Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

ddrueckhammer said:
Yup, but there could be reasonable suspicion for a warrant...

The real questions in my mind are:

1. Whether bloggers count as a protected class (journalists). I don't think bloggers are explicitly listed under the law.

2. Whether the receipt of a prototype phone, stolen or not, would be protected under the Privacy Protection Act.

On one hand, if Chen is being investigated then it would appear that the police were fine in getting a warrant rather than a subpoena. On the other hand, if the warrant was issued to prove the receipt of stolen goods, then the blog / Chen could be protected.
Click to expand...


Here's my take on it:
1) yes
2) The Privacy Protection Act protects them from disclosing sources, it does not apply if there is a reasonable belief that the "journalist" committed a crime. Otherwise everybody under the sun would start their own blog and say they received <insert stolen item> from a source and they are protected from prosecution.
 
quackquack said:
I'm just not sure how you prove that it wasn't a believable claim. Did Gizmodo probably not look into it very much intentionally? Yes. Can you prove this in court? I don't know.
Click to expand...

On its face it's unbelievable.

1) it had an apple trademark
2) it booted to the "connect to itunes screen"
3) it has a dock connector
4) itunes recognizes it as an authentic iphone
5) it matched gruber's rumored specs for the prototype
6) they SAID when they first published the article that they knew it was real
7) they paid $5000 for it
8) it was found in a redwood city bar
9) no one had ever seen any phone like it, including gizmodo which is in the business of reporting on such things

No one in their right mind would think gizmodo had anything more than a slight doubt as to the phone's origins. And that's more than enough to meet the knowledge requirement.
 
drummingcraig said:
WTF was he supposed to then???? :rolleyes:

The only thing I would've done differently was to leave MY phone number with the bar staff in case the owner came after it. Otherwise, if I found what I thought at the time was a regular iPhone, I would certainly take it with ME (as I trust myself to do the right thing better then someone else).

I'm also not gonna drop everything I'm doing and ruin my evening out by playing Sherlock Holmes. I'd wait till the next day (which is what they did).

If I woke up, found the phone to be bricked, then discovered it was some sort of...I dunno...prototype or knockoff....Im not sure at that point. But I'd say that contacting Apple in any regard is what I'd do (tech support or otherwise). If they blew me off...again, I dunno.

I just think there's a whole lot of ASSuming going on around here, and the little guy should get the benefit of the doubt for now.
Click to expand...

The little thief gets all the benefit of the doubt he needs--he'll be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But you'd have been completely off the hook; you left your phone number at the bar, and it was widely reported that the engineer who lost the phone called the bar repeatedly and frantically looking for it. He would have been given your phone number, and you would have arranged for it to be returned to him.

That's not requiring too much, I don't think, and you acted exactly like a reasonable person should. This finder, however, did not.

That's why he's a thief and you're a good guy.
 
Revelation78 said:
I've tried to explain to him over the last 10 pages and he never seems to grasp that. I've got no real problem with the kid, he just seems to think that if you didn't know something was illegal, you're immune from prosecution - which is not the case in the real world.
Click to expand...

Well, you can claim it as a defense. Ignorance of the law is an excuse. "Mistake of Law" is the legal term. However that works in court just about as much as the insanity defense does. as in almost never. And I believe like insanity the defendant has the burden of proof.
 
quackquack said:
Right, but what's important is whether they knew it was stolen WHEN they bought it. They claim they didn't. That's the key.

Just because the seller says it's "not his" doesn't mean he stole it. Obviously he did, but this statement alone isn't enough for Gizmodo to have assumed it was stolen.
Click to expand...

With Apple's history of keeping their unreleased products TOP SECRET, Gizmodo suddenly finds an unreleased iPhone in his hands? Come on. :D

Why would he pay $5000 for it, unless he knew he had something?


.
 
quackquack said:
If you don't know the LAW you're not immune. Not knowing an item is stolen is completely different.
Click to expand...

No it's not. If you are in possession of stolen property you are guilty. Depending on the circumstances the DA may chose not to file charges against you if they believe that you reasonably believed the item was not acquired through ill-gotten means.

