Police Seize Gizmodo Editor’s Computers

[Ualdayan]

This is the D.A.'s call, not Apple's. From the D.A.'s perspective, a crime was committed and now wants to pursue. Don't see how Apple is pulling the strings on this.

Well, let me ask you this: You lose your phone. The person who finds it contacts you and you don't reply for weeks. Then you contact them finally, and they say they sold it because you showed no interest in it. They give you the contact information for the person who bought it off them from Ebay. You contact the 2nd person, and the 2nd person IMMEDIATELY offers to give it back to you. You meet them and they return it as promised.

Now, do you honestly think you can call the cops, and they'll go and break down the door (LITERALLY) of that 2nd person, then take every electronic gadget they have for 'evidence'? I don't think so, and I doubt you do either. Clearly the cops are doing things differently because Apple's involved rather than an ordinary citizen.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

The guy who found the phone is indeed a thief. By law after Apple failed to claim the property he was required to turn it in to the police. He didn't, and instead he sold it, which is a second criminal act, so he is definitely guilty of a crime.

Whether Gizmodo and Chen committed a crime is a different matter. Receiving stolen property is a crime, but if you can show you knew who the owner was and purchased the property for the purpose of returning it to the owner then you won't be convicted. However, that is an affirmative defense, so the police and DA can still investigate the crime as if you were a regular suspect. Just like they often do in self-defense cases, which are also affirmative defense situations. So Chen and Gizmodo will likely walk on this because they contacted Apple almost immediately and returned the device. Apple might have a civil case, but nothing criminal will hold up.

As for the lawyers argument that you can't seize a journalists computer. If Chen is the one that purchased the device from the thief then that is not going to hold up at all. He knowingly took part in a felony criminal act and there is no journalistic protection that lets you commit a felony and then not be investigated exactly as anyone else would be. He will ultimately walk free but unfortunately, thanks to his own voluntary actions, he is going to have to wade through some serious crap first.

Seizing a reporters computer isn't lawyer talk - it's the law in California. Chen is a working reporter under the eyes of the law, and his employer paid this source for information on this story. When Apple claimed the property it was returned immediately.

Alleging that Chen was knowingly receiving stolen property is going to be a hell of a case to make. People who knowingly buy stolen goods don't typically tell a couple million people about it, and they don't normally interview the person they bought it from and tell that story, too. Chen's story was straight up journalism. Journalism ethicists can argue about paying the guy who found the phone for the story, but that's not a relevant point under this law. Checkbook journalism is just as protected as when a source gives a story voluntarily.

I'd bet lunch that the target of this criminal complaint is the person who found the iPhone. Apple wants his name and is using a theft charge to try to force Gizmodo and Gawker to give it up. Gawker refused under shield law protections (see their response to the search warrant) and now it's going into court for a judge to decide.

When they do get into court the claim from the finder that he called Apple trying to return the phone is going to be critical. Chen's story laid out some specific details about the attempt to return the iPhone. If anyone is ever charged, all they have to do is subpoena any Apple service tickets in this period related to anyone claiming to have an iPhone prototype. If those tickets exist, and if Apple can't show proof that they followed up, the criminal case goes out the window.

But I don't think Apple gives a shit about having anyone arrested or convicted of a pissant felony or misdemeanor. They want to make life as miserable as possible for Chen, Gizmodo and the guy who found the phone if they can get their hands on him. That's what this is about.

 

[Az Syndicate]

Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension. Section 1524(g) only applies to newspaper, magazines, other periodicals, press associations or wireservices. Jizmodo is none of those things.

I guess you have problems as well...

from
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html


"In 2006, a California appeals court ruled that the definition of "periodical publication" protects Web logs. "We can think of no reason to doubt that the operator of a public Web site is a 'publisher' for purposes of this language...News-oriented Web sites... are surely 'like' a newspaper or magazine for these purposes," the court concluded. :

 

[velusip]

The judge will probably get out of this one pardoned, unscathed, and continue their work ruining people's lives.

