Police Seize Gizmodo Editor’s Computers

The police didn't wake up and decide to go get a warrant for this. Promise. This took someone with some political clout to push this though. Police have more violent crimes to worry about than one guy selling a prototype phone to a website. At least in California they do.
 
grit said:
The police didn't wake up and decide to go get a warrant for this. Promise. This took someone with some political clout to push this though. Police have more violent crimes to worry about than one guy selling a prototype phone to a website. At least in California they do.
Click to expand...

Unless they get paid a lot of money to play with the one guy selling a prototype phone.
 
I'm just baffled at this point by all of this. To me it was stupid enough they paid money for the POS, exclusive or not, who cares, in a few months everyone will have a review and hands on, and their story will be nothing more than yesterdays news.

I guess I just don't see the need to be "THE cutting edge resource" especially if it lands ya in federal pound you in the ass prison.
 
Steve said:
Stolen? I thought the guy LOST the phone?
Click to expand...

The guy LOST the phone, then another guy found the phone, then the guy who found the phone SOLD the phone to Chen for $5000 dollars, with both the seller and buyer fully aware that the phone was the property of a third party who did not, and absolutely would not, allow such a sale.

If you aren't a blogger, selling something you know doesn't belong to you is a crime, and buying something that you know doesn't belong to the seller is also a crime, and I don't think "I was doing it for a story" is a valid defense for being a willing participant in a crime.

If it wasn't for the $5000 dollars I'd have said the police action was totally unreasonable, and that Chen acted in good faith, because he had no reason to doubt how the dude got the phone, and he contacted Apple about it immediately, and gave it back, but by buying it I think they crossed a line.

Also I think naming the engineer and dismantling the thing was pretty douchy, but that's a separate issue.
 
MartinX said:
...the guy who found the phone SOLD the phone to Chen for $5000 dollars...
Click to expand...

Regardless of how the phone first came into possession of the phone, selling it basically makes a claim of ownership, taking something that you don't own without permission, then acting like you own it = stealing.
 
MartinX said:
Regardless of how the phone first came into possession of the phone, selling it basically makes a claim of ownership, taking something that you don't own without permission, then acting like you own it = stealing.
Click to expand...

Except the law does not state it as being stealing. Now he should have turned it into the police, as the civil code states, but that same code, does not say it is theft.
 
Well, if my phone gets stolen, we'll see if I can get the police to do a full up raid on someone's house to get it back...
 
krotch said:
Except the law does not state it as being stealing. Now he should have turned it into the police, as the civil code states, but that same code, does not say it is theft.
Click to expand...

In the post you quoted I was just justifying the use of the word "Stolen" in the post steve quoted, I'm not a lawyer anywhere, so I don't know what the actual crime is called and am not qualified to argue the semantics.

But from my personal standpoint, if I lose my phone in a bar and some dude finds it and, rather than handing it to the bar staff so I can just pick it up later, just sells it to some random other dude, that jerk stole my phone.
 
MartinX said:
But from my personal standpoint, if I lose my phone in a bar and some dude finds it and, rather than handing it to the bar staff so I can just pick it up later, just sells it to some random other dude, that jerk stole my phone.
Click to expand...

I don't see how YOU losing your own phone suddenly makes someone else guilty of theft when they sell what they found. It may not be morally right, but I wouldn't honestly accuse someone of stealing my phone if I were the one responsible for it becoming lost in the first place.
 
Disposed said:
No he did not, i dont know what part is unclear about that the statute to you but he did absolutely nothing he should have done. You should probably read it again for yourself.

Obviously calling apple would get him nowhere which is why he should have taken the phone directly to the fucking police like the LAW SAYS.



No matter how you look at it he had no right to sell it and its pretty clear doing so was illegal.

If apple employees where giving him the run around when he called he should have turned it over to the police.

If you lost your phone and whoever found it called your work and didnt find you does that make the phone all of a sudden his?
Click to expand...

AMEN
 
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...

Too bad that in their zealousness, the Mac Lovers, Apple, and the detective who only wanted to become famous ignored, oh, I don't know, California State Law, Federal Law, Circuit Court Precedents, California SC Precedents, Federal Appeals Court Precedents, USSC Precedent, and this ancient documents called the Bill of Rights, which itself was just an amendment to an even older document called the US Constitution.

They wouldn't have violated the law if the guy hadn't been a journalist doing work in line with his duties of being a journalists... but they knew full well and good before they did it that they could not get a warrant without violating the law. I'm wondering whether they just conveniently forgot to tell the judge that part, or whether the judge who signed off on the warrant needs to be rebuked, as well, for allowing an illegal search warrant to be issued.
 
guitarslingerchris said:
I don't see how YOU losing your own phone suddenly makes someone else guilty of theft when they sell what they found. It may not be morally right, but I wouldn't honestly accuse someone of stealing my phone if I were the one responsible for it becoming lost in the first place.
Click to expand...

