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

[Dr Kevorkian94]

And what does that act protect specifically?

idk why ur asking this but if u must know they cant just take all there stuff for reporting a fact or what info they acquired on the devise they have. the only fault here is the guy who sold it tho gismodo this is who they should be investigating, if he found it legally if he took the necessary action to find the owner. if the seller did not then the only reproduction is that they will have to give it back and there money returned.

and this: Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code states that no search warrant can be issued to a publisher, editor or reporter in electronic or print media, in relation to any story they were working on or their sources.

 

[MBP15C2D4GBLED]

I'm not arguing the morality/legality of what Gizmodo did. I am simply PO'd at everyone shouting "theft" or "robbery" or "stolen". It. Was. LOST. Period.

What happened beyond that is still being ironed out but the investigation.

You're PO'd for no reason. California law has been quoted a number of times. It was theft by the laws of the state the theft occured in. It is in fact, that simple.

And we don't know how the original thief came about getting the phone. Was it really on a bar stool, or was it picked from his pocket? These are details that are NOT known, and therefore you can't really say with certaintity that it was LOST before it was STOLEN.

 

[mavis]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS (JB3.1, unlocked): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Mobile/7D11 Safari/531.21.10)

Still a raid over a stolen/lost phone?

It wasn't a "raid." It is called "executing a search warrant."

Right, so that sentence should read: Executing a search warrant over a stolen prototype phone (worth hundreds of millions of dollars)? I don't know about you guys, but that sounds perfectly logical to me.

 

[jonhaxor]

lost vs stolen

I dunno .. reading the account of the police search there's something ironic about the whole thing seeing that the police were able to confiscate Jason's cell phone (among the cameras, drives, computers and such) and possibly disassemble it after he bought a supposedly "lost" iphone

no comment on the "truth" of the matter, but to me it seems that the prototype was effectively "lost" - then "found" by someone else, and I'm guessing the bar has a policy about their "lost and found" and the person who found may or may not have put it there

I have a hard time with the car or house analogies .. closer in my mind would be a piece of art, or a custom computer, or perhaps a recipe written on a rare coin .. has tremendous value to the owner, and may be quite intriguing for others to examine - but if the issue is around the possession and sale of certain trade secrets (which I'm guessing is where apple is most concerned) - that is indeed a gray area to gauge particularly when said trade secrets were not closely protected (in a loose pocket) and were subsequently "lost"

so to me - this is more like the soup nazi forgetting about his recipes in his credenza, or larry david attempting to recover his "lost pants" from the banana republic (somebody took them and the store wasn't responsible) and then selling them on ebay once they found out whose pants they were and how much they could get for them

all of this seems to me a bit orwellian to me with apple now garnering bad press on the other side of the screen in their old 1984 commercial .. if you guys just want to sit here and bathe in their b&w light mindlessly admiring their shiny gifts to mankind and worship the Jobs .. i'm thinking something else needs to really smash through the barrier that they're starting to create all in the guise of "thinking differently"

 

[aristokrat]

wow. bust down his door and seize his property. Seems completely excessive and unnecessary no matter how stupid it was for them to purchase the phone.

Despicable to say the least

I'm pretty sure this is standard procedure for warrant execution. You don't just come back later.

 

[willie0683]

I have a serious problem with the search and seizure. A professional blogger for a commercial blog (regardless of your opinion of the quality of their reporting) should be afforded the protection of the shield law. Great mischief would be possible if shield protections are only afforded to serious reporters. Who decides which reporters are serious? The White House does not consider Fox News a serious news organization. You can see how this can become a sticky wicket. So, regardless of whether a crime was or was not committed, the cops should not have busted down the reporter's door and seized his unpublished material. These strong arm tactics are problematic.

"OK, I am a journalist so you can't come in and seize my information about possessing stolen property". Please rethink what you are saying. Every thief in the world could use this line.

 

[BuddyTronic]

All it takes is the police feeling a criminal in their jurisdiction has flaunted their breaking of the law - that alone could easily be the motivation. I would think Apple pressuring them would have had the exact opposite effect.

Yeah, but Apple has a million dollar proto on the line with this one - it's big espionage stuff when you look at it. Someone could have just as easily targeted a few individuals just to make some AAPL rumours up to manipulate the volatile AAPL stock if they wanted to - by intention.

And that is potentially a much bigger deal than "Grand Theft Telephone" So yeah, you can get the police to act quick on million dollar crimes.

 

[LagunaSol]

Steve Jobs is the real Darth Vader, not Microsoft, and this proves it.

 

[boss.king]

Steve Jobs son of a *****, you are showing your ****ing ***hole face. Steve Jobs seems to be ***king Hugo Chavez balls.

