Police Seize Gizmodo Editor’s Computers

I'm not sure what to make of this whole thing but i do have a couple questions regarding both sides of the story.

1. why did the guy who found it not attempt to reach the guy who lost it if he supposedely had access to his facebook page and knew who he was?

2. why are the police bashing this guy's door in after apple has already recovered this lost phone? did the police just catch wind of this and decide to investigate? is apple pressing charges?
while it may not have changed possesion in the most appropriate way, it still made it's way back to the company that made it.
 
IMO, this whole thing is a giant clusterf**k.

Gizmodo did something illegal.
The DA and courts approved an illegal warrant.

The whole time I see Steve Jobs sitting back, trying to act the victim, all the while telling himself (in a Montgomery Burns voice), "Free publicity, Excellent."
tumblr_kosr0e7Z8u1qz4teno1_500.jpg
 
Perhaps he didn't access his facebook page because then he'd get thrown under the bus for trawling through the guys private information?
 
thesmokingman said:
They violated his constitutional rights as a journalist. There's nothing they can do to him, and well this will give him a great chance at a counter-suit. Hello retirement fund, lol.
Click to expand...

I didnt know a blogger was what one could call a Journalist.

I am not saying he isnt, but then everyone on the net who posts regulary on the web can claim the same thing.

Unless the dude has actually worked as a journalist for a company or is a known freelance journalist outwith posting on some website, then to me he isnt a journalist. I dont know his history and cannot say what he has done previously in regards to journalism, but posting about hardware on a website is probably more like a hobby than anything else.

That being said, I wish the dude all the best and hope nothing else happens to him.
 
Kynnath said:
Wouldn't Apple have to report it stolen for the DA to start all this? Imagine this had been a publicity stunt by Apple and Gizmodo, then the DA sees the news and starts all this over a phone that was never reported stolen.

As someone mentioned a few days back over some other newspost, you can say whatever you want over the internet, that doesn't constitute proof that a crime was commited. In order for a judge to issue a search warrant, they'd need some kind of evidence, wouldn't they?

Dunno, I don't know how stuff works over there.
Click to expand...

Good point. Does anybody know if it was actually reported stolen?

Did apple publish anything about the issue at all?
 
flatrock said:
It sure seems like a reasonable place to start.
Click to expand...

Could have just left it there... Its a good place to START unfortunately he ended it there too.

flatrock said:
Since he was having trouble reaching the right people in Apple aware that he had the phone, maybe he could have some media outlet do a story on how the phone was found so that the right people at Apple would hear about it and then could claim the phone?
Click to expand...

That would have been the legal way to go about it.

flatrock said:
Does that sound like a reasonable effective way of notifying the owner to you? If he can get paid for the story, so much the better for him. He didn't try to extort money out of Apple, or prevent them from finding out where their property was.
Click to expand...

He didnt get paid for any story he got paid for stolen property.

flatrock said:
Do you really think that when he sold his story and transferred posession (not ownership) of the phone to Gizmodo that he thought they were going to keep it for themselves? They couldn't do that and write a story about it.
Click to expand...

It dont matter what he thought or what his reasoning was like i said before he didnt sell any form of story he sold a stolen phone.
 
I do not recall the guy who found it saying he tried to return it to Apple only quotr from him I saw was when he opened it up he realied he had a gold mine. He illegally converted prroperty not his whether he tried to return it or not and Gizmao isguilty of recieving stolen property and possibly illegaly exposing trade secrets. I seriously doubt that he is considered a joirnilist in the usual maning od the word the law was meantto protect print journilists from being foced to disclose sources.
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
I didnt know a blogger was what one could call a Journalist.

I am not saying he isnt, but then everyone on the net who posts regulary on the web can claim the same thing.

Unless the dude has actually worked as a journalist for a company or is a known freelance journalist outwith posting on some website, then to me he isnt a journalist. I dont know his history and cannot say what he has done previously in regards to journalism, but posting about hardware on a website is probably more like a hobby than anything else.

That being said, I wish the dude all the best and hope nothing else happens to him.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, if he's writing news articles, making a living doing such, I'd consider them a journalist. Regardless if it's a website or Wallstreet Journal.

"A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism."

Just cause you're not with a big company or any company for that matter, doesn't make you any less of a journalist. Maybe it might define whether you are a good one or not, but not if you are one at all.
 
Sly said:
Good point. Does anybody know if it was actually reported stolen?

