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

dvdhsu said:
That may be true, but was the property stolen?
Did the one finding the phone take steps to return it to the owner? That is the real question. And even if the phone is deemed stolen, now they're issuing a search warrant for what?

If those phone was not stolen, the referenced laws apply.





In this case, Gawker wins. No doubt.

Here are my sources.

1.

2.
Click to expand...

But the police don't need to know who sold it to Gawker in order to pursue action against Gawker. They posted the entire details of their "crime" on their website, and the police were just taking physical evidence in order to back up their case for trafficking in stolen goods. This in no way has anything to do with the cited laws.

In fact, the only way they could refute what they've already published is by revealing their source, if the source had a different story to tell. And if they try to claim that they made up the story, then they probably lose their journalistic protection if they were lying in official "publication."

Gawker has had something like this coming to them for a long time.
 
This is the most bizarre and ridiculous situation I've heard of in a long time. But really, Jobs has proven that he is quite vindictive and willing to hold grudges for years - did Gizmodo really think he was going to let this slide? The dude is constantly on the warpath.
 
twilson said:
I like (hate) how Gizmodo is trying to hide behind Section 1070.

Looks a bit like Section 1070 has a lot more to do with a warrant not being able to be used to seize articles that would reveal the identity of an anonymous source, which has absolutely no bearing on this case as the whole internet already knows the identity of your source.
Click to expand...

Not true. Their real source is the person that sold them the iPhone for $5000.

arn
 
Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code references Section 1070 of the Evidence Code, which part (c) is summarize as this:

c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
Click to expand...

So basically they are arguing that they know it might be illegal, but because he's a "journalist," they can't take the evidence? Sounds like Gawker is counting on legal loopholes to prevent any real charges from being filed.
 
LOL Awesome! They BROKE the door down!

I'd say Gizmodo is in for it this time around.

They purchased what they knew was stolen property. Worse yet, they were fully aware that it was an unreleased Apple product ~ and further exploited it for financial gain.

Hate on Apple all you want... Gizmodo, shame on you! I hope it was worth it....
 
Gizmondo is lapping this up. Any attention equals page views to them. I'm sure their only regret so far was not having a video camera to record the popo.
 
brammp said:
Uh, no. Incorrect. He turned the "stolen" property over to Apple long before the police raided his home.
Click to expand...

It was stolen under Cali law because abandonment wasn't established clearly (losing something does not equal abandonment) and reasonable efforts (e.x. going to the public profile page of the Apple Employee who sat next to you and you saw on the lost device, sending a message)...Gizmodo knew it wasn't the seller's property.

At that point, Gizmodo bought stolen property, and under more Cali law, since the device was illicitly obtained, the revelation of trade secrets are illegal civilly too.
 
RT2020 said:
I don't care about the Apple side of things, but this ugly, slimy bastard revealed the poor engineer's name... so I'm glad he has this to deal with now.
Click to expand...

If Gizmodo didn't release Powell's name then I bet he would have been fired. There's two sides to the story.
 
penfool said:
I think this clears everything up!

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/2/12/3/s1524

1524(g)No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1070
1070. (a) 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 service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of
any information procured while so connected or employed for
publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication,
or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or
prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for
communication to the public.
(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.
Click to expand...

As I read this, everything is about "information", not something physical. Looks to me like had they paid $5000 for time with it, or $5000 for pictures and information about it, they'd be ok. But paying $5000 for the actual device itself is probably not covered.
 
Jesus christ, it's a ****ing phone not the cure for cancer. Did you guys read the inventory of things the police took from his home? Among the things confiscated was a box of his business cards. Lolwut? And unless you live under a rock, everybody and their brother knows that Chen took possesion of the phone, so was it really necessary to bust down his door and take that much gear especially when Apple more than likely already has their jesus phone back?
 
*LTD* said:
stevejobs630x.jpg
Click to expand...

amazing. haha
 
fake

I still think the whole thing is fake and made up by Gizmodo and Apple isn't saying anything because its free press about the iPhone.
 
STEVESKI07 said:
I think the fact that the police are involved shows that it is not just a marketing scheme. The police won't go along with a hoax because Apple asked them too.
Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know the police can't be bought... Not even for 16 BILLION FREAKING DOLLARS...
 
sswanky said:
Sorry, but the police would have done nothing w/o a complaint from Apple.
Click to expand...

Correct but it is well within apple's rights to do this. And would be negligent for them not to due to the potential damage to their company. They reported what they thought was criminal behaviour surrounding their prototype phone and trade secrets and it is up to the police to investigate.
 
I wish Apple would sue Gizmodo into oblivion. They are NOT journalists, they purchased STOLEN PROPERTY, and did it all for page hits.

I've personally boycotted their site from all of my browsers because of this.
 
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