Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Gizmodo Search Warrant Unsealed
gyrogeerloose writes "The same judge who issued the warrant to search Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's apartment has now ordered it unsealed, ruling against the San Mateo County district attorney's office which had argued that unsealing the documents may compromise the investigation."
You can read the entire affidavit here (PDF). It has a detailed description of the police investigation that led to the seizure of Chen's computers. It turns out Steve Jobs personally requested that the phone be returned, prompting Gizmodo's Brian Lam to try negotiating for a public acknowledgment that the phone was real. Apple was tipped off to the man who found/stole the prototype by his roommate.
best of my knowledge.
There's the problem.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Before you let your roommates know you've possibly committed a felony make sure they won't turn you in.
I'm sure getting the house raided and the guy near arrested tops that.
Not according to Steve Jobs ;-)
She did it to avoid getting caught up in the rest of this sht. Seems like she was the only one who thought that this could come back to bite them in the ass. She was right.
It turns out Steve Jobs personally requested that the phone be returned, prompting Gizmodo's Brian Lam to try negotiating for a public acknowledgment that the phone was real.
Let me make sure I understand this: these guys were in possession of stolen property, and they tried to negotiate conditions for its return? Gizmodo, you run a decent gadget blog, but Jesus Christ you need better lawyers. You are about to be one-two punched by the law, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Unfortunately this story makes it clear that the "finder" knew that the phone belonged to someone named Powell before he sold it to Gizmodo. Did Gizmodo know? Well they knew that the seller wasn't the owner. That's what the warrant and investigation are trying to find out. If Gizmodo knew the identity of the owner before the money changed hands, then they are in trouble.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Ansd what's up with this: "I therefor pray that a search warrant be issued so the items..."
Pray?
It's a term of art in the legal field.
Whilst you and your hoodie friends might not realise it, stealing a cell phone *is* a crime.
so its trade secret and prototypes of new tech do have a considerable value hers a clue SV's major industry is tech and there are entities that go in for industrial espionarge.
Read the part where the cops were allowed a warrantless entry into 247 Hillview. Dumb move. Hogan, by cooperating with the cops, ended up getting his own cell phone seized. He also ended up implicating himself. No warrant, no search. No statements unless legal counsel is present, who will tell you to SHUT YOUR F*ING MOUTH! Because nothing you say can be used to help you, but it can and will be used against you, as this case demonstrates.
Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.
Seems to me that her roommates are the ones acting in bad faith here by using her computer while dealing with something that is obviously of shady legal ground.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
"But to his defense he can claim he was trying to verify ownership of the item."
No he can't. He specifically requested that the recognition be made *public*. Ownership could easily be verified privately, and even this was unnecessary because Gizmodo had already established to their own satisfaction that it really was an Apple device. He wanted *public* recognition for his own personal gain, and he suggests that he is unwilling to return property that he knows belongs to Apple unless he gets that recognition.
So in summary:
1. An Apple employee lost a prototype at a bar
2. A college student obtained the phone, became aware of its owner by looking at the Facebook app on the phone, yet made no effort to contact the owner. He further violated California law by failing to turn it over to the bar's proprietor (the place where the true owner was most likely to look), the police, or make truly reasonable attempts to contact Apple. Therefore, under California law, THIS WAS A STOLEN PHONE.
3. Gizmodo purchased the phone with the obvious hope that it was in fact stolen (in the sense that they hoped they would be able to discern that it truly belonged to Apple and would be able to use it for their own benefit before returning it.) After discerning that it belonged to Apple, they published information that was highly damaging to Apple's sales and their advantage over their competitors. Even though they were admittedly SURE that it was an Apple product, they were hesitant to return it until they got PUBLIC (not PRIVATE) acknowledgment, once again for their own personal benefit.
Solution? Asshole student who found the phone goes to prison. Asshole "journalist" who bought a device with the hope that it was stolen and the intent to use it for his own benefit goes to prison. Gawker Media is held liable for civil damages to Apple--likely they go bankrupt because of it.
They're all criminals, they should all pay.
Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.
Hey, it's the new 4G iPhone - anything is possible!
Except that they knew it was Apple's already, so the claim is simply bullshit.
Are you adequate?
