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

Considering that the alleged crimes likely will result in millions of dollars of damage, the DA had better jump on it.
 
I've often said that opinions are like elbows. Everyone has at least two - and you've proven it by contradicting yourself. You say that if a law was broken by Gizmodo that they by all means need to pay for it. How? If the police are not allowed to execute a warrant, how can a proper investigation be done? Warrants are done this way. Judges have the discretion to sign or refuse to sign a warrant. Sometimes, even a warranted search is thrown out - but that is to be decided in court. Dilly-dallying around in determining that all the planets are lined up before getting a search allows criminals to dispose of evidence before it can be gathered. It was NOT a "RAID" - OMG - it was a search. They had to kick in the guy's door because he wasn't home. When cops have a search warrant, they don't stand on the front porch scratching themselves, hoping that no one is hiding inside, destroying evidence. They knock, give an opportunity for an answer, then enter. They will reimburse him for damage to his door. They did not trash his place. They got the computers and will search them. When they are no longer needed as evidence, they will be returned. If Chen hadn't fenced stolen property, his door would be intact and his privacy would not have been violated. Actions have consequences.

-=XX=-Nephilim said:
My opinion would be unchanged in any case...

I hate big corporations who are thinking, acting and ultimately influencing me personally with their draconian acts and attitudes!

This raid on journalist's home / office was direct attack on freedom of press and therefore myself (yes I take attack on freedom of press personally)...

To make myself perfectly clear - I am all for law and fair play!

If law was broken by Giz by all means they need to pay for it...

However, authorising draconian neo-nazi like RAID on guy's house and seizing his equipment without even priory confirming legality of such action is horrible and very scary to say at least... hence me saying that I hope it bounces back right into their corporate faces (although I doubt it will happen)
Click to expand...
 
lilo777 said:
You are wrong. Apple plays rather important role in this. We just learned that "The criminal investigation into the purported theft of an apparent iPhone prototype came at the request of Apple Inc., police said Tuesday.".

In addition Apple is on the steering committee of REACT which raided Jason Chen's house.
Click to expand...

And if something precious of yours was to disappear, then subsequently be bandied about on Youtube by someone who obviously knows it's yours (but bought it off some random guy in a bar anyway), well, what would you do?

Exhibit 1 (which is all the hard evidence we have at this stage).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImWRNzQrO8A&feature=related

To quote: "Hey, I'm Jason Chen and this is the new iPhone..."
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
However, authorising draconian neo-nazi like RAID on guy's house and seizing his equipment without even priory confirming legality of such action is horrible and very scary to say at least... hence me saying that I hope it bounces back right into their corporate faces (although I doubt it will happen)
Click to expand...

Why don't you get a grip and tone down your over-the-top inflammatory rantings and language and actually bother to read up on the law. Gizmodo's contention the searches are invalid is just that, a contention, and does not make it true, anymore than a defendant who says he's innocent of a charge is automatically innocent (or for that matter, a DA saying a suspect is guilty is automatically right). Gizmodo can contest that the warrant was improperly issued before a judge. Guess what: THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. Disputes over the legality of an action are settled AFTER the action by a neutral third party, otherwise known as the judge. But there's nothing self-evident that Gizmodo is right and the police wrong. In fact, it's far more likely the search will be upheld as valid than declared illegal.

Here's an EXCELLENT writeup of the issues on cnet's news.com that gets the opinion of legal authorities that don't have a stake in the answer:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1

Some excerpts:

It's clear that federal and state law generally provides journalists--even gadget bloggers--with substantial protections by curbing searches of their employees' workspaces. But it's equally clear that journalists suspected of criminal activity do not benefit from the legal shields that newspapers and broadcast media have painstakingly erected over the last half-century.

No less an authority than a California appeals court has ruled that the state's shield law does not prevent reporters from being forced, under penalty of contempt, to testify about criminal activity, if they're believed to be involved in it.
Click to expand...

Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who teaches First Amendment law, says that court decision--the case is called Rosato v. Superior Court (PDF)--means that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."

Translated: If Gizmodo editors are, in fact, a target of a criminal probe into the possession or purchase of stolen property, the search warrant served on editor Jason Chen on Friday appears valid. A blog post at NYTimes.com on Monday, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, said charges could be filed against the buyer of the prototype 4G phone--meaning Gizmodo.
Click to expand...