Finders keepers isn't a real thing past the age of about 8.

It might be boneheaded, but I don't think accidentally leaving something behind in a bar dissolves all ownership rights.

Much like forgetting where you parked your car doesn't make it okay for someone else to just take it.
 
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...

Which is protected as a journalistic endeavor under both California and US Federal Law.

Sorry, EPIC FAIL on your reasoning; you obviously didn't read the letter that was GIVEN TO THE DETECTIVE BEFORE he went and got the warrant, which specifically detailed why he could not legally ask for the warrant that he received, and why Gizmodo was not obligated to give any further information. The Detective went and got a warrant anyway, which means HE broke the law; considering that he had the law in his hands at the time he did it, he misrepresented himself to the judge, or the judge ignored the law. If he misrepresented himself, then he's going to prison for perjury. If he didn't misrepresent himself, he might STILL be going to jail, though not prison, and Gizmodo needs to lawyer up, and get a judge to file an immediate cease service while they begin the lawsuit against the Judge and DA for violating the law
 
dr.stevil said:
no?

http://www.evanwashere.com/StolenSidekick/
Click to expand...

Depending on state, if you make an attempt to contact the owner and nothing comes about, you get to keep the lost item after a reasonable amount of time. Course, that amount of time isn't actually defined.

In the state of California, you don't get to keep the item. It needs to be turned into the police. Course, still not theft. In the link, yes, that would be theft. The owner tried to make contact on multiple occassions with no success of retreiving the item.
 
Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers.

There is a difference between finding what is lost and stealing what is not.

Evil corporations hire jack-booted thugs.

Police state.
 
MartinX said:
Finders keepers isn't a real thing past the age of about 8.

It might be boneheaded, but I don't think accidentally leaving something behind in a bar dissolves all ownership rights.

Much like forgetting where you parked your car doesn't make it okay for someone else to just take it.
Click to expand...

Finders keepers is a real thing, depending on state laws. Majority of states fall under common law. In other words, attempt to find the owner. No luck? Item is yours.
 
MartinX said:
Finders keepers isn't a real thing past the age of about 8.

It might be boneheaded, but I don't think accidentally leaving something behind in a bar dissolves all ownership rights.

Much like forgetting where you parked your car doesn't make it okay for someone else to just take it.
Click to expand...

The difference being a parking place is an acceptable place to leave a car... and yes if you left your car indefinitely and never came back for it, it would be acceptable for someone to tow the car / impound it.

It's not stealing if you lost it...
 
interesting news…
2wfnx3s.jpg
 
krotch said:
So long as they can obtain a search warrant for the encrypted device, file, etc, they can force you to decrypt it.
Click to expand...

No they cant. That would be self incrimination. It would force you to prove that you had access to the contents of the "locked container" of which you would otherwise have the defense of saying "i dont know how that got there".

I know someone is going to argue contrary this with the case where a judge required the guy at the airport with the child porn on his laptop to turn over the encryption key, but this is not on point. The difference in that case is that the defendant had already "voluntartly" unlocked the partition once thus removing the protections of self incrimination as he had already voluntarly incriminated himself.
 
Here's how i see it.

#1 The guy who found the phone tried to locate and return the phone to whoever it belonged to. The night he found it, he was able to see a facebook page of the owner, and the next morning Apple had sent a command to wipe the firmware (most likely via MobileMe).

#2 The guy spends the next 3 weeks trying to get apple to take him seriously when he says "i found an iphone prototype, i'm sure you guys want this back, how can i return it to you." When they find this guy, i'm sure he'll have the ticket # to show this, email correspondence to back this up, etc. If he didn't have the foresight to do this beforehand, i'm SURE Gizmodo's counsel advised/forced him to do so before they were given the phone.

#3 Gizmodo acquires the phone. I had to assume that the people working at Gawker Media, and Gizmodo aren't idiots. Once they acquired the phone, i'm fairly certain they spent the next week calling apple (while recording the calls), emailing apple (keeping a copy) send a letter to apple (certified mail), etc.. etc.. So when the hammer drops they've got protection. Also, I assume that Gizmodo's counsel convinced the person they gave money to, that their needed to be a contract explicitly stating that they’re not buying the phone. Only the right to seek out the potential owner(s), the right to report on it, etc, etc.