Do you know how much the cell phone prototype was worth? If you think that the cost of parts was a few hundred dollars, you'd be wrong. Prototypes like this phone might have thousands of dollars worth of parts. Since it was a prototype, parts of the phone had to be custom made and were not mass-produced. Apple probably only made a dozen or so prototype chips. That alone raises the nominal value of the cell phone.
Then there's the trade secrets aspect. Competitors knowing what features are present in the phone can duplicate quickly them reducing their catchup time from a few months to no time. Also Apple has a point: People knowing a new model is about to be released may not purchase a current model which means loss of sales to Apple.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you've followed the story, and read todays affidavit, its perfectly clear that Gizmondo and Hogan both knew full well the phone belonged to Apple. The confirmation demand was nothing to do with establishing the owner for the purpose of return of the device, but to make something else for Gizmondo to post on their blog. Thus, no it's not in the slightest bit reasonable. In fact it may well add the crime of extortion to the list.
Whilst you and your hoodie friends might not realise it, stealing a cell phone *is* a crime.
A crime that deserves worldwide news coverage that goes on for weeks and weeks? Please.
Next week, maybe we'll see 5,000 stories on Google news about how somebody stole a lawnmower.
I disagree. I think it's very important that the baseline of what it acceptable, ethical journalism is made clear.
Today it's a prototype phone left on a barstool, sold to a tech blog, tommorrow it's Lindsay Lohan's pickpocketed Cellphone sold to TMZ so they can rifle through her text messages and voicemail.
Likewise the concept of 'finders keepers' needs to be constantly debunked as theivery. (Car analogy alert). If someone finds my car keys, I don't want them to drive it around for a week before returning it to me (after I go to a fair amount of effort to track it down)
Please tell how you would go about putting a value on a prototype.
Well, Gizmodo paid $8500 for a _stolen_ prototype, opening them up for all kinds of risks. How much would Apple have received if they had started an auction for one iPhone prototype to the highest bidder? There were offers from other outfits for $10,000 (which were retracted when these guys figured out the phone was stolen). So obviously Apple had no intention to sell that prototype, but they could easily have sold it for say $20,000 to $50,000.
Or lets say Apple has a big event when the next iPhone is released, and one lucky journalist in the audience wins a real iPhone prototype (no trade secret anymore because it is the event of the actual release, just the rarity). You could probably sell that prototype for a few thousand.
No. If the circumstances would have led a reasonable person to conclude that the item they were buying did not belong to the seller, nor that the seller was an agent of its owner, then they were buying stolen goods. Whether the owner has claimed it was stolen is just irrelevant--the owner doesn't even need to be aware that they've lost the item.
Think about it. You go on a backpacking trip to Europe, and your uncle the drunk stays at your house in the meantime. Some dude steals your car and abandons it at an isolated road, and your uncle doesn't even notice. Another guy finds your car, finds identification that ties the car to you in the glovebox, and drives it to your home to return it to you. But when they get there, your drunken uncle tells him that you don't have a car, and to fuck off. Does the guy now get to sell your car?
In the end, Gizmodo reported that they bought a phone for $5,000 from a guy that they knew neither owned it nor was an agent of the owner. That's basically an admission of a felony.
Are you adequate?
Jobs is going to end up (if not already) looking like a real jerk in this whole case. He just needs to swallow his pride and leave well enough alone. Apple will gain nothing by taking revenge on these people. And it is revenge. Sad.
The thief, Brian Hogan, was asked by his friends to return the phone, because the loss would likely destroy the career of Gray Powell. His answer: "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone." So to Brian Hogan I would say "Sucks for you. You stole the phone. Shouldn't have stolen the phone".
I'm afraid you don't know the law, not to mention morals. If you take a cell phone that doesn't belong to you from a bar, and neither return it to the person/company you know it belongs to, nor to the police, you have stolen it.
There is no evidence been presented of ANY attempt to return it. But even if there was a phone call to Apple tech support, and Apple tech support knew nothing about the phone, that doesn't make it the "finder's" property to sell. Many other reasonable avenues were open to return it to the owner or the police, none were taken. Instead it was sold as stolen property.
Don't ignore it. If you want to behave like you have no respect for the law, and back a thief rather than the victim, then the name fits. You could have "wannabe gangsta" instead if you prefer.
