Slashdot Mirror
Police Seize Computers From Gizmodo Editor
secretcurse writes "California police have served a search warrant and seized computers from Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who unveiled the 4th-generation iPhone to the world. Gawker Media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist. The plot thickens..."
. If Apple can get a warrant (which they obviously can), those computers are fair game, along with anything else that might be relevant to the charges.
This was for criminal charges related to theft/receiving stolen property. It's the cops not Apple. Apple has not yet filed suit for the trade secret violations.
Under California law, lost property over a given value (and a prototype iPhone certainly qualifies), you are obligated to make a credible effort to return it to the owner (the "finder" did not: after all, he never talked to the BARTENDER!) or to the police. Otherwise, it is considered stolen.
So the iPhone in question was stolen property, and Gizmodo has effectively admitted to purchasing stolen property, and knowingly having purchased stolen property.
Given that Gizmodo paid $5K for it, they could be on the hook for felony receiving of stolen property.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Wait, what? Journalists are immune from having their computers seized? In what dreamworld?...
Did you even RTFA? They quote the laws in black and white. Journalists have *more* rights than the rest of us. This is a good thing.
Read the section entitled "Gawker's legal response to the police" in TFA.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Mice keyboards have fingerprints, and therefore are proof a certain somebody used the computer it was connected to just so they can't deny it.
Nick Denton is the publisher of Gawker Media (Gizmodo). The guy who's assigned prototype was stolen had a different name.
What theft would you be referring to, exactly?
the fact that they paid the guy who found the phone $5000 for it. The guy sold something that wasn't his, and they purchased something from someone they knew neither to be the owner nor someone repersenting the owner. In most places this is known as theft.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Simply stated, California law requires anyone picking up lost property to make a good-faith effort to return it to it's rightful owner. Here are the relevant sections
Since the finder of the phone did not follow the law, he/she could be convicted of a crime if charges are pressed. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office was doing what it's supposed to do, although the fact that it was such a high-profile case probably moved it up to the top of their to-do list faster than it would have otherwise.
This ain't rocket surgery.
California's laws are much more lenient than those for most of the rest of the country, which, yes, is good.
However, they don't apply in this case. If they're charging him with a felony, they're charging him with grand theft, or with corporate espionage. Has nothing to do with protecting his "source", and has everything to do with him obtaining property that doesn't belong to him. If they can prove he paid for it, he's fucked.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They're seizing his equipment as being involved in a felony, right out of the gate. It has nothing to do with the law as stated, which is only about protecting sources.
For a "protecting your source" law to come in to play, legal action has to have already started and the journalist has to have refused to provide a judge or federally warranted offical the required information. That's where the contempt stuff comes into play.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Sure, but sites that sell ads on a CPM usually have unsold inventory, meaning that they have more impressions (e.g., page views) than advertisers willing to spend the money on them. That's why you see in-house ads and such show up. Point being, the increased traffic unlikely impacted the bottom line UNLESS the ads are CPC or CPA (and the increased traffic led to increased click-throughs and sign ups).
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Starting to?
1) HE (the person who took it from the bar) didn't return it to Apple. He sold it to Gizmodo. Given that it wasn't his to sell, and he knew both the company, and the individual engineer that it did belong to, that's evidence of theft right there.
2) The only person that knows for sure whether it was left on a bar stool, or lifted from a pocket, is the person at the bar that took the phone. Gizmodo is simply repeating the word of someone who offered them a prototype phone they didn't own for the sum of $5000.
3) Not that it matters if it was simply left on a bar stool. If you are on someone else's property, e.g. a bar, you can't just pick up something you don't own and take it home with you. If you don't know who's it is, you either leave it alone, or you hand it in to the person who's premises you are on. e.g. the barman.
It's very telling that you criticise the company that was stolen from, but not the thief.
(I am not) The Law
496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),
specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a
misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year.
A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted
pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both
pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
(b) Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value in excess of
nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) that has been stolen or obtained in
any manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that
should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more
than one year.
Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of the
Business and Professions Code, and every person whose principal
business is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal
property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that
person, who buys or receives any property of a value of nine hundred
fifty dollars ($950) or less that has been stolen or obtained in any
manner constituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that
should cause the person, agent, employee, or representative to make
reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom the
property was bought or received had the legal right to sell or
deliver it, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision
(a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual
damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and
reasonable attorney's fees.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any act
prohibited by this section, except an offense specified in the
accusatory pleading as a misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
496a. (a) Every person who, being a dealer in or collector of junk,
metals or secondhand materials, or the agent, employee, or
representative of such dealer or collector, buys or receives any
wire, cable, copper, lead, solder, mercury, iron or brass which he
knows or reasonably should know is ordinarily used by or ordinarily
belongs to a railroad or other transportation, telephone, telegraph,
gas, water or electric light company or county, city, city and county
or other political subdivision of this state engaged in furnishing
public utility service without using due dil
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that. Treasure in shipwrecks leads to big arguments over ownership centuries later. You don't lose you property rights just because you misplace or are deprived of something (in the old days the big problem was property that departed on its own, i.e., livestock ... the owner had to pay damages for what the critter ate or broke, but it was still his). Only if something is *abandoned* is it up for grabs. Would any reasonable person things the prototype was abandoned? Reportedly they even sought legal counsel, knowing they were pushing it.
The only reason the iPhone was worth $5k to them was that even possessing it was wrongful. Buying something from a thief, even unknowingly, also gives you no prperty right, and it's just silly for them to say it was "lost." They knew what they were doing by paying that much alone, and I'm sure more evidence will pop up when the suspects squeal on each other.
Arguably Apple's profit could be damaged here. I have no idea how they could prove that (and Apple can sue for civil damages, using the conviction as a slam-dunk proof of the facts), and I assume it will go to settlement anyway given the legal fees it would cost to defend it. It could get ugly.
Gizmodo did a very dumb thing. (Not to mention the party who found and sold the phone, knowing it wasn't his, either.) Remember though that it's the gov't not Apple that decides whether to bring criminal charges. Apple could ask them to drop it, but it sounds like they're OK with the brute force approach, or else the prosecutor wants to do what the prosecutor wants to do.
In Australia we also have "Theft by finding" laws which have recently and very publicly undone a Melbourne couple. Many people don't realise that these laws exist and can have quite serious consequences to their lives if they don't make an attempt to get the property back its owners.
Revealing Apple trade secrets is only a crime if Apple gives them to you and says "Do not reveal this". If you read the California Statute (which has been copy/pasted a bajillion times), it clearly states this.
In other words, you can charge an Apple engineer with revealing trade secrets -- but if he accidentally cc's you on an email containing trade secrets, you can tell anyone you like.
You and I and Gizmodo are under no obligation to help Apple keep Apple's secrets. That's not our job. It would be an unfair burden to place upon us -- a limit to our freedom. Imagine if I emailed you 1000 of Apple's trade secrets and now the law compelled you to keep them a secret. Imagine how you have to edit yourself to avoid accidentally spilling the beans. Do you understand now why this isn't a crime? If you are not employed by Apple, you shouldn't have to do their job (protecting secrets) for them.
But actually, they bought the phone. And they said they paid $5000 for it. Many times. On their own web site.
That's like saying,"I'm not paying a hooker to have sex with me, I'm paying her for her time, and if we just happen to get it on as two consenting adults it's not prostitution." That don't fly in court, either.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Yes, he called AppleCare, which is run by call centres (in the US) that are managed by third party companies, with staff who do not work directly for Apple. I'm not surprised they thought he was prank calling them. He knew very well that the support number is *not* going to know what to with a lost prototype (assuming they even believe him) other than "call Apple corporate" - with a specific PR office number listed right on Apple's site, which I presume he didn't since they would certainly have told him to return the phone immediately. Also, "they weren't in" is no excuse - he could call them in office hours the next day.
He did the very minimum necessary to make it look like he tried to give it back, while deliberately skirting around anyone who would tell him that in no uncertain terms. He had the 4G prototype in his hands - you *really* think he is going to hear "umm, what prototype" from the support reps and then assume "I guess Apple, a company well known for its secrecy, doesn't want the phone back" and then proceeded to sell it for $5000.