Did apple publish anything about the issue at all?
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be reported to be investigated. Course they way they went about investigating was pretty much, illegal.
 
krotch said:
Pretty much, if he's writing news articles, making a living doing such, I'd consider them a journalist. Regardless if it's a website or Wallstreet Journal.

"A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism."

Just cause you're not with a big company or any company for that matter, doesn't make you any less of a journalist. Maybe it might define whether you are a good one or not, but not if you are one at all.
Click to expand...

I just dont buy the journalist crap. That would mean that Steve here at the [H] is a journalist and every other half ass blogger on the internet with google adsense is as well.
 
quimby999 said:
I do not recall the guy who found it saying he tried to return it to Apple only quotr from him I saw was when he opened it up he realied he had a gold mine. He illegally converted prroperty not his whether he tried to return it or not and Gizmao isguilty of recieving stolen property and possibly illegaly exposing trade secrets. I seriously doubt that he is considered a joirnilist in the usual maning od the word the law was meantto protect print journilists from being foced to disclose sources.
Click to expand...

Learn to type or proofread.

Anyways, he's a journalist, like it or not. He has the right to protect his source. Unless this case makes it to federal courts, at which point. The source is screwed.

As for trade secrets, it can be illegal or not illegal. All depends on how good of a lawyer they have.
 
Disposed said:
I just dont buy the journalist crap. That would mean that Steve here at the [H] is a journalist and every other half ass blogger on the internet with google adsense is as well.
Click to expand...

If the half ass blogger is meeting the requirements of a definition of a journalist, then yes. They are one. Whether they even make money or not.

As for Steve's hardware reviews, yes. That would be journalism. The reposting of news from elsewhere, no. Not journalism.
 
It's hilarious when we consider that all the major publications have online departments that lol you guessed it, BLOG.
 
krotch said:
If the half ass blogger is meeting the requirements of a definition of a journalist, then yes. They are one. Whether they even make money or not.

As for Steve's hardware reviews, yes. That would be journalism. The reposting of news from elsewhere, no. Not journalism.
Click to expand...

I just dont see how anyone should have protection to purchase stolen shit, reveal a companies secret IP to the whole internet and just be safe because "hey im a journalist".

But hey we can argue all day long about it, at this point its up to a judge to decide all these things. Arguing about it here isnt serving any purpose anyway.
 
Disposed said:
I just dont see how anyone should have protection to purchase stolen shit, reveal a companies secret IP to the whole internet and just be safe because "hey im a journalist".

But hey we can argue all day long about it, at this point its up to a judge to decide all these things. Arguing about it here isnt serving any purpose anyway.
Click to expand...

Likewise a police force and da shouldn't have protection to illegally raid a house.
 
Here's what I don't get about this scenario.

You pretty much have evidence that an illegal raid happened. You have no evidence that someone actually stole a prototype iphone, only someone finding it, trying to contact apple, and selling it for $5000 (Which is definately a bad sign, but still not evidence).

How can anyone come up with assumptions and defend the police force, the side which pretty much has obviously done something illegal?
 
No one has said that all bloggers are journalists, but some of them do fit the bill to be called a journalist.

I'm living in Korea. If I decide to start up a blog, where I review local restaurants. Their food, service, cleanliness, etc are reviewed. I post up something new every week with a new restaurant, would that not be considered journalism?
 
Zellio2010 said:
Here's what I don't get about this scenario.

You pretty much have evidence that an illegal raid happened. You have no evidence that someone actually stole a prototype iphone, only someone finding it, trying to contact apple, and selling it for $5000 (Which is definately a bad sign, but still not evidence).

How can anyone come up with assumptions and defend the police force, the side which pretty much has obviously done something illegal?
Click to expand...

IANAL, but you don't need definitive evidence that something was stolen to get the warrant. You just need "probable cause," whatever that vague term means. If their excuse is that they are investigating Chen for stolen property, then that might be (or is enough) to get the warrant. I agree that in reality, Apple probably put some pressure on the DA to use this excuse to try to figure out who the person who got the phone was. But politics and courtroom justice is all about spin anyway.

Journalism shield law only protects his source. They can still charge him with the stolen property business and send him to jail or whatever the outcome is. They can't force him to reveal his source, though. Now if the police/DA actually made the warrant out to say that they're looking through his stuff to figure out his contact, then that would be illegal but you don't get to be a DA by being that stupid. CYA is the first rule in public office. So to the letter of the law, the police really isn't doing anything wrong by investigating this stolen property charge.