Yes. This is a serious theft of a valuable item.
People who've had valuable items stolen from them are not deserving of the police investigating?
Come back when you've grown a sense of morality.
I had my motor home broken into in Sunnyvale and my possessions stolen. I called the police. They told me "Here is your report number. You have insurance right?" I said "No, not for theft." "Well then, why are you calling us?" they replied. "I thought you might want to come out and investigate. They broke the lock, left their tool, probably left fingerprints everywhere..." "No, we don't do that", said the cop, and hung up.
I guess the cops understand exactly who pays their salaries.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Reading the affidavit, the thing that disturbs me most is that Apple seems to have pet police detectives at their beck and call. The affidavit basically says "Apple wants to search this guy's place and take everything there, right down to any credit cards they find."
We can't even get the cops to investigate half of the violent crimes reported, but we're willing to call in SWAT to keep Steve Jobs' "Oh, and one more thing" moment in tact?
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco, and Steve, for your moment in the Sun, just hold up the phone and say, "Hey, look what we found in a bar!"
It'll be a big laugh, and some bloody victim will thank you for it.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
(yes, I read the entire investigation part of the affidavit)
According to Brian Hogan's room mate (pg 14) an "intoxicated male" gave him a phone believing it was his. Hogan remained at the bar "a little while longer" and no one claimed the phone.
According to Powel (the employee who lost the phone) (pg 16) he states his last memory of the phone was placing it in his bag and then placing the bag by his feet.he was there till closing at 11:00 PM local time. He left when the restaurant started to close and he thinks the phone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.
Brian's room mate called the police because the phone was synced to her computer and Hogan's and was afraid law enforcement could get the ip address and trace it back to her (pg 12). So she was calling to absolve herself from legal issues. Also when she was shown the phone it appeared apple may have already done a remote wipe of the phone.
George Riley says (pg 12) that the phone was invaluable and that the $8500 (yes, supposedly he got $8500 total, no source on the other $2500 though) that Hogan got the phone was worth the price of the phone if not more.
Brian Hogan and someone else (sorry, I'm getting tired of finding this in the pdf) knew the police were investigating and was in the process of destroying/hiding evidence. The police went to hogan's father's house and found Hogan with his girlfriend. He said that the other person had some of the evidence. Eventually they got a hold of him and he placed the other items in front of a church.
Only other gem I found in there is a quote as stated by brian's room mate when she urged him not to sell the phone as it would ruin Robert Powel's image he told her "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone"
And in their first article after taking the device they published Powell's name, suggesting they knew as well...
Which really undermines their "we were trying to find the original owner and return it to him" story. If both Gizmodo and the "finder" really wanted to return the phone, (besides turning it to the bar or the police) they could have just drove up to Apple's campus and left it at the front desk. "This belongs to one of your employees, Powell"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Lesson learned: deal with the Giz, you might be in the Shiz.
...how did anything Gizmodo did in any way cause him to be arrested? They were very discrete about his name, it was his roommate who busted him.
$ make available
How much was it worth to Apple's competitors (such as RIM, Samsung, Nokia, etc.) to find out that Apple's next phone had a front facing camera? That it had a flash? Getting an extra 2 or 3 months head start on that information could be very important. It could be the difference between their next models coming out with the same features, or having to wait an extra product cycle to match Apple's new features.
And that difference, those phone sales, could easily run into the millions.
It's one thing with an analyst says "I think Apple will do X". It's quite different when someone finds an Apple device that does X just two to three months before it will be released (based on Apple's summer iPhone release pattern).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That seems like a lot of police work, DA work, etc for a piece of shit phone. People will cry about IP and lost sales. Bull shit. Steve Jobs says people will stop buying iPhones because they now know a new one is in development? Are you fucking kidding me Steve? You guys release a new model every fucking year. Only a dipshit retard wouldn't know that July is new iPhone month.
My neighbor beats her daughter and locks her in a closet and we call the Police, children's services, and they blow us the fuck off. To busy with real crimes like a missing iPhone.
Sad. Get a fucking grip people.
Apple also told the police that the publication of Gizmodo's story was "immensely damaging" to the company, because consumers would stop buying current generation iPhones in anticipation of the upcoming product. Asked the value of the phone, Apple told the police "it was invaluable."