That criminal investigations can surmount journalist protection laws should come as no surprise. "It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws," the U.S. Supreme Court has said. "Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news."

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

Knowing that an item probably belonged to someone else has led to convictions before. "It is not necessary that the defendant be told directly that the property was stolen. Knowledge may be circumstantial and deductive," a California appeals court has previously ruled. "Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen." (California law says lost property valued at $100 or more must be turned over to police.)
Click to expand...

federal newsroom search law also does not protect journalists accused of a crime. The 1980 Privacy Protection Act says, in general, it is unlawful for state, local, or federal police to search newsrooms. Criminal proceedings targeting reporters are the exception.

Congress enacted the PPA after police obtained a warrant to search the Stanford Daily's newsroom, and the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the search was constitutional. The purpose was, in that heady post-Watergate era, to force the use of less intrusive subpoenas instead of search warrants--while allowing searches in which journalists were the ones suspected of the crime.

The PPA does limit police searches for journalists' "work product materials" and "documentary materials." But both terms are defined to exclude anything, such as a computer or phone, that "has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense." Prosecutors looking to charge Gizmodo employees with a crime--and, again, that has not happened--would surely say that the MacBooks and other seized property were used to illegally obtain what's being called the "4G" iPhone.
Click to expand...
 
calderone said:
Can you not read? I stated in the post you quoted the distinction.

Apple can ask the police, it is up to the police to decide whether they want to investigate.

Let's use a simple example.

My car is stolen and I think know who did it. I can go to the police and ask them to look into the matter, but the police have to decide whether there is enough evidence to act on the individual I have pointed out.

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

you are not a multi Billion dollar Company...pretty sure they have a tad bit more pull than you, unless that is you Sir Branson
 
You guys are unbelievable.

I can NOT believe that you would support an unelegant site like gizmodo over Apple :apple: .


Everything Apple does is for the benefit of us, the consumer. There is a reason Steve Jobs was named CEO of the year. I mean, why follow a site like macrumors if you are not going to give apple your support. I would have certainly turned in the phone to apple as soon as i realized that it was a prototype. Don't know about others, Seeing things prematurely ruins the magic for me. I think that Steve Jobs would have actually rewarded gizmodo for turning in the iphone prototype, but now they are in a heap of trouble.
 
hamlinspahn said:
The user that told you to commit suicide was booted from MacRumors, She came back with a new username bragging she beat them and was booted again, I will add she is back now with at 3rd user name but she hasn't been misbehaving this time.
:eek:
Click to expand...

Thats Crazy :) I know people are passionate about this issue. But it can get real crazy sometimes :D I Actually think it's cool that we have technology that allows us to talk in a forum like this.
 
If you know who a suspect is and have websites full of evidence, the DA will happily prosecute. Doesn't matter if you're Apple or a transient.
 
OK, time for a laugh now that Jobs has his precious back in hand.

iphone_my_precious.jpg


I'd be a lot more understanding if Apple didn't already have their phone back. This is just their way of going after the symptom when their own not-so-careful security protocols didn't work out as well as intended.
 
sclawis300 said:
you are not a multi Billion dollar Company...pretty sure they have a tad bit more pull than you, unless that is you Sir Branson
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which means they can present material from their lawyers with even more detailed information and the statutes that should be enforced. If the evidence and documentation is sound, that gives the police even more of a reason to act.
 
sclawis300 said:
Isn't the DA elected? You don't think if you had Apple in your back yard and you were in an elected position you would ask "How high" when they told you to jump????????
Click to expand...

It's not just a simple matter of Apple losing their phone. It's a matter of a multi-billion dollar company losing a prototype that affects the global cell phone market. There is now an unmeasurable loss for Apple in terms of trade secrets leaking to competitors, lost revenue in publicity and who knows what else. This is a serious case, and of course it will be investigated. I have no doubts in my mind that Apple has some influence over the law as they must be paying enormous taxes to the state of California, but Gizmodo and the guy who found the phone had all this coming.

