Gizmodo Raided by Police

We now know who the 'thief' was...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=62491&tsp=1

It looks like the powers that be are making a run at this guy. I still say that confiscating Gizmodo's computers was overly aggressive. Gizmodo is, after all, a legitimate media outlet and should have special protections against revealing sources.

Another link:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ost_iPhone_seller?taxonomyId=163&pageNumber=1

holy cow this is so stupid

ihrsetrdr said:

In real life the situation is this:

1.Once the person who found the iphone ceased making his "good faith" efforts to find the owner, and instead decided to sell it, at that point it became theft.

Click to expand...

Actually, The person who found the Iphone stopped making "good faith" after apple told him that they didn't want the Iphone. Because apple keeps their info so secretive, when the guy called apple's customer support and told them that he found some sort of prototype Iphone, They dismissed the call as either a prank, Or thought the guy had a chinese / Japanese knockoff. At that moment, apple gave up the rights to the phone. They did not want it. The guy who found it should then be within his rights to sell it to whomever wants to buy it. At least, That how I see it.

By the official apple customer support telling him that they were not interested in the phone he found, apple gave up the rights to that phone. It was no longer lost, or stolen. They said that THEY DID NOT WANT IT.

Therefore, Gizmodo should be within their rights to buy the phone, since apple basically said they didn't want it. It wasn't the customer support's fault that the higher ups in apple want to keep everything so secretive, it rivals the military.

ihrsetrdr said:

2.Apple is the victim, not a party that deserves being the defendant in a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Not anymore. They didn't want the phone back. They stopped being the victim the second they told the guy that they wasn't interested in the phone.

ihrsetrdr said:

5. Gizmodo can be held answerable to the charge of receiving stolen property, should the D.A.'s office decide to go that route.

Click to expand...

Again, Unless my last read of the info on all this has changed ( It may well have ), I didn't think the phone was actually stolen. And even if it was originally stolen, someone did try to give it back. Apple said they didn't want it back.

As you can tell, I am taking the firm stance that apple shot themselves in the foot by being so secretive, that they accidentally gave up rights to the phone when the guy tried to turn it in.

Apple screwed up. They should put the band-aid on the wound, and get over it. It's not like this leak caused them lost revenue. It's not like it gave competition a leg up on them either. It was leaked 2 months early. Not enough time for competitors to actually use this info for their advantage. All this leak did, was generate a TON of hype for the new Iphone, and apple didn't have to pay a cent for it.

Actually, The person who found the Iphone stopped making "good faith" after apple told him that they didn't want the Iphone. Because apple keeps their info so secretive, when the guy called apple's customer support and told them that he found some sort of prototype Iphone, They dismissed the call as either a prank, Or thought the guy had a chinese / Japanese knockoff. At that moment, apple gave up the rights to the phone. They did not want it. The guy who found it should then be within his rights to sell it to whomever wants to buy it. At least, That how I see it.

By the official apple customer support telling him that they were not interested in the phone he found, apple gave up the rights to that phone. It was no longer lost, or stolen. They said that THEY DID NOT WANT IT.

Therefore, Gizmodo should be within their rights to buy the phone, since apple basically said they didn't want it. It wasn't the customer support's fault that the higher ups in apple want to keep everything so secretive, it rivals the military.

Click to expand...

That logic is hilarious.

As if Apple tells all of it's employees about current R&D projects, especially low-level tech-support.

Also, if Apple was not interested in it... then why go after the guy?


OF course, there is the off-chance that this is viral-marketing at it's purest form.... screwing up gizmodo and taking the legal system for a ride.... I'd be surprised if the guy who 'stole' it settled with apple and the court papers are sealed from the public...

madhatter256 said:

That logic is hilarious.

As if Apple tells all of it's employees about current R&D projects, especially low-level tech-support.

Also, if Apple was not interested in it... then why go after the guy?

Click to expand...

Naturally apple doesn't tell it's employee's about current R&D. But they obviously didn't make it known even to the Customer Support manager(s) to watch or listen for stuff like this. Also, It's apple's own fault for not having a proper procedure set up for the customer support to relay information like this, if they receive a call of this nature.

Apple was only interested in it AFTER they told the guy with the phone to not worry about it. Yeah, they naturally was interested in getting the phone back once they found out it was out in public. But it doesn't change the fact that apple basically gave up the phone in the initial attempt to return the phone.

I find all this very confusing. Several times, I've seen a celebrity's 'adult home video' get stolen, and suddenly it's being marketed by a company.

Not examined and commented on... Copied and sold.

In none of those circumstances were the offices of the distributor raided, computers confiscated... etc.

