Police Seize Gizmodo Editor’s Computers

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When the cops have a search warrant to bash in your front door while you are not at home, you know you committed a serious crime…or you found an iPhone. Lucky we aren’t talking about an iPad, they would have shot first and asked questions later. :rolleyes:

Last Friday night, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered editor Jason Chen's home without him present, seizing four computers and two servers. They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. 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.
Click to expand...
 
I saw this article about a half hour ago and was wondering why it wasnt on the [H] Front Page yet. :p

So... all you naysayers... Is this whole timeline of events still a publicity stunt? :rolleyes:
 
This does not surprise me in the least.

Apple doesn't need to do anything, if they bought "stolen" property and they are guilty of a crime then the police can go after them for it. I'm no lawyer but thats the explanation I've seen tossed around.

Hope the exclusive was worth it.
 
I wonder how much those dirty cops took from Apple to be on their payroll
 
I thought that Gizmodo was going to give the phone back to Apple? Why this sudden crazy action? This is really messed up if you ask me. How can Apple have the police working for them on something like this? Sick.
 
I'm interested in whether or not Gizmodo's painfully obvious pro-Apple bias will remain after this entire debacle is played out.
 
Uhm, they paid for known STOLEN property. If a guy at a bar steals your phone and sells it to someone that is buying stolen property. It's pretty much common to law....
 
niconx said:
I thought that Gizmodo was going to give the phone back to Apple? Why this sudden crazy action? This is really messed up if you ask me. How can Apple have the police working for them on something like this? Sick.
Click to expand...

They did. In fact the particular writer who had his home invaded was the one that personally met with Apple to give it back once Apple said 'Hey that was ours.' The fact that one writer was chosen as the one to hand it over to Apple is apparently what made him the target of this raid.

If you buy something, then the owner says 'Hey, give that back, that was stolen!', you then hand it over right away after they state plainly that it was theirs how is that criminal behavior?
 
Limahl said:
This does not surprise me in the least.

Apple doesn't need to do anything, if they bought "stolen" property and they are guilty of a crime then the police can go after them for it. I'm no lawyer but thats the explanation I've seen tossed around.

Hope the exclusive was worth it.
Click to expand...

Since when does buying stolen property give the ability to confiscate your computers? If I buy a stolen car stereo off some guy in a parking lot, why would the police be able to take all my computers, camera's and anything computer related. Seems pretty abusive to have such a broad search warrant where nearly any electronic device can be confiscated.

If you look at the list of what was taken, it includes computers,printers, phones, flash drives, external drives and even an exsternal drive and hp searver :D
 
operaman said:
Uhm, they paid for known STOLEN property. If a guy at a bar steals your phone and sells it to someone that is buying stolen property. It's pretty much common to law....
Click to expand...

The guy found it, tried to return it to the owner (Apple), waited 3 weeks after telling Apple about it with no reply, then sold it to Gizmodo. Then, Gizmodo gave it to Apple the moment Apple said 'Hey, that's our property'. You make it sound like the guy went around pick pocketing people, then turned around that night to sell it to somebody else who knew it'd been outright stolen - that just isn't the case.
 
Guy should have turned the phone in to police, not sold it. Gizmodo should not have bought property from a guy when they knew he wasn't the owner and had no claim on the item aside from "IM 12 FINDERS KEEPERS LOSERS WEEPERS."
 
Crax said:
Since when does buying stolen property give the ability to confiscate your computers? If I buy a stolen car stereo off some guy in a parking lot, why would the police be able to take all my computers, camera's and anything computer related. Seems pretty abusive to have such a broad search warrant where nearly any electronic device can be confiscated.

If you look at the list of what was taken, it includes computers,printers, phones, flash drives, external drives and even an exsternal drive and hp searver :D
Click to expand...

Things that could have, and were used to post pictures and material concerning intellectual property that's not yours and was not officially sanctioned by the company that produced it.
 
Ualdayan said:
The guy found it, tried to return it to the owner (Apple), waited 3 weeks after telling Apple about it with no reply, then sold it to Gizmodo. Then, Gizmodo gave it to Apple the moment Apple said 'Hey, that's our property'. You make it sound like the guy went around pick pocketing people, then turned around that night to sell it to somebody else who knew it'd been outright stolen - that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Someone linked the California statute in another thread around here. It says that if you don't try to locate the owner it is theft.