 

[ol1bit]

What a waste of Money. CA doesn't have any money to be doing this. I hope they bill Apple for it.

 

[ekuest]

personally i dont give a shit whether or not what gizmodo did was technically wrong. what apple is doing is just plain idiotic. they got their phone back, and gizmodo was completely cooperative and upfront about it. apples overreaction just makes me dislike them more, and gizmodo's classy cooperation has made me like them more. no matter what the legal turnout is, i hope the practical turnout is that gizmodo gets more readers, and apple get fewer customers. apple needs to learn that they cant just bully everyone around like intel and google and others do and get away with it. unfortunately there are too many fanboys who will always see apple as the great Truth. (althought maybe i cant really talk as i still love google and intel.)

 

[heatlesssun]

Well, let me ask you this: You lose your phone. The person who finds it contacts you and you don't reply for weeks. Then you contact them finally, and they say they sold it because you showed no interest in it. They give you the contact information for the person who bought it off them from Ebay. You contact the 2nd person, and the 2nd person IMMEDIATELY offers to give it back to you. You meet them and they return it as promised.

Now, do you honestly think you can call the cops, and they'll go and break down the door (LITERALLY) of that 2nd person, then take every electronic gadget they have for 'evidence'? I don't think so, and I doubt you do either. Clearly the cops are doing things differently because Apple's involved rather than an ordinary citizen.

Bingo! Does anyone HONESTLY think that this is all beyond Apple's control and that they are just bystanders? That BS.

 

[brian770]

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.

the law can say the sky is purple with dots and they are still not right.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

The guy who found the phone is indeed a thief. By law after Apple failed to claim the property he was required to turn it in to the police. He didn't, and instead he sold it, which is a second criminal act, so he is definitely guilty of a crime.

Overlooked this part.

By law, the item has to be valued at over $100 for that to matter. What's the value of a non-functioning phone? Remember that this clearly isn't an iPhone. It could be a Chinese knock off, it could be a kids toy. In any case, it doesn't work and it's never going to work again. Without confirmation that this is a genuine Apple prototype, what's the cash value of an iPhone-esque paper weight?

Apple had two ways to identify it as their property and as a real phone. One, they could have included some kind of external identification. They didn't have to foil stamp the case with "SUPER SECRET IPHONE PROTOTYPE!", just a simple engraving or permanent stamp of their name and a contact phone number or address would do the trick. Since the phone was inside a custom case, they could have done this without tipping off their testing program.

Two, they could have either set up the prototype to have a security splash screen informing anyone who turned it on that it was the property of Apple and any unauthorized possession was a felony. Number 2 1/2, they could have done that when the phone was reported lost and they bricked it.

If they had done any of this, then anyone in possession of it knows who it belongs to and they have a reasonable doubt to believe that it is not a Chinese knock off or a kid's toy. If they keep it, sell it, or publish details about it, then they can be on the hook for all kinds of criminal and civil penalties.

But Apple didn't do any of these things.

 

[krotch]

Apparently you have problems with reading comprehension. Section 1524(g) only applies to newspaper, magazines, other periodicals, press associations or wireservices. Jizmodo is none of those things.

Gizmodo is what you'd define as a wire service.

wireservice = They provide these articles in bulk electronically through wire services (originally they used telegraphy; today they frequently use the Internet).

 

[greenfrogman]

funny thread

personally its an big waste of time what they are doing and have way more better things to do, item was returned and apple got an good review out of it

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

As was already posted, this would be the D.A.'s call, not the LAPD.

And the LAPD is several hundred miles south of San Mateo County, but eh. Like Bluto and the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, he's on a roll.

 

[dr.stevil]

Overlooked this part.

By law, the item has to be valued at over $100 for that to matter. What's the value of a non-functioning phone? Remember that this clearly isn't an iPhone. It could be a Chinese knock off, it could be a kids toy. In any case, it doesn't work and it's never going to work again. Without confirmation that this is a genuine Apple prototype, what's the cash value of an iPhone-esque paper weight?

