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

[Wrathwitch]

Gizmodo = journalism?

I think MY big issue with this is: to the best of my understanding Giz guy gave the phone back to apple. To actually raid (maybe that wording is a bit strong) someone's house when they are not there rather than waiting for them to show up, or contact him, when I am SURE they knew who wrote the article and how to get ahold of him, he must have an iPhone or something, to bloody break into someone's house, warrant not withstanding is just bloody insane. Its not like he was a dangerous coke sniffing pedophile.


I knew Apple would not take this sitting down, but I think the police force behaved a bit extremely in their judgement. I can see taking the computing gear for evidence but SERIOUSLY..... breaking into someone's house rather than contacting them.......(and I don't mean giving them enough time to wipe everything as evidence either) They could have had someone either waiting outside the house or got ahold of him via his work contacts....

just my 2 cents...

 

[jav6454]

Purchasing stolen goods can be illegal, even if the buyers were not aware that the goods were stolen.

It can, if you can prove the person knew before hand. It's like saying I can sue you because you bought a Whopper from a guy and you didn't know the guy just robbed an old lady of the Whopper.

 

[Mystic385]

Maybe Gizmodo didn't release prior to the iPad launch because they knew the iPad might bury the story a bit. They waited till they knew they'd get maximum hits and air time.

This is no David and Goliath story. Gizmodo didn't just make an error or a misjudged step. this was a deeply calculated, well thought out and thoroughly planned release after their lawyers had been through the whole thing in depth. Jason would have recounted the story to Giz lawyers of how it came into his possession and the whole blog, articles, picture releases would have been all vetted heavily. That or Jason is an idiot. I think it's reasonable to expect Gizmodo put a lot of work into this series of releases.

 

[tingly]

That may be so, but unless the DA can find any hard evidence Gizmodo knew before hand, they walk clear.

They knew the guy wasn't the owner, to cut Giz less slack.

I bet the suspicion is enough since few know for sure that anything is stolen. The law would be nearly unenforceable if suspicion fell short.

 

[sths-gr]

It was the logical step to confirm. What would you have done? Disassemble and then check if it works after putting back together? No they did not. Higher resolution meant it was a prototype? No it doesn't.

So the poor guys at Gizmodo were trying to confirm whether it was a prototype or not.. ...and I thought they did it for profit

 

[dezeinstein]

Pissed!

That's it! I'm boycotting Apple products!
(Right after my iPad 3G arrives on Friday.)

 

[grs]

That may be so, but unless the DA can find any hard evidence Gizmodo knew before hand, they walk clear.

That doesn't look like too tough a burden from what we currently know.

 

[Millah]

Chen was in possession of stolen property, the police raided his house.

You have no evidence the Apple had sway in the matter, it could merely be the media attention.

Thank you, someone with some sense. It would be stupid to think that the DA in california didn't hear about this story, given its media attention. People don't realize that Apple can't file criminal charges, they can only bring up civil charges in court. The only one who can file a criminal charge is the district attorney, which he apparently is in the process of doing. And if you commit a felony, and the DA finds out, you better believe he will pursue charges against you. All these anti-Apple buffoons who think Apple is some big bad bully are just arrogant and misinformed.

 

[Dublinstiofán]

Good narrating except it lacked Jobs' near tyrannical secret keeping.

He missed the meeting

 

[ARF900]

Maybe the police are acting on their own because this is such a highly public issue they feel they need to do something so that people dont complain that they dont do anything.

 

[khunsanook]

I live very close to Redwood City, in Palo Alto. A person was found with a cell phone that belonged to me. The police contacted the phone company, tracked me down and returned the phone. The value of the phone was just enough to charge the guy with a felony...and they did.

For those upset at Apple...

I didn't do anything other than go to the police station and fill out forms to get my phone back. They decided to charge him with a felony on their own.

Apple didn't report the iPhone stolen...Gizmodo reported the iPhone stolen, complete with pictures and an endless posted account of how they committed the felony...oh, and to be extra douchey, they outed the engineer who lost the iPhone.

Lesson learned...don't steal. Don't buy stolen stuff. Don't post on and on about what douchebags you are.

Important post.