Also, the source of the "he tried to give it back, honest" is Gizmodo itself - the very people under criminal investigation and the people he sold the phone to. What do you expect them to say?
The guy who found the phone supposedly called the Apple tech support line, whose operators didn't know anything about this supposed phone, and could reasonably assume he was a prank caller or a crazy. You can't reasonably conclude that Apple refused to claim the phone, because the people inside Apple that knew about it were not contacted.
But in any case, if you find a lost cell phone in California, and you can't contact the correct person to return it to, you can simply give it to the police. More than that, actually, you must turn it in to the police. From the California Civil Code:
Note that in the case of the iPhone prototype, this process of turning over the phone to the police would have created a public record of the existence of the prototype, and a detailed description of it. This is really, really bad for Gizmodo, because they could have gotten their story simply by helping the guy to turn the phone in to the police and getting the first scoop on the contents of the affidavit describing the phone and the circumstances of its finding. But instead they bought the phone from him. At that point they're already not on good ground, but instead of then returning it to Apple or turning it in to the police, they disassemble it for personal gain.
Are you adequate?
Um, actually yeah that's what you're suppose to do, but you'd probably have to drive it to the police station yourself.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Trade secrets are also protected by Trade Secrecy Acts (in most States). That widens the scope for protection to secrets that are revealed without consent, through espionage, through violation of an NDA, via theft, etc.
It is just as 'dangerous' for a company to hire a competitor's employee and be accused of stealing trade secrets as it is for the company that originally employed the person; even if the secret wasn't actually revealed by the employee (ie. independently invented/created/etc) it looks very suspicious and could create a huge legal problem for the 'poacher'.
This is also why 'clean room' implementations are done without using people that have any direct inside knowledge of or association to the product that is being re-implemented.
Try again this is not abandoned property. Abandoned property assumes the owner probably did not want it and intended to leave it behind. In no way would that apply here. And Abandoned property is still owned by the original owner until the finder meets the requirements to claim it by law. Lost, misplaced and abandoned property are all still owned by there owners until the finder meets the legal requirements to claim ownership.
Speaking as a reporter who deals in such things, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Mr Chen. If the phone was paid for, he broke the law, period. It is one thing for someone to break an NDA and tell you something, show you something, or let you use something that they are entitled to have. It is quite another to know something is stolen, and use it. To know it is stolen, then to PAY for it, nope, no chance that this is right.
Before you say, "You don't know what you are talking about", I can point you to literally dozens of times I have seen info/roadmaps/prototypes/whatever, but not once did I ever pay for the information, or knowingly (even suspecting) break the law to do so. Others may have before they got to me, but when things were obviously not legit, I have politely declined the info.
Once you are 'known' in the industry, and have a good reputation (I think I do), you can ask for almost any info and get it, If you burn bridges, that also gets known, and nothing ever comes your way. After a short while, it is painfully obvious what is legit and what is not. No where, no way, and no how is paying for information, or worse yet prototypes, legit. Period. Hard line.
When I first heard about this, I knew it was only a matter of time before the hammer came down on Gizmodo. It was a stunningly stupid thing to do, and how any editor, much less higher ups if they knew, would have touched this with a 10 foot pole is beyond me. Unless there is something really profound that has not made the media yet, Gizmodo did wrong.
When I have similar offers/gifts/whatever come into my life, I politely decline, and usually call the company involved, tell them in general terms what happened, and tell them directly that it was declined. You usually get profound thanks, and a good deal of karma, and you don't even have to rat out your sources because nothing happened. Win/win/win/win/lose/win/win, or something like that. :)
All this said, of all the companies I have dealt with in this type of situation, the only one that are complete bastards about it are Apple. They won't return phone calls or emails even if you are really trying to help them. Not a chance.
In this case, I can't see how the Gizmodo guys didn't do wrong in the most basic way. I reserve the right to update that opinion if more evidence comes out, but the $5000 pretty much seals it. I would expect Gizmodo to go down. Hard.
-Charlie