In fact they were allowed to PROFIT from the theft by buying the stolen property and reselling it.

How is this different?

oakstave said:

I find all this very confusing. Several times, I've seen a celebrity's 'adult home video' get stolen, and suddenly it's being marketed by a company.

Not examined and commented on... Copied and sold.

In none of those circumstances were the offices of the distributor raided, computers confiscated... etc.

In fact they were allowed to PROFIT from the theft by buying the stolen property and reselling it.

How is this different?

Click to expand...

Part of it is California State Law.

and with Celebrities, they'd have to prove that the stolen tape was stolen in california, and possible sold in california. Usually, the best they can do is go to court to get the website or company to stop selling their video. Cameron Diaz went through something like this a few years back.

Also, Steve jobs has the ego of about 25 Celebrities in one. He also has more money than most of the big name actors put together.

zexmarquies01 said:

Also, Steve jobs has the ego of about 25 Celebrities in one. He also has more money than most of the big name actors put together.

Click to expand...

I hope the next judge pops that and let the air out a bit. If the person who "stole" the proto came along as a witness and described his attempt to return the phone was rejected by Apple, then Apple would have no legal ground for his lawsuit.

I do like Apple but they do need to stop

A judge has ordered officials to unseal an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for the home of Jason Chen, an editor at Gizmodo.com, in connection with the suspected theft of the 4G iPhone.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FMPN901&show_article=1

I am very interested as to who said what about who in this case. There have yet to be any charges filed--which makes me question the veracity of the source of the affidavit. Someone must have made some very strong assertions in order for a judge to agree to a search warrant that includes seizure of property--especially considering that Jason Chen is considered a journalist.

I haven't yet been able to track down the text of the affidavit, but I'll post it if I can find it. If any of you come across it before I do, please post a link. I'm doubting that it will be easy to find even when (or if, if the decision is appealed) it is finally released.

Nevermind--I found the affidavit:

http://www.businessinsider.com/affidavit-on-the-lost-iphone-case-2010-5

More:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-apple-gizmodo-search-affifdavit-excerpts/

zexmarquies01 said:

Actually, The person who found the Iphone stopped making "good faith" after apple told him that they didn't want the Iphone. Because apple keeps their info so secretive, when the guy called apple's customer support and told them that he found some sort of prototype Iphone, They dismissed the call as either a prank, Or thought the guy had a chinese / Japanese knockoff. At that moment, apple gave up the rights to the phone. They did not want it. The guy who found it should then be within his rights to sell it to whomever wants to buy it. At least, That how I see it.

By the official apple customer support telling him that they were not interested in the phone he found, apple gave up the rights to that phone. It was no longer lost, or stolen. They said that THEY DID NOT WANT IT. .

Click to expand...

All these "Apple didn't want it back" comments are straight out of the mouth of the attorney for the "finder'(aka-thief), so what does that tell you?

Roommate Ratted Out iPhone 4G Thief, Finders Tried to Destroy Evidence

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti..._over_iPhone_leak?taxonomyId=163&pageNumber=1

"By publishing details about the phone and its features, sales of current Apple products are hurt wherein people that [sic] would have otherwise purchased a currently existing Apple product would wait for the next item to be released, thereby hurting overall sales and negatively effecting [sic] Apple's earnings," Riley said, according to the affidavit Brand swore out for a search warrant of Chen's residence.

Click to expand...

Please. You'd have to be living under a rock not to know that Apple was planning to announce a new iPhone at the next WWDC10. Otherwise, how would any of the involved parties have a clue that this was a next gen prototype?

Those computers are in legal limbo at the moment. According to the latest statements by the San Mateo County district attorney's office, which would prosecute if it decides a crime has been committed, the computers have not been examined. Gizmodo's attorney has argued that the machines were illegally seized, citing both federal and California journalist shield laws. "We continue to discuss the matter with Mr. Chen's attorney and attorney's for Gawker [Media]," said Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, on April 30.

Click to expand...

I still think they overreached. Though, reports have stated that the issuing judge did, in fact, know that Chen was a reporter before he signed the search warrant. There is also an issue with the search warrant being overly broad. Appeals courts tend to frown upon those. [Though, this case would be reviewed by the 9th 'Circus' Court, so anything is possible.] The way this warrant was written allowed the authorities to seize every computer, camera, video recorder, phone, external and flash drive anywhere in Chen's domain. I'm surprised they didn't grab every device that contained digital data like MP3 players and recorded CDs/DVDs. In any case, they have severely constrained Mr. Chen from continuing his work as a journalist, let alone his ability to communicate.