What a witty and educated opinion
No one here knows exactly what happened, so why does everyone take such die hard stances on the matter?

This thread is LOLZ

 

[Moonlight]

A lot of people on here are saying a lot of things that they know very little about. Lets see where this goes and what actually is found before we jump to any crazy-ass conclusions, ok???

And if you just hate apple, why are you here? I am not on the Windows 7 rumor forums saying ****.

 

[quagmire]

Exactly. The Apple fan boys are idiots and give all of us a bad name.

Steve Jobs is the real Darth Vader, not Microsoft, and this proves it.

They took the Gizmodo guy's iphone, google phone, multiple desktops, iPad, macbook, iMac.
They took hard drives and USB drives.

They broke down his front door.

If you bought a phone, even if it was stolen (which I don't believe for a minute that this was), do you think you would have this happen to you?

If you were a journalist writing a story, the law would protect you and you would be even less likely to have this happen to you. Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code states that no search warrant can be issued to a publisher, editor or reporter in electronic or print media, in relation to any story they were working on or their sources.

Apple is pissed and is wielding their power by getting local authorities to search this guy's house to send a message.

But this is going to backfire big-time on Apple. They will be sued and Gizmodo will win. AND watch the normally fawning media start issuing a bunch of stories on Big Evil Apple........

I love Apple, but don't like this one bit.

Apple went into the guys home and seized all that stuff?

And here I thought the title of the article said that the police did all that and they had a search warrant( debatable on whether the warrant was valid though.....).

 

[drummingcraig]

Why do you bring it home at all man?

Can't you leave it with the waitress or bartender and tell them you found it?

Would you like to help your fellow man, or are you just one of the majority who would take it home and see if you can profit from it somehow? Sounds like you are hoping you can keep it for yourself. That's not right.


I saw a guy at the swimming pool who found some sunglasses in an empty locker, and he said to his buddies "hey look what I got for nothing!" I said to him, "why don't you take it to the front counter so the guy who lost it can retrieve it from lost and found?" Then the guy was kindof like "finders keepers dude", and I was thinking like - "yeah, you are what makes the world such a nice place".

I'm done arguing over the semantics of this as evidently the law disagrees with me. However I will defend my position of taking it home with me and I will tell you why. I work in bars regularly. Most of the folks that work at them are honest people, but there are a lot of bad apples (no pun intended). If I found something as valuable as an iPhone/iPod I would not leave it in the hands of a random bar employee. As I said in a previous post, I would take it with me ,BUT I would have left my number with the bartender/manager.

Not everyone is out to profit as you imply.

 

[nickvisic]

Stealing is STEALING

GOOD FOR APPLE!!!!

i'm sick and tired of these people TAKING what is NOT THEIRS and doing what they want with it. He PAID $5000 for something that WAS NOT HIS.

i'm VERY HAPPY to see this. this is called CORPORATE ESPIONAGE!!! and it is NOT protected under your "i'm a reporter" act. you can report, but you cannot take somebody's property.

geez!!!!! did we forget what happened to thinksecret.com when they just REPORTED "asteroid."

don't mess with other people's property!!!!

morons......

 

[drnen]

I was just talking to a buddy about this last night. It was my opinion that apple was going to shut gizmodo down. I'm all for first amendment rights and freedom of press yadda yadda but gizmodo Took APART and posted pics of a device that did not belong to them. And while it didn't belong to them, they knew WHOSE it was when it was dismantled. As litigious a company as apple is they had to have known they were in a foggy area of the law. You are getting what you deserve Giz

 

[mattster16]

From an Attorney point of view....I can tell you that you are very very wrong when it comes to the sway a company the size of Apple has in matters like these and how they would certainly have been consulted on this issue and a decision jointly reached as to the action taken.

I know that very well. It would be foolish to think Apple legal isn't in discussions with law enforcement. However, this investigation is still wholly in the hands of the state. Apple is not a party to this investigation. The state also wouldn't do something they thought had no legal bearing. I'm just trying to get the point across to those on here who think Apple is somehow exclusively directing this operation and trying to intimidate Gizmodo and others involved for the hell of it.

It's also foolish to suggest Apple should just "let this go" as some have suggested on here.

 

[dscottbuch]

Um... no. He returned the phone to Apple.

This really seems like overkill and smacks of trying to harm him and Gizmodo by taking the data and equipment. Even if it's returned someday, there will be lost productivity and time and money to put temporary systems back in order. Since they'd generally grab backups as well, some things won't be recoverable until the originals are returned.

Of course if, as a 'real tech journalist', he followed basic backup policies he would also have an off-site backup in case of fire, etc.

 

[zub3qin]

"OK, I am a journalist so you can't come in and seize my information about possessing stolen property". Please rethink what you are saying. Every thief in the world could use this line.