Apple had two ways to identify it as their property and as a real phone. One, they could have included some kind of external identification. They didn't have to foil stamp the case with "SUPER SECRET IPHONE PROTOTYPE!", just a simple engraving or permanent stamp of their name and a contact phone number or address would do the trick. Since the phone was inside a custom case, they could have done this without tipping off their testing program.

Two, they could have either set up the prototype to have a security splash screen informing anyone who turned it on that it was the property of Apple and any unauthorized possession was a felony. Number 2 1/2, they could have done that when the phone was reported lost and they bricked it.

If they had done any of this, then anyone in possession of it knows who it belongs to and they have a reasonable doubt to believe that it is not a Chinese knock off or a kid's toy. If they keep it, sell it, or publish details about it, then they can be on the hook for all kinds of criminal and civil penalties.

But Apple didn't do any of these things.

ignorance doesn't pardon you in the eyes of the law. Your perceived value is 100% irrelevant.

 

[Sikkyu]

apple buying the police? what?

 

[Wind]

What does this computer unit that executed the search do precisely? You'd think that in California at least they would be spending their time tracking down hackers, preditors, child porn online. credit card scams, personal info sellers, debit card scammers etc etc than getting Apple's iphone back, the haste in which this went down is amazing actually.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

ignorance doesn't pardon you in the eyes of the law. Your perceived value is 100% irrelevant.

Trust me, I'm right on this one.

It's not about perceived value, this is about what a reasonable person would think the phone was worth in the condition and under the circumstances that the person had it. Apple didn't respond to his calls to even ask if it might be theirs, and there are no identifying marks showing this is a prototype. He has no reason to believe this is a genuine Apple phone, and it is now totally inoperable.

Try to use your argument about, say, a prototype Rolex watch that no longer works. It's clearly not any Rolex that they've actually made, and it doesn't work. You contact Rolex and they don't get back with you. Should you still assume this is some secret, unknown prototype? Or would you have good reason under those circumstances to think that it was a Fauxlex knock off?

Criminal cases have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's a ton of reasonable doubt here. Apple made most of it possible.

 

[PynkFloydd]

So... all you naysayers... Is this whole timeline of events still a publicity stunt?

...it's up to the DA to prosecute a criminal case, not Apple. I've been arrested enough to know that! lol

I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have executed a search warrant for anything less than a felony charge. True accident or publicity stunt is irrevelant. ...although, Gawker probably would release more info in the defense (if it goes that far).

 

[bbf]

Of course a lot of the posts on this forum are based on the assumption that it is "fact" that the phone was "found on the ground".
The only evidence of this are statements from the people who were in possession of the phone that did not belong to them. Yeah, I *really* believe the Gizmodo guys when they thought "lost" Apple property wasn't the same as "stolen" Apple property.

In the Cops and bait car episodes I've seen, most of the "thieves" deny that they've stolen anything, they're just "moving the car to a safer place" or something similar. Yeah, right... It may be true that phone was dropped... but also maybe not. I wonder what the staff at the bar will say when they are interviewed by the police to see if they remember anybody turning in an iPhone?

Also, why couldn't have Gizmodo, after disassembling the phone and realizing that it *really* was an authentic prototype, sent it back to Apple or left it with the police? They didn't do that, they proceeded to post their findings on their website which generated LOTS of Traffic to their website. Thus benefiting from the stolen property, knowing that it definitely was Apple property. The guys at Gizmodo have hung themselves already... the police are most probably just looking for the original person who allegedly "found" the phone.

 

[BillR]

Dumbshit, read the statute again.

"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"

If he couldn't get a hold of someone at Apple to take it back, he's still required to turn it over to police.

The law is always a funny thing. Define “a reasonable amount of time”

 

[dr.stevil]

It's not about perceived value

exactly

I bet apple has plenty of documentation to prove how much that pre-production phone cost them to build. He obviously knew what he had, since it ran over to gizmodo and sold it for a pretty hefty sum of cash.

Criminal cases have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's a ton of reasonable doubt here.

I guess that all depends on what they find/found on the editors computer

 

[Derangel]

Trust me, I'm right on this one.