#4 After 3 weeks of the principle “finder” attempting to contact apple, and another week of Gizmodo trying to find the potential owner, Gizmodo turned to their primary means of communication; i.e. web blog, to find the potential owner; and they were successful, and they phone I assume is now in Apple’s possession.

What they’re doing by seizing Mr.Chen’s computers is looking for any email, correspondence, ANYTHING which makes it clear that he knew it was apple’s prototype, and that he had one intention, to purchase it.

I highly doubt their going to find that, if it were me; I’d ask to see it in person, and if I were convinced; I’d immediately bring a lawyer into the room, and lock the doors.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
I love how the apple cult like disposed and such ignores such things as the DA, the police, and apple, breaking numerous laws, while bitching about what some guy may or may not have broken.

Selling it for $5000 may have been a bad move, but the item was already returned, the police had no right to break in, and esp. not at night, etc.
 
Blazestorm said:
The difference being a parking place is an acceptable place to leave a car... and yes if you left your car indefinitely and never came back for it, it would be acceptable for someone to tow the car / impound it.

It's not stealing if you lost it...
Click to expand...

Man, I'm pretty shocked at how callous and inconsiderate people are.

When the dude found the phone, instead of giving it to the bar staff to hold, or telling the bar management that he had it and left a number so he could be contacted if the owner came back, but he didn't, he just left with it.

When the dude found the phone, it had the owner/carriers facebook and twitter details on it (he told the journalists this and the guys name after it was remotely nuked the next day), so he could easily have contacted the guy saying "hey, I have your phone", but he didn't, he sold it immediately for $5000.

Totally aside from any legal stuff, that is douchebag behavior in my opinion, and not a reasonable way to treat another person property.
 
Its all heresay, but going on what was told to Gizmodo, the phone was working the night he found it, and not the next day; so while it opened up to facebook that night, the next day was a different story. Also, there's no gurantee that the guy who's details were on the phone, was the true owner. Knowing the scary levels of security apple wraps everything around in, it just as likely the guy who forgot it didn't actually own it; best to return it to apple.

As far as the bartender; they're not exactly a beacon or morality and honesty. Of everyone i know who have lost iphones in bar's; not 1 has come back, not 1 bartender has been given it, or admitted having it.

He didn't immediately sell it for $5000 he spent 3 weeks contacting apple, trying to get them to believe him when he said "i have an iphone prototype; how can i give this back to you?"

I see what you're saying about douchebag behavior, but i think some of the blame also is with apple for being douchebags as well. first for not giving the guy the time of day, so he could at least return the thing to them, second for painting him to be a thief regardless of the actual circumstances, and third for illegally seizing all of gizmodo's chief editors equipment on the whim that he might have something that explicitly states he wants to purchased stolen merchandise and keep it all to himself.
 
I think a lot of you are forgetting the real problem here. Why did they take his computers/servers? The equipment that was "stolen" is back at Apple. It doesn't make sense at all. Seizing stuff that has nothing to do w/ Apple's property.
 
Zellio2010 said:
I love how the apple cult like disposed and such ignores such things as the DA, the police, and apple, breaking numerous laws, while bitching about what some guy may or may not have broken.

Selling it for $5000 may have been a bad move, but the item was already returned, the police had no right to break in, and esp. not at night, etc.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but from all appearances it would seem that "night" as defined in California Penal Code Section 1533 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html) is between the hours of 10pm - 7am. As he arrived at 9:45pm and the search was already in progress, it would seem that they did not break in at "night".
 
digitalfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

they may be a tech rag but they are press none the less
 
I think the Judge and DA are to blame for this fiasco. Of course lawyers from Apple played a role when filing the police report but how often do police act on a little piece of "stolen" property. The police are pawns/peons in this little game. The Judge and DA were probably looking to score points with Apple Corporate for future campaign contributions. I would say they shot themselves in the foot because only negative publicity can come from this and Apple is going to have to try to distance themselves from these smucks. I hope MS makes a runs a series of ads poking fun at Apple over this but that's not going to happen cause MS has to much class for that.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
???? Are you saying the governor was involved in this??? Don't know what you are smoking.
Click to expand...
Just wondering if they're going on a search and destroy mission. :p And how come they needed the Superior Court to sign off on this and not a regular judge?
 
ShadowStriker said:
Just wondering if they're going on a search and destroy mission. :p And how come they needed the Superior Court to sign off on this and not a regular judge?
Click to expand...