It's now an issue of fact whether the people at Gizmodo did attempt to locate them in a manner that satisfies the statute. Issues of fact are decided by the jury, unless the facts are stipulated by both parties.

I don't see anyone getting convicted over this in the long run, but it's not that crazy for the D.A. to at least bring a case.
 
Crax said:
Since when does buying stolen property give the ability to confiscate your computers? If I buy a stolen car stereo off some guy in a parking lot, why would the police be able to take all my computers, camera's and anything computer related. Seems pretty abusive to have such a broad search warrant where nearly any electronic device can be confiscated.

If you look at the list of what was taken, it includes computers,printers, phones, flash drives, external drives and even an exsternal drive and hp searver :D
Click to expand...

well, for some reason, I have a feeling that this wasn't really a "lost" phone if they seized his computers (or not nearly an innocent as the editor made it sound).
 
wow, i guess he's lucky Apple didn't execute the " BURN YOUR DAMN HOUSE DOWN AND TAKE YOUR SPLEEN!!" clause agreed to by mearly touching any Apple product :rolleyes::eek:
 
FranklyShankly said:
Someone linked the California statute in another thread around here. It says that if you don't try to locate the owner it is theft.

It's now an issue of fact whether the people at Gizmodo did attempt to locate them in a manner that satisfies the statute. Issues of fact are decided by the jury, unless the facts are stipulated by both parties.

I don't see anyone getting convicted over this in the long run, but it's not that crazy for the D.A. to at least bring a case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not only did they locate them but they gave it back to the owner. There's nothing in the law about not being able to photograph something before giving it back.
 
LOL! Big brother is coming for JOO!!

You have to ask, WTF was everyone involved thinking?

Apple on some mad power trip.
A DA on a witch hunt.
I mean really what other circumstances would they break into a house and confiscate computers for a phone?
 
QHalo said:
Things that could have, and were used to post pictures and material concerning intellectual property that's not yours and was not officially sanctioned by the company that produced it.
Click to expand...

Pictures of a phone are IP? That's stretching a bit. Gizmodo didn't post circuit diagrams, chip designs, and firmware. It's pics of a damn phone that Apple gave to it's employees to use and apparently carry around in public. Apple is going get roasted in court over this one. The police too. Totally inappropriate use of police powers.
 
Ualdayan said:
Yeah, but not only did they locate them but they gave it back to the owner. There's nothing in the law about not being able to photograph something before giving it back.
Click to expand...

That's true. But there's a line somewhere. If they hypothetically did hold on to it for longer than they should have, they can't undo a theft by giving it back to the owner.
 
Ualdayan said:
The guy found it, tried to return it to the owner (Apple), waited 3 weeks after telling Apple about it with no reply, then sold it to Gizmodo. Then, Gizmodo gave it to Apple the moment Apple said 'Hey, that's our property'. You make it sound like the guy went around pick pocketing people, then turned around that night to sell it to somebody else who knew it'd been outright stolen - that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

This is all 100% bullshit. The guy found a phone in a bar and took it home for starters, that was the first stupid mistake. There is a legal way to handle this exact situation and he did not follow it one bit, that was his second mistake. He sold it to gizmodo days not weeks after he found it, thats the third mistake.

In the other thread about this someone posted California's exact laws about finding property and this guy clearly broke those laws and is a thief.

lordof7 said:
----------
CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 2080-2080.10

2080. Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge
of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract
or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is
thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and
obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or
private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods,
things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic
animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a
reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution
without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and
taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a
live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the
animal.

2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the
property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of
any part of the property.
(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify
the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that
it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police
department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner
of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the
property.

<snip>

2080.3. (a) If the reported value of the property is two hundred
fifty dollars ($250) or more and no owner appears and proves his or
her ownership of the property within 90 days, the police department
or sheriff's department shall cause notice of the property to be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. If,
after seven days following the first publication of the notice, no
owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the property and the
person who found or saved the property pays the cost of the
publication, the title shall vest in the person who found or saved
the property unless the property was found in the course of
employment by an employee of any public agency, in which case the
property shall be sold at public auction. Title to the property shall
not vest in the person who found or saved the property or in the
successful bidder at the public auction unless the cost of
publication is first paid to the city, county, or city and county
whose police or sheriff's department caused the notice to be
published.
---------
Click to expand...

