Slashdot Mirror
District Attorney Critiques Gizmodo Emails In iPhone 4 Prototype Case
lee1 writes "After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home and collected emails from computers found there as part of the investigation of the stolen 2010 iPhone prototype, the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant, because it violated a law intended to protect journalists. Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize for the illegal search and seizure, issued a critique of the seized emails, commenting that they were 'juvenile' and that 'It was obvious that they were angry with the company about not being invited to ... some big Apple event. ... this is like 15-year-old children talking.''"
Coming any minute for the way they treated him and seizure of non related materials. Someone forgot to tell the DA that when an Apple employee leaves a prototype phone in a bar or resturant it's usually just to hype the newest Idevice.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
The summary for this Slashdot article was so ignorant and biased that I actually registered just to comment on it.
"After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home [...]"
They didn't "break in" -- they had a search warrant.
"[...] the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant [...]"
The San Mateo District Attorney's Office didn't petition the court to withdraw the search warrant. The San Mateo District Attorney's Office petitioned the court to issue the search warrant.
"[...] because it violated a law intended to protect journalists [...]"
The search warrant didn't violate any laws. Journalistic shield laws exist to protect the sources of journalists. The identities of Gizmodo's "sources" (or "sellers") were already known to police. They were in custody and cooperating with police. Journalistic shield laws do not exist so that journalists can purchase stolen goods.
It isn't a crime to execute a search warrant. It is a crime to purchase a stolen iPhone prototype, damage, and dissect it in order to publish trade secrets before the product has hit shelves, or even been announced to the public. It is damaging not only to Apple, but to their employees and shareholders.
"[...] Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize [...]"
Why should the DA apologize for doing his job? The DA deserves an apology from whoever authored this article stub.