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..."
enGadget is owned by Time Warner... they have lawyers, and those lawyers told them not to touch this story.
Gawker apparently didn't check before the leaped... and Apple's got much bigger bucks than they do.
Read the Gawker Media response... they're claiming that Jason Chen's home was a "newsroom" and therefore exempt from contempt changes and warrents. We'll see if this holds water when they try to get any evidence from this search kept away from the jury.
Gawker media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist.
I didn't realize that being a journalist protected you from prosecution for knowingly purchasing stolen goods. This is not about protecting sources of information, this is buying a product that is known to belong to someone else.
Newspaper offices aren't exempt from crap. They're out of their minds. (disclaimer: sitting in a newspaper office right now)
Historically, whenever a journalist has been jailed for not ratting out a source, the cops have pulled all their stuff right off their desks. There is no legal exemption just because you happen to work for a media outlet.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Too bad all that ad space was already sold when they ran the iphone story.
Apple was being too quiet last week. I knew the other shoe would drop, it was just a matter of time. If Chen is lucky, the police are really more interested in the identity of the thief (if they don't know it already).
However, my guess is that the police are trying to build a strong case that Giz definitely knew it was stolen prior to paying $5000 for the device. Not sure who goes down in a situation like that: whether it's Jason Chen or Nick Denton.
Do you think ANYONE is going to buy a 3G or 3GS iPhone in the next few months, with the "V4 is in final prototype, it has a much better screen, a flash, a front camera, etc" on everybody's lips?
The value of the existing stock of iPhones easily dropped $50 a phone thanks to this, a price drop which would have been postponed by a month or two if this leak didn't happen.
This is why apple is so leak paranoid: leaks like this really contribute to the Osborne Effect
Test your net with Netalyzr
No, but being a Journalist gives you the right to write about anything that comes across your desk. Apparently an iPhone did just that...
Gizmodo paid for access to it, so that they could write the story and find out exactly what the device was.
Gizmodo returned the device to Apple willingly without hassle.
I'm pretty sure this isnt the first time a news story has "broke" in such manner.
What theft would you be referring to, exactly? The cell phone was left unattended at a bar, and while the engineer who left it unattended may be incompetent, that does not mean that the person who retrieved it is guilty of thievery. This sounds like another case of Apple bullying journalists who obtain information about upcoming product releases to me, although it appears that some sort of political pressure was exerted this time (i.e. Apple pressured the police to seize this journalist's equipment).
Palm trees and 8
Better yet, did you read the inventory? Among other items, they "seized" a box of business cards. I can only imagine what horrible forms of evidence will be hiding there! Why, it might have his email address on them! Holy cow, better call CSI!!!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I like Apple products (my Quadra was one of my favorite machines), but their publicity has really turned negative lately. There's this story about trying to accuse a journalist of stealing property (it was abandoned, therefore not stolen, plus he returned it to Apple).
And then there's the story about a father in England(?) whose iPod started smoking and then blew up. Apple agreed to replace the iPod but only if the father agreed to muzzle his mouth & never speak about Apple again.
Apple's starting to act like those corporations (Exxon-Mobile, Walmart, MS) that I hate.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
How exactly can the device be considered stolen property?
My understanding of the adventure of the lost iPhone 4G/HD is thus:
1) Someone loses Apple property
2) Someone else finds it
3) Finder attempts to return it
4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
5) Finder sells property to Gizmodo
6) Gizmodo blabs about it
7) Apple contacts Gizmodo and asks for their property back
8) Gizmodo promtly returns property to Apple
Just like corporations expect privacy, and individuals are told that we should have no expectation of privacy. Too bad we can sue TRW for providing every creditor in the world our "trade secrets".
America has gone the wrong way. Even the tea party movement has it wrong. We don't need to fear and change the government, we need to fear and change the power corporations have over us.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Heck, they may not even be looking for evidence of the source (though they probably are). All they need to be doing is looking for evidence to nail HIM for knowingly purchasing stolen property. They outright admit they spent $5000 for the phone and the whole article is based on the premise that Apple didn't intend to loose possession of the phone.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
He'll say:
1) The owner was unknown
2) The bartender could not necessarily be trusted to return something he believed might be valuable.
Instead of the bartender, a different 3rd party in the form of Gizmodo seemed like a better option. Gizmodo could definitely be trusted to return the phone to Apple (if it was indeed theirs) and they would have the resources to confirm that it was truely Apple's phone.
In other words, rather than "stealing" it, he simply outsourced his duties as finder to a 3rd party -- much as if he'd left in the car of the bartender. Moreover, he didn't sell the phone itself, but rather the "story". Both he and Gizmodo knew full well neither owned the phone and that the plan was to return it -- and, for the record, the phone was returned before the police were involved.
I'm not saying that's exactly how it went down, just that there's clearly more than one side to this. It's not as cut and dry as you say.
You forgot to read this part:
Since there is probable cause to believe Chen received stolen property, the San Mateo County Sheriff is in the clear.
This ain't rocket surgery.
The person who found it repeatedly tried to contact Apple, and they ignored him. If he'd kept it for himself, you still might have a point, but he didn't. He handed it over to the people best able to get the attention of the owner.
No excuse. All he had to do was put the phone in an envelope, address it to Apple Computer, 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, and off it goes. He didn't contact "Apple", he contacted Apple customer services, who get calls from hundreds of people everyday in various degrees of confusion. If someone calls "I have your phone, and it doesn't work, I want to return it to you", how on earth are they supposed to guess that someone has found a phone that isn't _made_ by Apple, but one that is actually _owned_ by Apple?
That phone call wasn't "contacting the owner", that was an attempt to create an alibi and excuse for not returning the phone.
I have tried to deal with Apple on a number of occasions, every time it was not something I HAD to do, but something I felt obliged to do. I dutifully called them up, recorded the process, recorded the messages I left (try to get a real person there, I dare you!), and gave them more then enough time to get back to me (several days). I also left the same message on a number of relevant voice mails.
Apple just won't deal with you, they are Apple, and you are beneath them. If you are not a known kiss-up, they won't return your calls, emails, or anything else. Try, don't try, it doesn't matter, they won't get back to you. Insiders have told me that this is policy, not a fluke.
What did I contact them about? This:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1049921/inquirer-confirms-apple-macbook-pros-have-nvidia-bad-bump-material
Nope, no calls back. Could have saved them a big black eye though.
-Charlie