Right now, if you can't already tell, it's debatable whether the phone was stolen or not. So they're gathering evidence to see if it's enough to bring charges. The case will probably be thrown out, but Gawker will have paid a bunch of lawyer fees in the mean time, and maybe that's part of Apple's agenda, just to get the small guy to pay in lawyer fees what they gained in ad revenue.
 
It comes down to "Letter of the Law" vs "Spirit of the Law"

If you're good you can make the law do whatever you want. If a set of laws were meant to protect the people, any kind of technicality or loophole will allow anyone to use those same laws to harm the people they were originally created to protect.
 
Was the prototype really remotely disabled first thing in the morning? How the hell can the person who picked it up contact the "proper" people from Apple using the data inside the phone if that's what happened? LOL
 
entropy13 said:
Was the prototype really remotely disabled first thing in the morning? How the hell can the person who picked it up contact the "proper" people from Apple using the data inside the phone if that's what happened? LOL
Click to expand...

Apparently he was able to get the guy's name and release it publicly, and at some point had access to his facebook. So apparently he was lucid and taking notes when he had access to the phone and could (should) have easily found contact points for him or his friends. This is what normal, non-thieving people do when they find a lost phone.
 
Disposed said:
What was illegal about the raid?
Click to expand...

The only reason they could possibly raid the guy is probable cause for "buying stolen property." What the computers have to do with the stolen property is anyone's guess. Seems like it was a way to justify looking around so they can find the other guy. They probably will not file charges against Gizmodo, and if they do, it's going to make Apple look bad.
 
a123456 said:
IANAL, but you don't need definitive evidence that something was stolen to get the warrant. You just need "probable cause," whatever that vague term means. If their excuse is that they are investigating Chen for stolen property, then that might be (or is enough) to get the warrant. I agree that in reality, Apple probably put some pressure on the DA to use this excuse to try to figure out who the person who got the phone was. But politics and courtroom justice is all about spin anyway.
Click to expand...

The police has nothing to do with the possibility of theft. They have no way to get a warrant. What "probable cause" do they have? The item was already returned to Apple. You aren't finding lost/stolen property at his house.

Journalism shield law only protects his source. They can still charge him with the stolen property business and send him to jail or whatever the outcome is. They can't force him to reveal his source, though. Now if the police/DA actually made the warrant out to say that they're looking through his stuff to figure out his contact, then that would be illegal but you don't get to be a DA by being that stupid. CYA is the first rule in public office. So to the letter of the law, the police really isn't doing anything wrong by investigating this stolen property charge.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely zero reason to raid his house. They can take a written statement for investigation if they wanted to or just use his article as evidence. Raiding his house and taking the computers. Sorry, pretty illegal there.

If they knew about the lost/stolen prototype, then all odds led to Gizmodo and showed that the person is a journalist. Even if they find anything in his computers on the source, they can't use it. Either way, I'm expecting the city to lose a chunk of change for this.

Right now, if you can't already tell, it's debatable whether the phone was stolen or not. So they're gathering evidence to see if it's enough to bring charges. The case will probably be thrown out, but Gawker will have paid a bunch of lawyer fees in the mean time, and maybe that's part of Apple's agenda, just to get the small guy to pay in lawyer fees what they gained in ad revenue.
Click to expand...

Even if the phone is stolen or not, zero evidence of it being stolen or lost is going to be inside his house. The only thing they can get from his house, is that he bought a lost/stolen phone. Guess what? No need to go raid his house for that. He already publicly stated that on Gizmodo. Simply take that into evidence.

Lawyer fees? It's called free lawyer, through taxpayers money. I'd say it'd be different if this is an actual lawsuit brought on by Apple, but this is the city.
 
Apple is such scum and the people that support Steve and his rotted apple are just as bad (mindless friggin zombies). All this BS over a stupid phone? Really? Resources wasted over a "task force" started by Apple themselves to raid a journalists place? Wow,,,how about using those resources for REAL crimes. F#$#$ Apple and there stupid yuppy products (and no I run Linux at home not M$ before you start with that bullshit....)
 
a123456 said:
Journalism shield law only protects his source. They can still charge him with the stolen property business and send him to jail or whatever the outcome is. They can't force him to reveal his source, though. Now if the police/DA actually made the warrant out to say that they're looking through his stuff to figure out his contact, then that would be illegal but you don't get to be a DA by being that stupid. CYA is the first rule in public office. So to the letter of the law, the police really isn't doing anything wrong by investigating this stolen property charge.
Click to expand...