Those hating Apple through all of this are really clueless about CA law. I guarantee that there have been many similar cases that received zero publicity because the people involved were average joes.

 

[Tailpike1153]

It wasn't a matter of mere possession of lost property.
It was a matter of paying a third party for it while knowing it wasn't the seller's to sell.

You find my wallet, fine.
You find my wallet and sell it to a journalist so he can go thru the contents in great inquisitive detail and publish what he finds, I'm gonna have a big problem with that.

Thank you for your post.

 

[gleepskip]

When they are done with their analysis, the cops should mail Chen's belongings to willitblend.com.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

MacRumors wrote:
"Chen, who returned home from a dinner out to find the police in his home, notes that he discussed with the officers claims made by Gaby Darbyshire, Chief Operating Officer of Gizmodo's parent company Gawker Media that such a search warrant should be considered illegal under journalist protection statutes. Officers proceeded, however, with their search and seizure.

According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code."

1. You never discuss a search warrant with the police, because they are not responsible for it.
2. As far as i know Gawker Media has HQs in New York, not California. If the police searches some private or office rooms of Mr. Chen in New York, why on earth should then apply californian law?

God damn it! MR needs new story writers.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Gizmo-Gate is getting crazier by the day!!!

Soon Gizmo - apple and the world "aliens" will appear.

Next week - britney spears is tied into all of this

 

[jav6454]

They knew the guy wasn't the owner, to cut Giz less slack.

I bet the suspicion is enough since few know for sure that anything is stolen. The law would be nearly unenforceable if suspicion fell short.

That they did. However the description is about a product that isn't a regular iPhone. It could well have been an elaborate forgery (say hello to HiPhone) or a the real deal. Once again, a gamble.

So the poor guys at Gizmodo was trying to confirm whether it was a prototype or not.. ...and I thought they did it for profit

Profit is also a reason why they paid $5k. Nothing is done in this world for free, everything has a purpose or profit. That the phone was real or not is a gamble. It's like betting on a Blackjack table. You are betting you are going to beat the casino's number or get a 21. You are not sure, but you know the reward is good if you manage to get it right.

 

[jaykk]

the competitors definitely got 2 month head start, and apple is answerable to its share holders.

I bet all other tech companies are on apple's side as well, since they don't want their IP to be in public either, if any of their prototype ever get lost.

 

[quagmire]

It was the logical step to confirm. What would you have done? Disassemble and then check if it works after putting back together? No they did not. Higher resolution meant it was a prototype? No it doesn't.

Again, everything about it screamed prototype. iTunes recognized it as an iPhone( probably said it was running OS 4.0 or something). Higher resolution screen does further provide evidence of it being a prototype. iPhone's today don't have the resolution gizmodo claims it does. Of course the most blatant and obvious clue is the external case and the way it was covered up in the black case. Everything screamed legit before they dissected.

If they privately took it apart to further confirm it was a prototype and they did see it was legit, they shouldn't have posted the photo's. Once they knew it was legit and posted the images anyway, they committed Misappropriation of trade secrets. It wasn't like they did the tear apart live. They had the choice to post the photo's once they knew it was legit.

 

[hobo.hopkins]

It can, if you can prove the person knew before hand. It's like saying I can sue you because you bought a Whopper from a guy and you didn't know the guy just robbed an old lady of the Whopper.

That's not even close to an appropriate analogy. The buyer need not be aware that the item is stolen for them to be charged with purchasing or receiving stolen goods. All that has to be shown is that a reasonable person would have realized the item stolen, or too good to be true.

All of that legal subjectivity means that the hard evidence you speak of is not required for Chen to be charged.

 

[jav6454]

Again, everything about it screamed prototype. iTunes recognized it as an iPhone( probably said it was running OS 4.0 or something). Higher resolution screen does further provide evidence of it being a prototype. iPhone's today don't have the resolution gizmodo claims it does. Of course the most blatant and obvious clue is the external case and the way it was covered up in the black case. Everything screamed legit before they dissected.

I am sure if they privately took it apart to further confirm it was a prototype and they did see it was legit, they shouldn't have posted the photo's. Once they knew it was legit and posted the images anyway, they committed Misappropriation of trade secrets .