It wasn't stolen. A drunk guy lost it.

Anyone think Steve Jobs should have a warrant on him for buying a stolen liver?

 

[dtich]

Do you really think the police would react this much or even get involved at all if one of us lost a phone that was then sold for $5,000 then returned to us? They might do something, but they wouldn't be raiding houses taking away computers and hard drives. It would be a very low priority case.

the thing here is:

a. everyone knows apple is super duper sensitive on these leak fronts.

b. gizmodo knew full well what pandoras box it was opening when it decided to not only to receive stolen goods, but to PAY for it. and,

c. the reason law enforcement responds so heavily here, and i'm sure much of it at apple's prodding/urging/screaming, is that this isn't just someone's phone they lost, this is a prototype, it is intellectual property, trade secret-type stuff. law enforcement has to take chen's computers because he undoubtedly has pictures and downloads of the phone on there, etc.


apple has every right to be very upset. gizmodo knew what they were doing, or should have... not their first picnic.

 

[Cartaphilus]

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.

All that matters is that the finder of the phone did not take reasonable steps to return it to the true owner. From Gizmodo's own reports (and they should be presumed to not present untrue facts which expose themselves to liability) the finder only attempted to contact AppleCare, and did not take any other of the perhaps dozen more effective ways to reunite the phone with its owner. He left the bar without informing the bar's management that he found a lost valuable, nor did he leave his contact information, so that when the owner contacted the bar, repeatedly and frantically, no one could help him. Instead, he simply sold something that he knew certainly didn't belong to him for $5,000. This makes the finder a thief under California law, and since Gizmodo also admits knowing these facts, it makes Gizmodo guilty of receiving stolen goods, another crime.

Gizmodo published the name of the Apple employee who lost the phone, exposing him to public ridicule, but concealed the name of the thief who could give testimony proving Gizmodo's guilt. It is altogether fitting that law enforcement should take those steps to acquire evidence of the identity of the seller of the phone to Gizmodo.

Whether this phone was a 2007 version of the iPhone or a gold-plated diamond encrusted prototype Steve Jobs autographed model next-generation iPhone, the law is the same---the phone is valuable property, not intentionally discarded, and it does not belong to the finder. If he does anything with or to that phone besides trying to find the person who lost it, he is a thief.

There was no need to wait before gathering the evidence required to conduct a full, thorough and fair investigation, and if the evidence supports a conviction against anyone, that person should be prosecuted and punished.

 

[optophobia]

......They will be sued and Gizmodo will win. ......

Ha ha ha. You obviously do not understand The United States legal system : The one with the deepest pockets always wins....

 

[quagmire]

I'm done arguing over the semantics of this as evidently the law disagrees with me. However I will defend my position of taking it home with me and I will tell you why. I work in bars regularly. Most of the folks that work at them are honest people, but there are a lot of bad apples (no pun intended). If I found something as valuable as an iPhone/iPod I would not leave it in the hands of a random bar employee. As I said in a previous post, I would take it with me ,BUT I would have left my number with the bartender/manager.

Not everyone is out to profit as you imply.

But, why not take it to the police station? Why not use the facebook info you found on it before it got bricked? Why not email Jobs? Saying the only thing you did was leave your number is not enough, IMHO as the steps I listed are not that inconvenient to do.....

 

[mattster16]

I was just talking to a buddy about this last night. It was my opinion that apple was going to shut gizmodo down. I'm all for first amendment rights and freedom of press yadda yadda but gizmodo Took APART and posted pics of a device that did not belong to them. And while it didn't belong to them, they knew WHOSE it was when it was dismantled. As litigious a company as apple is they had to have known they were in a foggy area of the law. You are getting what you deserve Giz

Taking apart and posting pics isn't the problem for Gizmodo here. The problem lies in the fact that they purchased the device itself when it was almost certain they knew it was stolen property. The whole point of this investigation is to determine if they knew it was stolen property when they bought it.

 

[katiepea]

it's funny how when the article came out these forums were alive with excitement. you ate the article up for breakfast and **** out rainbows while you dreamed of owning the device. now just as always, these forums blindly hold apples hand into the abyss of immorality. thank you google for advertising the nexus one at the bottom of the page, i juts purchased one and my iphone is now on ebay.

 

[esmode]

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!

If you lost your phone you would be the culprit.

 

[ouimetnick]

Because it's likely Gizmodo bought property from someone they knew had no legal right to sell it. That is illegal. In fact Engadget refused to buy it on advice from their lawyers.

Indeed. But NONE of this would have happened IF Apple didn't give an immature 27 year old drinker their magical and revolutionary iPhone prototype.