It's not about perceived value, this is about what a reasonable person would think the phone was worth in the condition and under the circumstances that the person had it. Apple didn't respond to his calls to even ask if it might be theirs, and there are no identifying marks showing this is a prototype. He has no reason to believe this is a genuine Apple phone, and it is now totally inoperable.

Try to use your argument about, say, a prototype Rolex watch that no longer works. It's clearly not any Rolex that they've actually made, and it doesn't work. You contact Rolex and they don't get back with you. Should you still assume this is some secret, unknown prototype? Or would you have good reason under those circumstances to think that it was a Fauxlex knock off?

Criminal cases have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's a ton of reasonable doubt here. Apple made most of it possible.

The only problem with that argument is that both the guy who sold the iPhone and Gawker clearly thought it was real and there forth the value argument of thinking its a knockoff goes out the window. If the dude didn't think it was the real deal then he would have no basis for being able to sell it If Gawker didn't believe that it could be real they wouldn't have bought it. Plus I'm pretty sure the guy who sold it said it worked when he originally picked it up so he damn well knew what it was.

 

[Nanan]

Stolen? I thought the guy LOST the phone?

Yep lost, just like my sisters iphone got lost at the bar, right out of her purse that I saw her put it in.

iphones are targeted for theft, all smart phones are really, if you leave it even remotely open to some one ganking it well it will get ganked.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

Hope the exclusive was worth it.

Depends... If anyone from Gizmodo gets tossed in the pokey (pun intended!), they'll be getting "it" exclusively as well.

I knew this wasn't over and was only the start. Just because you are a journalist doesn't mean you can go around all willy-nilly and piss on the law.

 

[heatlesssun]

People like you wouldn't last a minute in Caracas.

Which is why most people would rather come to America than Caracas.

 

[BravO)))]

Did everyone miss the part were the original finder got a ticket number for trying to give the phone back which apple blew him off?

 

[Derangel]

Did everyone miss the part were the original finder got a ticket number for trying to give the phone back which apple blew him off?

They didn't believe him. So its hard to say how that will be interpreted in court. Its likely the support people didn't even know that the prototype existed and that they're specifically instructed to not believe such calls.

 

[Techx]

i hope apple gets more bad press.. god i hate that company

 

[krotch]

I guess that all depends on what they find/found on the editors computer

Which none of it can be used.

 

[Insula Gilliganis]

Heard this earlier today during the "Geek Gamer Radio" podcast which below I transcribed selected portions pretty much verbatim..

The "lost iPhone finder" called the generic Apple help line and the generic Apple help line who had NO idea about a beta phone because nobody outside of execs and engineers do. They said "whatever, nice joke, that's very funny".. and they basically blew him off. After about two weeks or something like that, he approaches Engaget and Gizmodo and tries to shop the device and Engadget wasn't interested..

Under section 485 of the California penal code, "theft to include any incident in which a finder has an idea to the actual owner but doesn't take reasonable and just steps to return the goods." The finder of the lost iPhone is known to identify the Apple engineer through the Facebook app but oddly claimed to have only called Apple support.. The guy went into the phone and saw through the Facebook app who this phone belonged to and saw that this guy was an Apple engineer and instead of trying to contact this Apple engineer, he just called Apple.. Since this guy sold it to Gizmodo for $5000.. anything over $900 that you try to resell is a felony.

 

[stiltner]

But this explains why you're always so calmed until it hits you and why 9/11 and Pearl Harbor happened on the first place.

And thats the same reason a train was bombed in Spain too right?

Ignorant rube, go hide back under your rock. You should have your license to think revoked. Some people are stupid and keep quiet, you opened your mouth and proved it to the world.

 

[Drudenhaus]

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.

It's unlikely that would happen since law enforcement agents can only search the computers and related devices for exactly what the warrant stipulates. They would have to obtain separate warrants to search for illegal material that doesn't relate to the original warrant (and of course they would need reason to do that). Plain view applies to some degree, I think, but I don't recall the specifics since I took my last comp. forensics class.