The issue is that CA law says that a they cant issue a warrent except for specific cases. Other than that they have to issue a subpeona to allow the journalist to have a chance to challenge it in front of a judge before turning over what is being requested so that the individuals first ammendment rights can be properly weighed against the needs of the state.
 
keenan said:
Apparently he was able to get the guy's name and release it publicly, and at some point had access to his facebook. So apparently he was lucid and taking notes when he had access to the phone and could (should) have easily found contact points for him or his friends. This is what normal, non-thieving people do when they find a lost phone.
Click to expand...

I know that, but even I will be leery if I suddenly PM someone I don't know in Facebook and say "hey I found something you drop". I usually ignore people I don't know in Facebook...unless what I'm doing is "wrong"? :p
 
All I know is that all of the fanbois that support Apple in these ridiculous string of lawsuits and legal action should be required to add federal taxes to the Apple tax they already pay on their devices for wasting our courts time and money.

And if Apple is willing to go to town on a site as pro-Apple as Gizmodo, there is absolutely no one they won't try to intimidate or destroy.
 
I haven't seen anything that actually shows Apple being behind the raid. I see lots of people accusing them of being behind it, but no actual proof. Is it just a theory so far or has there been something that definitively points to them being behind it? I see people stating it as fact so I'm wondering if I missed a link or something.
 
1. Why are they putting a search warrant for the guy's house when in fact it wasn't him who purchased the device, but Gizmodo as a company? Shouldn't they be putting out a search warrant for Gawker Media then?

2. When and where does Apple say that it was stolen? Can you file a stolen property report on a prototype device?

3. Its actually fairly common for newspapers to pay money for scoops and such (i.e. paparazzi photos etc)

4. Did the judge who signed off on this even know what an iPhone was? Considering we have people like this doing the rulings?
 
No edit button >_<

As well, what determines it being stolen? If I found a wallet and opened it up to see who it belongs to, and I return it to the person based on the information inside it does that mean that I could get charged for theft even though its been returned? And can I be sued for damaging someone's property because they think there's a wrinkle in their duct tape wallet?
 
entropy13 said:
I know that, but even I will be leery if I suddenly PM someone I don't know in Facebook and say "hey I found something you drop". I usually ignore people I don't know in Facebook...unless what I'm doing is "wrong"? :p
Click to expand...

Pretty sure if you worked for apple and lost a prototype you would take anyone contacting you on FB about it VERY seriously.
 
The San Mateo County prosecutors office, while trying to defend their decision to storm the home of a Gizmodo editor, came up with the &#8220;bad guys win&#8221; quote of the day.

Wagstaffe said that if police had delayed, evidence could have been lost. "I think the people who are saying, 'No, we should have waited' and did it the other way first don't understand that in the world when you're investigating crimes, evidence sometimes gets deleted and destroyed," he said. "If you sit there and work by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, then bad guys win."
Click to expand...
 
Disposed said:
He didnt get paid for any story he got paid for stolen property.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation of the facts, but it is not the only interpretation.

You said it was reasonable to turn the device over to a media outlet, well that's what Gizmodo is. Gizmodo is not going to run a story without examining the phone and making sure it isn't a hoax. Their credibility depends on not getting scammed.

The guy who found the phone did have a story that was worth money. The phone was the proof that the story was credible. They can reasonably say that it was the story that was sold, and the phone was given to Gizmodo so they could verify what it was before running the story, and that Gizmodo would then be responsible for returning it to its owner when they responded after the story.

The hard part to justify is opening the phone up, but Gizmodo can reasonably claim they were concerned it was a hoax.

Are they pushing the edge of reasonable, definitely.

But it is not up to Gizmodo to prove their innocence in criminal court. Since Apple wasn't making it easy for the finder to return the phone, he can claim that this was a reasonable way to make Apple aware who had it and get it returned to them. Maybe not the preferred way from Apple's point of view. But if it has a reasonable chance of having the result of Apple getting it's phone back in a timely fashion, it's not a crime to not do it the way Apple would prefer.

In civil court where only a preponderance of the evidence is required, Apple has a better case against them, however if the activity isn't criminal Apple has a problem with gathering the evidence from a journalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top