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..."

Comments

Time Warner 1, Little blog network 0

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Journalist?

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Journalist?

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Just give us a name

[nobodyman]

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.

Re:Just give us a name

[GameMaster]

Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case). As should be common sense, since it's illegal to sell something you found if you have reason to believe it belongs to someone then it's also illegal to buy something from someone when you have reason to believe they aren't the legal owner. In this case, both the person selling it and Gizmodo had every reason to believe that the phone was the rightful property of Apple. In fact, the only reason their story could be considered newsworthy was if it had left the possession of Apple unintentionally. It seems, to me, like a slam dunk that Gizmodo broke the law. They're trying to defend themselves by claiming that they have a right to gather news from anonymous sources based on a previous court case but this is totally different from the case I heard about. In the previous case I heard mentioned, the news agency only received information, not property and didn't even pay money for it. As far as I can see, both of those are major differences that make comparing the two cases like comparing apples and oranges. We'll see how this goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up spending some time in California "pound me in the ass" prison.

Actually, there is a lot of harm to apple...

[nweaver]

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

Re:Actually, there is a lot of harm to apple...

[dustin_0099]

People still believe the Osborne Effect???

These days, it's a given that any tech gadget that comes out has a V.Next well under way.

iPad 2 is already half way done. Nexus 3 is being written as we speak. Office 2012 is being worked on.
If you are buying an iPhone today, your first question is "When did the last version come out?"

The first segment of the wiki page is all about THE MYTH for intertube's sake!

Re:Corporations vs. Individuals (privacy)

[tekrat]

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.

Apple is worthless to deal with

[Groo Wanderer]

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