 

[Sly]

Well, let me ask you this: You lose your phone. The person who finds it contacts you and you don't reply for weeks. Then you contact them finally, and they say they sold it because you showed no interest in it. They give you the contact information for the person who bought it off them from Ebay. You contact the 2nd person, and the 2nd person IMMEDIATELY offers to give it back to you. You meet them and they return it as promised.

Now, do you honestly think you can call the cops, and they'll go and break down the door (LITERALLY) of that 2nd person, then take every electronic gadget they have for 'evidence'? I don't think so, and I doubt you do either. Clearly the cops are doing things differently because Apple's involved rather than an ordinary citizen.

+1 this

 

[OkToBeR[hocp]]

But I don't think Apple gives a shit about having anyone arrested or convicted of a pissant felony or misdemeanor. They want to make life as miserable as possible for Chen, Gizmodo and the guy who found the phone if they can get their hands on him. That's what this is about.

If Apple really has no case and every charge is dropped due to lack of evidence then all accused parties have the ability to counter sue. Not exactly the smartest tactic considering the small amount of evidence we've seen already.

The D.A. is acting on behalf of Apple, that's apparent. I only see one of two things being the basis for these charges. Either it was never attempted to be returned or the purchaser knowingly bought a stolen good. Both of which appear to be false. There's not much else they can be charged with.

 

[RipperMac]

Yup....the Empire Strikes Again....and I don't mean Intel Christ its scary how much power these fucks have....

 

[PSYKOMANTIS]

Did anybody also notice that the entire page is flying an ANDROID flag??!??!

Can't suck up to Apple any longer, might as well go to the all mighty Droid!
Sorry to say, Gizmodo had it coming. I was really getting tired of their overly Apple-weighted articles.

 

[trynberg]

Anyone who doesn't think "favors" were involved in this action is hopelessly clueless! Cops busting in doors to gather evidence when the phone has already been returned? Sure.

 

[Derangel]

If Apple really has no case and every charge is dropped due to lack of evidence then all accused parties have the ability to counter sue. Not exactly the smartest tactic considering the small amount of evidence we've seen already.

The D.A. is acting on behalf of Apple, that's apparent. I only see one of two things being the basis for these charges. Either it was never attempted to be returned or the purchaser knowingly bought a stolen good. Both of which appear to be false. There's not much else they can be charged with.

Depends on if the return attempt can be considered a reasonable attempt. Personally I wouldn't consider calling some tech support monkey as being a reasonable attempt, especially since he knew the name of the guy who lost it AND had his Facebook info. He could have sent the guy a message on Facebook telling him he had his phone.

 

[Derangel]

Anyone who doesn't think "favors" were involved in this action is hopelessly clueless! Cops busting in doors to gather evidence when the phone has already been returned? Sure.

Its a high profile case from a big company. What DA would turn down the chance to make a name for themselves? It doesn't have to involve conspiracy bull shit.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

exactly

I bet apple has plenty of documentation to prove how much that pre-production phone cost them to build. He obviously knew what he had, since it ran over to gizmodo and sold it for a pretty hefty sum of cash.

But Apple did not respond when he tried to tell them about the phone. He had no proof it was a legitimate iPhone prototype until after he had sold it to Gizmodo.

You're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion to say he knew what he had. He had not opened the phone, and, as already noted, Apple made no efforts to identify it as their property. It could have just as easily been a knock off, like the fake iPads already showing up in Asia.

I guess that all depends on what they find/found on the editors computer

I hope they find a whole lot of 128-bit encrypted files.

 

[Derangel]

But Apple did not respond when he tried to tell them about the phone. He had no proof it was a legitimate iPhone prototype until after he had sold it to Gizmodo.

You're jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion to say he knew what he had. He had not opened the phone, and, as already noted, Apple made no efforts to identify it as their property. It could have just as easily been a knock off, like the fake iPads already showing up in Asia.






I hope they find a whole lot of 128-bit encrypted files.

Incorrect. He had proof that it was real because the phone worked when he picked it up from the bar. The phone was fully functioning originally.