Based on what Giz has posted, and I have posted for you 10+ times, they admit to knowing how long the finder had the device and that the finder did not satisfy under California law that he made a true attempt at finding the owner.

Because Giz stated it as fact they admitted that the device is stolen under California law by buying it. Thus they have no legal recourse, they can only hope that the DA goes easy on them.

Again, this has been said many, many, many, many times. What part of the above don't you understand. Giz doesn't have to KNOW it was stolen, because their own articles state that under California law they purchased stolen property.
 
trrosen said:
Well, you can claim it as a defense. Ignorance of the law is an excuse. "Mistake of Law" is the legal term. However that works in court just about as much as the insanity defense does. as in almost never. And I believe like insanity the defendant has the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Mistake of law is not a defense unless the mens rea requires specific intent. Very few crimes require specific intent.
 
ddrueckhammer said:
Yup, but there could be reasonable suspicion for a warrant...

The real questions in my mind are:

1. Whether bloggers count as a protected class (journalists). I don't think bloggers are explicitly listed under the law.
Click to expand...

As per my above link, Denton himself has said Gawker is not interested in journalism.
 
Revelation78 said:
Here's my take on it:
1) yes
2) The Privacy Protection Act protects them from disclosing sources, it does not apply if there is a reasonable belief that the "journalist" committed a crime. Otherwise everybody under the sun would start their own blog and say they received <insert stolen item> from a source and they are protected from prosecution.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my take on it. If the warrant was issued to force Chen to give information about his source then it was illegal. If it was issued to investigate a crime that Chen committed then it was legal.

According to this: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/

Bloggers aren't protected by the shield law...
 
Revelation78 said:
No it's not. If you are in possession of stolen property you are guilty. Depending on the circumstances the DA may chose not to file charges against you if they believe that you reasonably believed the item was not acquired through ill-gotten means.

Based on what Giz has posted, and I have posted for you 10+ times, they admit to knowing how long the finder had the device and that the finder did not satisfy under California law that he made a true attempt at finding the owner.

Because Giz stated it as fact they admitted that the device is stolen under California law by buying it. Thus they have no legal recourse, they can only hope that the DA goes easy on them.

Again, this has been said many, many, many, many times. What part of the above don't you understand. Giz doesn't have to KNOW it was stolen, because their own articles state that under California law they purchased stolen property.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not claiming to be a legal expert, but it's clearly not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Many articles make reference to the question as to whether or not Gawker knew it was stolen at time of purchase. Such as:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/stolen-iphone/

So maybe you're right, it's certainly possible. But I don't see why you need to flatly dismiss my assertion as "wrong" when it's a topic that's being acknowledged as legitimate across the web.
 
ddrueckhammer said:
That's pretty much my take on it. If the warrant was issued to force Chen to give information about his source then it was illegal. If it was issued to investigate a crime that Chen committed then it was legal.

According to this: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/

Bloggers aren't protected by the shield law...
Click to expand...

That says "bloggers with a day job". I think Chen would be protected because it's his full-time profession.

Shield law was officially extended to professional bloggers in 2006:
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case430.cfm
 
cohibadad said:
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
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the best course to investigate people who are being investigated for receiving stolen goods and complicity in grand theft, misprision of a felony, and misappropriation of trade secrets--just for starters--is to ask them nicely to bring in a backup copy of their hard drives, their documents, etc.? Don't you think the investigators would have been taking a significant risk that any inculpatory data could be erased or destroyed?
 
quackquack said:
Look, I'm not claiming to be a legal expert, but it's clearly not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Many articles make reference to the question as to whether or not Gawker knew it was stolen at time of purchase. Such as:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/stolen-iphone/

So maybe you're right, it's certainly possible. But I don't see why you need to flatly dismiss my assertion as "wrong" when it's a topic that's being acknowledged as legitimate across the web.
Click to expand...

See I'm not arguing if he knew or not. I'm pointing out that the law doesn't care, the letter of the law anyways. If he didn't know, the DA will probably go easier on him vs if he outright knew it was stolen.