Let me make one thing clear: I signed up for this forum to discuss this not because I like Apple (quite the opposite,) but because I despise Gizmodo.
 
swingerofbirch said:
Just saw this:

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

I can believe it, but it shouldn't have happened this way. Apple undoubtedly holds a great deal of sway in these matters. Apple lost a phone. It is despicable that a company as large as Apple then relies on and pressures public resources, such as our police, to harass and steal from someone who embarrassed Apple over having lost said phone.
Click to expand...

Like you or anyone else, all Apple could do (and all they did) was file a criminal complaint. Whether the police act on that complaint, and how they act, is entirely up to the police, the DA's office, and whatever judge issued the warrant.
 
I do not believe 'everything' that Apple does is for the benefit of us. The benefit is to them. They are a capitalistic (even if they are insanely liberal and claim not to be) company that is dead-set to make a profit. Yes, they make that profit by making incredible gadgets that we all crave.

This is an Apples & Oranges (yeah - ha ha) argument here. Gizmodo is a ridiculous organization of criminally-bent half-wits. They've fenced stolen property under the guise of 'journalism.'

Apple is the victim of a crime. Regardless of whether they're a company like Comcast (recently blasted in the news as one of the country's worst companies) - they've still had their intellectual property stolen.

I do agree with you - Gizmodo could have been a hero in this if they had contacted the police AND Apple, letting them know that this guy was coming in to sell a phone that wasn't his. They'd make a relationship with Apple that would be hard to damage - they probably would have gotten preview products from here on out to review. Instead, in an effort to scoop the other tech blogs, they've turned themselves into a pariah... and eventually, jailbirds.

gothamm said:
You guys are unbelievable.

I can NOT believe that you would support an unelegant site like gizmodo over Apple :apple: .


Everything Apple does is for the benefit of us, the consumer. There is a reason Steve Jobs was named CEO of the year. I mean, why follow a site like macrumors if you are not going to give apple your support. I would have certainly turned in the phone to apple as soon as i realized that it was a prototype. Don't know about others, Seeing things prematurely ruins the magic for me. I think that Steve Jobs would have actually rewarded gizmodo for turning in the iphone prototype, but now they are in a heap of trouble.
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad to see Gizmodo get a black eye for this, if only for the sole reason that they deserve some bad karma for displaying Gray Powell's personal info so prominently on their site. I also found it funny they blurred out Jason Chen's personal info, and that the yahoo article defending gawker was written by a former gawker employee.

If bloggers want to be treated like journalists, they need to start acting like real journalists.

gothamm said:
You guys are unbelievable.

I can NOT believe that you would support an unelegant site like gizmodo over Apple :apple: .

Everything Apple does is for the benefit of us, the consumer. There is a reason Steve Jobs was named CEO of the year. I mean, why follow a site like macrumors if you are not going to give apple your support.
Click to expand...

This post sounds like a plant. :(
 
-VoiceOfReason- said:
It's not just a simple matter of Apple losing their phone. It's a matter of a multi-billion dollar company losing a prototype that affects the global cell phone market. There is now an unmeasurable loss for Apple in terms of trade secrets leaking to competitors, lost revenue in publicity and who knows what else. This is a serious case, and of course it will be investigated. I have no doubts in my mind that Apple has some influence over the law as they must be paying enormous taxes to the state of California, but Gizmodo and the guy who found the phone had all this coming.

Let me make one thing clear: I signed up for this forum to discuss this not because I like Apple (quite the opposite,) but because I despise Gizmodo.
Click to expand...

I understand that it is more than a phone. However, I am not sure that I agree with you that the loss is "unmeasurable".

People were aware that apple was nearing the release of a new iphone.

The day the iphone hit the market people were going to tear it apart to reverse engineer it.

We already knew what it was going to have before it came out. Lots of cool stuff crammed into a little tiny rectangle. I don't think anyone learned anything from the tear down other than what it looks like which is getting mixed reviews anyway. I don't think the ceramic back was that big of a surprise, wasn't that already known?
 
In Chen's YouTube video, he pointed out that there was a front & rear camera AND a flash on the back. The supplanting of the volume rocker switch with 2 buttons introduces new multi-button functionality to the phone, allowing more combinations of buttons to be pressed simultaneously for new functions, presumably. Chen also pointed out the two microphones. My guess is, you're not an engineer working for Google, or RIM, or another competitor - but rest assured, competitors are examining the footage they can. As are marketers.

