioned before taking it this far.

 

[willie0683]

You and everyone else are acting like Gizmodo definitely knew that the phone was stolen at the time of payment, and not lost. How can you possibly state this as fact? After more information has come to light, it certainly looks like the individual who found the phone didn't follow due diligence in tracking down the owner. But at the time of payment, how could Gizmodo know this, and why should they be responsible to make sure? That's not how our legal system works.

If you buy a used car, do you get charged with a felony if the seller stole the car? Only if you knew it was stolen to begin with. And while Gizmodo may have had a suspicion, it will be nearly impossible to prove that they knew it was stolen at the time of purchase.

Who would believe that Apple would just hand over a new iPhone to someone and say go sale it to the tabloids for 5k. And on top of that who would pay 5K for a phone unless they thought they were getting some serious trade secrets. This entire discussion is about if they knew. Of course they knew. Its not a question about if it was a crime it is more about how serious of a crime was committed.

 

[kiljoy616]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Gizmodo will cease to exist one year from today. The minute they put that first picture of the iphone prototype on their site they basically signed their demise.

Steve Jobs does not F*ck around.

Either Apple will win multiple millions in damages in a lawsuit claiming overwhelming damage to their competitive secrecy lost to competitors...or Apple will force Gizmodo to go bankrupt from overwhelming legal fees trying to defend itself. Either way...they're toast.

Hope they enjoyed their 15 minutes...

Or gizmo will ass **** them make them pay for wasting time and come out not only rosy but with an apology, but of course not for the dogmatic fanboys, that would be sacrilege.

 

[aristokrat]

While the FINDER should have returned it to Apple, Apple should be stupid and give a prototype iPhone worth more that you would think it is (R&D, trade secrets) to some immature dumbass "engineer" This Gray guy obviously isn't ready to handle trade secrets. You DON'T go out and get drunk, with a important gadget. First off a mature person wouldn't be getting drunk anyways. And to get drunk with a prototype? Thats Gray Powell's fault. Also its apples. They can't be expecting an immature 27 year old guy to not get drunk.
I hostly don't care if the seller dude stole it. Apple shouldn't be giving a very important thing to some retard that gets drunk and loses it. Its Gizmodo's job to report tech news, and they did their job.
Yes the finder should have done more, and Giz should have returned it sooner. But they didn't know it was a prototype... it could have been a knockoff and they purchased a real deal.

Then how exactly do you suggest Apple get real-world tests done with the device? Wish them into existence? Since it seems like Apple had changed the exterior surfaces, it would make sense that they needed to test how they affected the functioning of the phone in a variety of locations, and not just at 1 Infinite Loop.

 

[cmaier]

As do the counterfits and the articles from Gizmodo's competitors showing a very similar phone that was claimed to be a counterfit.

Don't take my post out of context though, I believe Gizmodo was wrong in this.

Source for that? I've never seen a counterfeit that displayed the connect to itunes screen.

 

[law guy]

R.E.A.C.T.? And they're not embarrassed by that letterhead?

 

[blackpond]

You and everyone else are acting like Gizmodo definitely knew that the phone was stolen at the time of payment, and not lost. How can you possibly state this as fact? After more information has come to light, it certainly looks like the individual who found the phone didn't follow due diligence in tracking down the owner. But at the time of payment, how could Gizmodo know this, and why should they be responsible to make sure? That's not how our legal system works.

If you buy a used car, do you get charged with a felony if the seller stole the car? Only if you knew it was stolen to begin with. And while Gizmodo may have had a suspicion, it will be nearly impossible to prove that they knew it was stolen at the time of purchase.

At the time of payment Gizmodo knew that they were purchasing trade secrets worth billions of dollars with the intent to exploit those trade secrets for financial gain by posting them to the world on their website. I'm not so sure that, in the end, it will matter at all if it was technically 'stolen' or not.

 

[mattster16]

yeah Cuz the Watergate tapes were not stolen either.

The difference here is that the watergate tapes involved public employees and the government. AND it exposed criminal activity that hurt the public. As part of the government (of the people, for the people, by the people) the public deserved to know.

Gizmodo exposed nothing but Apple's trade secrets. Apple did nothing nefarious.

 

[psingh01]

this is BS.

How often do police break down doors seizing computers due to one item that isn't even stolen

Apple is having way too much control

They broke it down cause the guy wasn't home to open the door. it's not like they had a key. WTF do you think this is the Apple police? A crime was committed.

The item was stolen. It is a prototype of an unannounced product. Gizmodo knew this and they knew that such a thing wouldn't belong to the person they were buying it from. They paid a crap load of money for trade secrets and then bragged about it on twitter LOL

The same thing would happen if it were a Boing and someone "found" designs for a new plane and sold them. It would probably be a hell of a lot worse then!

It surprises me how people say it wasn't a big deal. Millions of dollars are invested in these products, early news can seriously affect a company's stock price. This wasn't someone's 3GS, if it was no one would care.

 

[sleeks]

the thing that i dont understand is the whole situation. ill give an example:

say u buy a nice statue for ur garden from ur local shop. and then u get a knock on ur door a week later, its the police they say that statue is a artifact that was on the black market. they question u and u say o i bought it from this guy. the guy u bought it from dug it out of the ground in Jerusalem. the artifact belongs to the country it was founded. so the guy who illegally dug the artifact up and sold it goes to jail. u on the other hand wont u will only be required to give the item back then u will got to jail if u dont. so the only investigation should be if the guy u got it from got it legally, if he did then its u can keep it.

so in the case of the lost iphone the only investigation should be if the guy who found it got it because he stole it or actually waited 24 hrs and waited for the guy to pick it up. since the iphone was not on the open market the guy who found it might not of known it was a proto type, we have no proof if he did or didn't. even if he called apple and the costumer service or a number on the site and did not find help then it is legally his. the bar could verify if he left it there and no one picked it up and apples call records can prove if he called. one more thing if he turned into the police it is most unlikely apple would of found it unless the apple employee went to the police, witch can also be confirmed ( and again would have to wait 24 hrs i think).

in conclusion all thees aspects should be checked out, and i feel that the seizing of gizmodos editors computers are an unnecessary act. they do have the right to investigate but they should go through the aspects of the case i mentioned before taking it this far.

That is all fine and dandy, except Gizmodo posted video and picture and detail about a trade secret. Would you be upset if you designed a new product (with competition following your every move) and someone sold it and posted pictures/videos online for all your competition to see? I would think yes.

 

[ShiftyPig]

The evil empire..... hey, the revolution always sounds like a good idea at the time.

 

[puffnstuff]

I love how people act as if guy got drunk at the bar and left the iPhone there is fact.

Nobody knows what really happened and just because Gizmodo says it's fact doesn't make it fact. They were not at the bar they bought something from some shady dude who fed them a story that they took and ran with out.


The employee was 20 miles from the campus he was probably testing the phone in a real world situation. What happened from there who knows but to say the guy was careless and left it is stupid because you don't know that.

 

[chomomo]

I ran out of popcorn!!

Needs more kernels and beer!

 

[eddiebrock]

Anyone find this tidbit interesting?

"...internet history, cache history, and/or Internet Pages pertaining to searches and/or research conducted on Apple employee Gray Powell."

Not sure why they would be interested in this or why it would be relevant/criminal, unless it was Apple who pushed for this warrant, and they are also trying to get Gizmodo on charges of libel (defaming Gray Powell).