It screamed can be interpreted different ways. All your evidence points to knowledge it was a prototype AFTER the $5k transaction.

We know it is because they analyzed it. If you were given the device now and told it was a the next new thing you would have said, fake or knock-off.

 

[modul8tr]

I think MY big issue with this is: to the best of my understanding Giz guy gave the phone back to apple. To actually raid (maybe that wording is a bit strong) someone's house when they are not there rather than waiting for them to show up, or contact him, when I am SURE they knew who wrote the article and how to get ahold of him, he must have an iPhone or something, to bloody break into someone's house, warrant not withstanding is just bloody insane. Its not like he was a dangerous coke sniffing pedophile.


I knew Apple would not take this sitting down, but I think the police force behaved a bit extremely in their judgement. I can see taking the computing gear for evidence but SERIOUSLY..... breaking into someone's house rather than contacting them.......

Element of surprise. This is a criminal case.

They're not going to contact him and politely ask that he have all of his electronics (containing potentially incriminating evidence) stacked by the door to await seizure.

The reasons for this should be quite obvious.

 

[Bafflefish]

It can, if you can prove the person knew before hand. It's like saying I can sue you because you bought a Whopper from a guy and you didn't know the guy just robbed an old lady of the Whopper.

Under California law, you can also knowingly purchase a stolen good IF your intent for purchasing it, is to return it to its rightful owner.

If you knew before purchase that it is illegal, but only decided after the purchase that you wished to return it to the owner, it's illegal.

I think Gizmodo is making the claim that they purchased it with the intention that if it turned out to be an authentic Apple prototype, that they were going to return it immediately. It's a fairly fine line, but one that I think ultimately can be supported...

 

[Revelation78]

Not quite. They provide proof of getting an object that seemed to be an iPhone. It wasn't after playing with it in person that they got a confirmation it was. Payment justified within law.

Remember, Gizmodo (and staff) is innocent till proven guilty. So it's the DA who has to prove they did it, not the other way around.

To go on your post further, that's the reason the police seized his computer, phone, etc... They are going to verify what "exactly" Jason knew or believed to know about the device prior to purchasing it.

If the DA can prove he, Jason, reasonably believed that he was purchasing an iPhone prototype - he's done. If the DA finds that Jason took a "chance" on purchasing it, the criminal matter with Giz/Jason will most likely be dropped. Jason/Giz could still be charged, but they most likely wouldn't be.

Civil case is a whole different ball game, yet I doubt Apple will go down that path. The DA will argue that Jason/Giz had reasonable belief of its authenticity due to the sum that was paid.

One thing I find so funny in all of these pages, it was touched on and passed over by other readers, Gizmodo may not be giving us the whole story. I find it "funny" that they painted Gray as a drunken frat boy that lost his iPhone - so many people are biting on this like a hungry Bass.

The legalities aside that even according to Giz's accounts is still considered theft in California and most states; The truth could be so much different. That may be one of the reasons why the police got involved.

We, whom have common sense and know right from wrong, can give you multiple examples and cite actual state law - yet you still can't grasp why this is theft... Well I say, go ahead and start taking things, then selling it without doing your due diligence to find the owner and tell me how it turns out arguing with the judge that you didn't actually steal anything.

 

[jav6454]

That's not even close to an appropriate analogy. The buyer need not be aware that the item is stolen for them to be charged with purchasing or receiving stolen goods. All that has to be shown is that a reasonable person would have realized the item stolen, or too good to be true.

All of that legal subjectivity means that the hard evidence you speak of is not required for Chen to be charged.

What is too good to be true? That is very subjective on all levels in court.

 

[sonictonic]

I have zero respect for Gizmodo, even before this debacle. I also think they were extremely sleazy in this whole situation.

That said however, the police department obviously TOTALLY overstepped their boundaries here. Seriously, WTF. And I do not at ALL understand anyone here who casts any blame regarding that onto Apple. I don't care how big Apple is they do not control the police department or the legal system. They did everything that's in their right to do, and the police took it way over the top. Mr. Chen has an issue to take up with San Mateo's PD, not Apple, and while I think Gizmodo should be "punished" I also think the PD needs to be looked at as far as how the hell they handle something that was not threatening anyone's life or well-being.