If, for example, I was working on an ad campaign for a new Blackberry, I'd point out how I can take photos in a dark room - iPhone can't do that. I could spend some money on studio time, actors, voiceovers, etc. producing a commercial that will be an embarrassment once the new iPhone launches. Oh wait - I don't need to spend any money. Thanks, Gizmodo - thanks for letting me know I can change the direction of my ad campaign.

If, for example, I'm trying to build a better Palm Pre and as an engineer, have a great idea (or so I thought) on how to include some noise canceling into the phone itself. Palm is floundering and doesn't have the R&D budget that Apple does... but Gizmodo just helped Palm out. Now Palm can ride the coat tails of Apple's research and jump ahead and put in two microphones - one by the ear piece and try to figure out if they can get some good noise canceling affects that way.

The damage Gizmodo has done to this iPhone cycle is indeed immeasurable. Had the article made it to the web a few days before launch - probably not - but months? Will Apple die on the vine? Of course not. That does not, however, diminish the culpability of Gizmodo's staff.

sclawis300 said:
I understand that it is more than a phone. However, I am not sure that I agree with you that the loss is "unmeasurable".

People were aware that apple was nearing the release of a new iphone.

The day the iphone hit the market people were going to tear it apart to reverse engineer it.

We already knew what it was going to have before it came out. Lots of cool stuff crammed into a little tiny rectangle. I don't think anyone learned anything from the tear down other than what it looks like which is getting mixed reviews anyway. I don't think the ceramic back was that big of a surprise, wasn't that already known?
Click to expand...
 
I think it's immeasurable, as in Apple won't be able to measure precisely what the damages are/will be. All they can do is guess how sales were affected and what competitor's reactions will affect in the next few months. They should have a crystal clear picture of the extra expense on the marketing while they rework it.

Apple has a legal responsibility to limit their damages, btw. If they don't react, it'll damage their civil case.
 
daxomni said:
...I'd be a lot more understanding if Apple didn't already have their phone back...
Click to expand...

Compensation for publishing IP is not as simple as returning the original item to its owner. The value lies in the secret, not the material item.

Suppose your friends and neighbours found out some embarassing secret about you via a stolen videotape uploaded to youtube. Would returning that videotape to you make everything okay?

Or as someone once said: You can't make a pig by running the sausage machine backwards. :)
 
sclawis300 said:
I
We already knew what it was going to have before it came out. Lots of cool stuff crammed into a little tiny rectangle. I don't think anyone learned anything from the tear down other than what it looks like which is getting mixed reviews anyway. I don't think the ceramic back was that big of a surprise, wasn't that already known?
Click to expand...

Things that were discovered that weren't known:

1) glass back
2) appearance
3) high res screen (though suspected)
4) front camera (suspected)
5) camera flash (suspected)
6) increased memory
7) use of A4-derived processor (suspected)
8) noise-cancelling mic
9) microsim

Also, in addition to providing competitors with a 2 month head start on what the phone will contain, competitors also know what the phone WON'T contain.

Additionally, now people are more likely to postpone buying an iphone until its release. Although we all knew something new was coming, the general public didn't. And news of the new features has made it to CNN, the NY Times, etc - the general public is now aware of all this.
 
So let me get this straight.

Since I have a blogger.com account, I can break the law and be protected by the shield laws? Should the shield law no longer apply if I knowingly and deliberately break the law and bribe someone to break the law or knowingly purchase stolen goods? Should the litmus test be whether the situation involves the public's right to know? Does the public have a right to know about a tech companies tech secrets? I think not.

We do not live under the Napoleonic code but rather common law which is not a strictly codified law. Intent is important under common law. Gizmodo was not out to inform the public about something they had a right to know but rather they intentionally broke the law for the sole purpose of profiting from page views.
 
lilo777 said:
You are wrong. Apple plays rather important role in this. We just learned that "The criminal investigation into the purported theft of an apparent iPhone prototype came at the request of Apple Inc., police said Tuesday.".

In addition Apple is on the steering committee of REACT which raided Jason Chen's house.
Click to expand...

And so what?

My wife works in workers' comp for a construction company. They ask the DA for criminal charges to be brought against people for fraud.

It works the same way.

Did people seriously think some detective was reading the Gizmondo website and thought, "Hey, I can get charges brought up on them."
 
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