You cant just go picking up shit people leave behind and think its yours.

What he should have really done from the get go is give it to the bartender there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for him to take it home. Even then he didnt leave a number or anything with the bar for them to contact him with.

His motivations where pretty clear from the very beginning. How else do you justify his actions?
 
QHalo said:
Things that could have, and were used to post pictures and material concerning intellectual property that's not yours and was not officially sanctioned by the company that produced it.
Click to expand...

Sure, and I could have written a note on a piece of paper while sitting on my toliet about the magical new iphone, does that mean they should confiscate all my pens, pencils, and paper as well just because it's possible it may have been used in an alleged crime? Maybe they can confiscate all my magazines too since I may have written a note and there is impressions from the pen on the magazine.

I hate the super broad "anything that may have been used" crap. If you read that warrant, any computer books or manuals he had on his bookshelf should have been taken too. All my old ide cables, network cables and other crap in my closet would have met the criteria there too. Not to mention my old 14.4k modem, floppy drives, and copy of wordperfect.
 
Personally I can't doubt Apple involvement although it doesn't appear that they are in any of the official documentation posted on Gizmodo's site so I'll abstain from commenting on things we just don't fully know.

I really think this boils down to the fact that it's so widely and publicly know that this act was done that it makes it almost a no-brainer type of suit to bring up and really a must bring up type of suit. Big targets make even bigger examples. I don't see this ending well for anyone involved.
 
Probable cause (& highly highly publicized) of theft of a very valuable device = warrant for theft, industrial espionage, whatever you want = you get your fucking door kicked in. It's Apple's property. Plain & simple.

Go LAPD!! :)

Shane
 
In order to have something stolen you have to have it taken from you without permission. Leaving a phone in a bar is and finding it is not theft.
 
Zellio2010 said:
In order to have something stolen you have to have it taken from you without permission. Leaving a phone in a bar is and finding it is not theft.
Click to expand...

According to the California statues, finding it in a bar and not attempting to return it to the owner is theft.

You don't decide the definition of a theft, the law does.
 
Crax said:
Sure, and I could have written a note on a piece of paper while sitting on my toliet about the magical new iphone, does that mean they should confiscate all my pens, pencils, and paper as well just because it's possible it may have been used in an alleged crime? Maybe they can confiscate all my magazines too since I may have written a note and there is impressions from the pen on the magazine.

I hate the super broad "anything that may have been used" crap. If you read that warrant, any computer books or manuals he had on his bookshelf should have been taken too. All my old ide cables, network cables and other crap in my closet would have met the criteria there too. Not to mention my old 14.4k modem, floppy drives, and copy of wordperfect.
Click to expand...

The first part of your post is comical and I'm just going to ignore it. The items in the list are items that could house or contain images, written product, or anything used to produce the images or written product for the article in question. I'm not sure how you're not understanding this.
 
In the fourth paragraph of Jason Chen's account of the events, what email is he referring to?

Also, the office said in his 25 years of working there, it was the first time he'd seen that. Was the officer referring to taking an email as evidence?
 
Apple would have been better to ignore the entire situation.


Gizmodo got a Win for buying the product and another Win by getting the doors kicked it.

Gizmodo has gotten a ton of free publicity.
 
Sgraffite said:
In the fourth paragraph of Jason Chen's account of the events, what email is he referring to?

Also, the office said in his 25 years of working there, it was the first time he'd seen that. Was the officer referring to taking an email as evidence?
Click to expand...

I believe that account is the account given to the Gizmodo attorney and he's referring to the email that the attorney sent him saying that what they're doing it illegal. That's what I got from reading through it.
 
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.
 
dR.Jester said:
What a crock of shit.
Click to expand...

Amen to that... they seized the equipment to ensure that there is no correspondence between the "thief" and Gizmodo.

I feel sorry for Jason he openly reported who and how he tried to give it back and in the end he gets f^cked! I hope he doesn't have anything illegal on those systems because they will prosecute him and make an example of why you should never F with Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top