There are Superior Courts and Inferior Courts. Any court of record, such as criminal courts are Superior Courts, any court not of record, such as specialised courts or juvinial courts, are called Inferior Courts. The main difference is if there is a recorded record of the proceedings. Often child matters and small claims are not recorded for the record (other than outcome) so they are not considered Superior Courts.
 
so many terrible posts, assumptions, and retarded people here. whether or not the DA is "in appl'es pocket" is irrelevant. There is the basis and potential for a crime to have been committed, that much is perfectly clear. the only way to investigate this possibility, and through the 1st eight pages not one person has mentioned, is to get a judge-signed search warrant to collect evidence. the police and possibly DA detectives will scour the items and see if there's any proof of criminal activity.

so we have:
  • The police or the DA's office receive a tip, probably/possibly from Apple, about possible stolen property that was later sold. maybe apple convinced the DA to investigate and maybe a police detective reads Gizmodo and hates apple products. We just dont,know.
  • the DA writes up a search warrant for at least the journalist's home for items pertaining to pictures, digital storage devices, etc that could contain evidence.
  • a judge felt the warrant had merit and signs it.
  • the DA takes the warrant to the police department, who then serves the warrant to the home of the journalist.

the ONLY accounts of the events we've been told have come from ONE SIDE. Is Apple going to publicly discuss this incident? hell no. not unless it was planned or they honestly didnt care about any of it. Everyone has taken grave liberties assuming that everything Gizmodo published was true. the phone finder may have lied to them in the 1st place, but they have no way of knowing all the facts for themself about how this man obtained the prototype phone. If he lied to Gizmodo, and is found guilty of theft, Gizmodo can often still be charged with a crime, like receipt of stolen goods or property. I cant imagine CA not having a law on the books for this, but i have not looked it up. i will assume they do.

IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU THINK THIS WHOLE ORDEAL IS BOGUS, A SETUP, OR AN APPLE BRIBE (LOL). There was enough evidence to convince a judge, and the law is pretty clear. Also, the police maybe have been investigating the "crime" and may have taken it to the DA with a recommendation to proceed (with issuing a search warrant). At the least, they probably would have tried contacting, and i think i read that they had, the journalist to gather information about the incident before the warrant was exercised. The police and/or DA may be truly only after the "finder", but if the journalist was not cooperative if giving them the information they desired, decided the journalist/company itself could be charged with a crime related to the incident and issued a warrant to sort the whole thing out.

in regards to the overall case, there will probably be multiple charges brought against the phone "finder", Gawker, and the journalist. I think all charges will come down to whether or not the DA thinks the phone finder, if his name becomes available, acted in the interest of returning the phone or in the self interest of earning an EZMOAD payday. CA theft law has been posted many times. some things are pretty clear:

  • This phone is worth $5000 based on the sale to Gizmodo and is included in the more serious theft laws.
  • The prosecutor (DA) has to convince a grand jury that the possibly of a crime was committed, then if found true
  • The prosecutor (DA) has to prove that the iphone was stolen at the bar, OR
  • The prosecutor has to prove that the finder did not adequately attempt to return the phone in a "reasonable" amount of time OR
  • The prosecutor has to prove that the finder attempted to gain (in this case monetarily, through the sale to Gizmodo) from the finding of the phone. The law says the lost item can not be returned, more or less, for financial gain. it gives the provision of an acceptable "finders fee" [my term, not in the law's text] which would be at the owner's discretion and not an arrangement based upon the return of the item.
  • If either of the previous 3 are proven by the DA, then cases can be brought against Gawker and/or the journalist for receipt of stolen goods (i have not seen CA state laws regarding this, so there may not BE any "stolen goods" laws) and against the finder for selling the good. These charges may be filed in advance, but i think all charges relate to a possible theft charge and will need to be proven by the DA for most, or all, of the related charges to be valid.
  • If the finder is found not guilty of felony theft, as i interpret it, then i see a very hard time convincing a jury, or grand jury if separate, non-concurrent trials, of any accusations of selling and receiving stolen goods. There may be other charges filed against of of the parties that do not rely on the "theft" of the iphone.


your thoughts on apple are meaningless. your thoughts on police are meaningless. your thoughts on THE LAW...are MEANINGLESS. Oh, and ignorance is not an excuse. The police detectives and DA may review the evidence collected and it may exonerate all parties involved and not file charges. this is just the 1st step of an investigation...gather evidence. search warrants are issued all the time that bear no fruit and the cases are sometimes dropped (or put in cold case bin :D).

for the record, i largely hate everything apple does, creates, or says. the law, however, is supposed to be blind and doesnt give a shit if the ipad is a huge waste of money.
 
Sounds like Steve Ballmer was pissed that Gizmodo was running all of the press on the iPhone not the next gen WinMo phones and called the cops...

Better run some WinMo stories [H]! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top