Again, if you go back and READ my post. Giz clearly states the timeframe the finder had the device and that he didn't turn it over to law enforcement. When the finder then sold it to Giz it became theft. Giz clearly states these as facts in how it came into possession of the device. According to the law they committed theft. It doesn't matter if the finder said "hey I stole it off of some guy in a bar." The moment money was exchanged for the device it became theft because it was never turned over to law enforcement.

Now Giz is trying to hide behind the fact that the finder called apple support so it can't constitute theft. Again, the finder never turned it over to police so he didn't satisfy his due diligence, thus theft occurred.
 
ddrueckhammer said:
That's pretty much my take on it. If the warrant was issued to force Chen to give information about his source then it was illegal. If it was issued to investigate a crime that Chen committed then it was legal.
Click to expand...

It may have been to investigate their New York HQ (possible arrest/extradition) which would also be legal.
 
How ironic!

Is not it ironic that people frequenting Mac Rumors web site to read the latest leaks might be so angry at someone who tried to please them? Are not you the ones who [indirectly] paid for this phone? If you are so eager to protect Apple secrets, stop visiting Mac Rumors, Engadget and Gizmodo. Show them your class :D
 
Revelation78 said:
Because Giz stated it as fact they admitted that the device is stolen under California law by buying it. Thus they have no legal recourse, they can only hope that the DA goes easy on them.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Being complicit in a crime (or otherwise committing one) voids any shield laws you're otherwise protected by.

Shield laws are designed to protect the sources just as much as the journalist and are valid so long as there are no laws broken in the process (although contracts may be violated, but that can also fall under whistleblower statutes as well as shield law)

First the source (by "stealing" the goods as defined by CA law) and Gizmodo, (by receiving and paying for them), which means that the shield law is null and void. Neither Gizmodo nor the source has a leg to stand on.
 
katiepea said:
everyone seems to forget that extreme attempts at giving the phone back to apple were made, i am sorry but this is no ones fault but apples. i support freedom, and show me an apple philosophy or even an apple product that supplies that.
Click to expand...

Of course Apple products support freedom--they're wireless!

Freedom from having your property stolen from you is also a valuable right, don't you think?

And would be an awful abridgment of freedom if people who found someone's property in a bar had to go to all the trouble of leaving their contact information with the bar's management before taking it home? How much would you be suffering under the unbearable yoke of tyranny if before you got to sell something that belonged to someone else for $5,000 you had to contact the owner of the phone whose Facebook page you saw on the phone and ask him if maybe he'd like it back? Would you deem it involuntary servitude if you were required, before calling the phone your own, to turn it over to the police so they could locate the owner for you--assuming that if they didn't, they would give the phone to you to keep?

There is a difference between the freedom soldiers died for and unbridled license to do whatever we damn well please as long as we get what we want and the hell with anybody else. That's not freedom--that's anarchy. And sometimes it's also a crime.
 
Thought

Wow, I really thought that, once the cease and desist letter was followed, that it would be the end. Shows how much I know. I still think it's the wrong move, to do something first-hand to Gizmodo, from a PR standpoint. It just will always look like David & Goliath, even if Apple shows to be legally correct.

Maybe, with all the media attention given to the loss of the phone, Apple felt that they had to do something more decisive, in order to show that they wouldn't fool around in circumstances such as these, and that they take matters like this extremely seriously.

Overall, it's no one's proudest moment.
 
lilo777 said:
Is not it ironic that people frequenting Mac Rumors web site to read the latest leaks might be so angry at someone who tried to please them? Are not you the ones who [indirectly] paid for this phone? If you are so eager to protect Apple secrets, stop visiting Mac Rumors, Engadget and Gizmodo. Show them your class :D
Click to expand...

Just because people are interested in news about current and upcoming Apple products does not mean they think theft is an ok way to get that information.
 
wovel said:
Just because people are interested in news about current and upcoming Apple products does not mean they think theft is an ok way to get that information.
Click to expand...

But they are ok with people breaking NDAs to leak rumors. ALL info that comes to this site before it has been released has violated some law somehow. It is a huge pile of steaming hypocrisy.

The only reason most people are upset is because their shrine Apple has been embarrassed. If it was Microsoft or any other competitor they would be laughing and pointing. It's very transparent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back