As far as I'm concerned they're both thieves. But, that's just me.
-[d]-
But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
Funny, that's exactly what the cops told me. "We can't investigate the theft of your car, we're too busy chasing murderers."
They told a buddy of mine, "We can't investigate the burglary of your house, we're too busy chasing rapists."
They told a woman I know, while she was still in the emergency room, "We can't enforce your restraining order, we're too busy chasing murderers."
Following each excessive force complaint, the cops reflexively claim, "We don't have time to mess around and be polite. We're chasing killers."
So, yeah, the cops exactly argue they shouldn't investigate theft until all violent crime has been solved.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Just to point out the most obvious nonsense in your post, Apple never denied it was theirs.
Just to point out the most obvious nonsense in your post, the exact text of the request from Gizmondo to Apple is contained in TF Affidavit, and it wasn't "I have this item please confirm it is your before returning it." Nor anything slightly resembling what you describe in your post.
Is it that you don't read the fucking articles, or that you do read them and then just make shit up anyway?
Please supply the quote. Oh that's right, you can't, because they did no such thing.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here. They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed. EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal. If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
"Sewell [Senior VP at Apple] told me [the detective] that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam. Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the email address blam@gizmodo.com that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple. [...] Sewell said that after the letter confirming the ownership of the phone was sent to Lam, Lam responded via email that the phone was in the possession of Jason Chen at [address omitted]."
My emphasis, which I fear might not be enough.
Are you adequate?
First of all, I haven't seen anything that says that Gizmodo or Hogan ever talked to Powell. Citation, please.
But that's not my main point. The main point is that, god, I feel like we're talking to second-graders here. Here's some very elementary moral rules that we adults teach kids in, um, elementary school:
This is all part of basic respect for other people's property. People who follow those rules don't run into trouble with the law when they find other people's lost property. Such people, finding a lost cellphone, would look through the contents of the phone to try and identify the owner or somebody who knows the owner, and then try to return within a couple of days. If they were unsuccesful in their attempts to return it, they wouldn't claim it for their own before consulting the law. What they wouldn't do is start using the phone for their own personal calls for a whole month before returning it, because that's wrong.
If Hogan and Gizmodo had followed those elementary rules, well, they'd be clear. Hogan might have started like that on night 1 (using the phone to find out the name of the guy who lost it), but it's becoming pretty clear by this point that as he realized the value of the prototype, he stopped following those rules, and his priority became how to benefit from somebody else's property, not how to return it to them.
Are you adequate?
Have you been reading anything? It is illegal to receive stolen property in all states. In California's case receiving "found" property is also a crime if the finder did not do his/her best return it to the rightful owner. By your own admission, if everyone knew that the phone was "found" then they committed crimes by transferring money and not returning it to the owner. In the latest affidavit, it seems both the finder and Gizmodo knew who the owner was but did not return it. Instead Gizmodo paid money for the phone. Instead, Gizmodo dismantled and posted it. That's possible trade secret violations. Instead, Gizmodo tried to negotiate with Apple to publicly acknowledge their phone.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here.
Remind me to never hire you as my attorney. You apparently haven't read the relevant California criminal and civil code sections that have been reprinted all over the Web since this thing first hit:
In other words, if you take charge of a found object, you are as responsible for taking care of it as you would be if the owner had placed it in your care. Selling it off to the highest bidder hardly satisfies that, nor does disassembling it (and damaging it in the process), as Chen did.
They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed.
Nope:
The minute the finder offered it up for auction to the highest bidder, as per his room mate's statement, he was "[appropriating] such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto" and guilty of theft. Gizomodo, by bidding on it, was guilty of buying stolen property.
EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal.
Actually, under California law, it does make it illegal. The relevant law:
In other words, the only legal thing for someone who finds lost property to do is either make a good-faith attempt to return it to it's owner or turn it over to the local law enforcement agency. If you don't wish to do either of those things, then you should just let it lie there.
If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
That's totally absurd. It was a cell phone. Cell phones need extensive testing out in the real world before they hit the market. Would you want to buy one that hadn't been tested out on the street first?
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
No, I want Gizmodo to do good tech journalism, not write checks stolen goods. Print leaked info, by all means but do not commit felonies in the name of page hits.
This ain't rocket surgery.