Well you've gotta admit: This was a pretty unattractive guy.

I mean you don't see them kicking down Adrien Brody's door... (I'm sure some will say "Adrien Brody never stole a prototype iPhone." I politely disagree.)

This guy was short, pimply, and his hair sucks.

...just saying.

I mean cmon. Yeah Gizmodo and the iPhone finder made some mistakes, but Apple is trying to crucify them for something that is largeley their fault. If this prototype is so valuable why on earth would you make it so easy for something like this to happen.

^^ How do you think they conduct "real world" testing of phones? Keep it in a lab all day?


The person who found the phone sold it without ever trying to return it to its owner. In CA, that is a crime. Don't like it? Complain to the state, not at apple.

Also, I bet we are going to find out this chen dude bought the phone anyway knowing that there was some legal issues. Either way, a blogger is not a reporter.

Spec_Ops2087 said:

Either way, a blogger is not a reporter.

Click to expand...

Au Contraire:

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/journalists/privilege

What is a state reporter's shield law?

More than 30 states have elected to provide protection for journalists over and above the protection afforded by the constitutional reporter's privilege. For example, through an initiative the people of California included a reporter's shield in the California Constitution. This shield provides "absolute protection to nonparty journalists in civil litigation from being compelled to disclose unpublished information." It may be "overcome only by a countervailing federal constitutional right." The California reporter's shield protects all persons "connected with...a newspaper, magazines, or other periodical publication," without limitation.

Click to expand...

Read the entire article for a complete explanation, including Supreme Court cases specific to blogging.

Spec_Ops2087 said:

^^ How do you think they conduct "real world" testing of phones? Keep it in a lab all day?


The person who found the phone sold it without ever trying to return it to its owner. In CA, that is a crime. Don't like it? Complain to the state, not at apple.

Also, I bet we are going to find out this chen dude bought the phone anyway knowing that there was some legal issues. Either way, a blogger is not a reporter.

Click to expand...

Well they could easily conduct "real world" testing at Apple's campus. Or have protocols like don't take it to extremely public places. And evidently the guy who found it called Apple but they dismissed it as a hoax.

I'm complaining because the investigation is getting undue attention because Apple is pushing this through. You can bet that if I lost a laptop or something with sensitive data, I would not get nearly as much attention from the authorities.

kayson said:

I'm complaining because the investigation is getting undue attention because Apple is pushing this through. You can bet that if I lost a laptop or something with sensitive data, I would not get nearly as much attention from the authorities.

Click to expand...

no but if your laptop were stolen and you had reasonable proof as to who was holding it and there actually having been a crime committed (theft), the police would most likely perform an arrest, search warrant, etc. why the police fail to do anything in your scenario is because you lost it, with no proof as to who might have it or where it might be. it's not the police's job to go looking for someones keys every time a citizen looses them.

in this case we really can't complain about the police performing their job. and like it or not corporations (yes even ones that aren't apple) are protected legally in the same way citizens are. they are after all legal entities.

but i agree with you, this story is getting too much undue attention. but i don't feel its because of apple pushing it through. it's because it involves individuals of the press (a blogging site directly but still its press) and the press has the wonderful advantage of being able to push their own agenda(in this case complaints) quite easily into, well, the press.

the whole thing reminds me of a campus newspaper this past year having a tiff with one of the fraternities. they had accused the frat of conspiracy to hide a case of date rape committed inside the house. the police did little in the investigation (so says the paper) and when no crime was found the paper ran the story. the frat fought back and slandered the paper, going as far as to supposedly steal 10,000 copies of the issue with the story printed. this also was never proved nor was anyone charged with the theft. in retaliation the paper went to several other cities and actually had the story, along with the newspaper theft bit printed in those places.

now normally i would have sided against the frat, as i'm not a fan and could completely see something like that unfolding. however, the way in which the paper quite literally threw a screaming tantrum over the events made me really question how much of what was true of the whole thing.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/dai...ew-evidence-in-stolen-newspaper-case-1.860463 link to my anecdote. this thing ran over campus way too long and got pretty rediculous.

i'm beginning to see this gizmodo/apple thing in the same light. especially after having read just about every possible scenario as to how the phone was or was not attempted to be returned or how gizmodo purportedly offered the phone back with no objection to gizmodo offering the release of the phone only after a signed letter by apple to refute any chance of it not being theirs (if this is true its funny the signed letter came in the form of a search warrant).

i guess what i'm getting at here is its easy for the press to martyr itself and to make us believe it. so its important to do the smart thing for ourselves and take everything from the horses mouth with a grain of salt.