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.''"
What about that for "juvenile"!
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
What are the chances of the government going to such lengths if an ordinary person gets robbed? The ordinary response from police is that's nice, we'll look into it if we have nothing better to do. The crimes they were alleging are not different than the crimes that would be applicable if this were to happen to an ordinary person instead of a powerful corporation.
And then, the chutzpah of the DA's to call out the Gizmodo editors (who may or may not have deserved it) after conducting an illegal search...
rather than apologize for the illegal search and seizure, issued a critique of the seized emails, commenting that they were 'juvenile'
Everyone does that.
At a formal meeting with participants from multiple departments or with customers/vendors, everyone is professional. After the meeting while you are walking to the elevator or calling your immediate co-workers to duiscuss the details, you comment on everyone else was clueless, "those guys" are a bunch of fucking idiots, what where they thinking etc... What is so juvenile about that? When you are around your own people that you are comfortable with, you act differently. I'd bet my left testicle that the San Mateo District Attorney and people in his office do the same thing.
Next you'll be telling me bears defecate in forested areas.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
As of late, that's been the direction Gizmodo has been heading. I used to visit there site all the time, now they're just obnoxiuos.
That is all.
"I don't know if Apple is on the [REACT] steering committee," Stephen Wagstaffe told Yahoo! News when asked about a link between Apple and the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force that entered Jason Chen's home and seized four computers and two servers as evidence in a felony investigation. Documents revealed that Apple did indeed sit on REACT's steering committee, which provided 'direction and oversight' to the law enforcement agency.
Since when does ones quality of writing play into if you are 'the press' or not? Scary precedent here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not, and in spite of the fact that it was later withdrawn because it was illegal, the police served a search warrant on a Gizmodo editor's home, they didn't break in. Pretending those are the same is one of the things that makes having a conversation about truly illegal searches and seizures so difficult in the US. If they have a search warrant you blame the judge that issued it, not the police who executed it.
I doubt he'll feel so smug when he's hit with a federal civil rights lawsuit and is disbarred. Hey a guy can dream can't he?
LRN 2 SWM
The DA illegally seized these emails, right? And prior to that illegal seuzure they were the privately held information of Gizmodo, right? So... he only knows about them because the law was broken, and now he's spewing their contents all over the press? If this doesn't violate some ethical standard, it should. I'd file an ethics complaint.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Gizmodo stopped being protected by any journalism shield the moment they actively participated in theft of private property. There also appears to be evidence of malicious motives on their part. I don't see journalism anywhere around this case.
Seeing how using text speak seems to be standard operating procedure for high ranking goverment officials . I would suspect "like 15-year-old children talking" would qualify you to hold a nice cushy post in goverment. Perhaps the goverment can look inward first before critiquing illegally seized evidence. Better yet why not just stop performing illegal search and seizures. Oh right, they are above the law, silly me.
...the house wouldn't have been raided. Are we really saying journalists should be exempt from such laws but the government should be held to it? If I was going to pursue a career in politics for power, I'd drop it to go into journalism. Chen/Gizmodo bought stolen property when he should've been suspicious enough to know better. Fucking plain and simple. $5000 of stolen property to increase my advertising revenue 10x that? And the law is on my side about it? What a deal. Sorry, I'm not buying the demagoguery bullshit.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I've had conversations with Gizmodo, IO9 and Kotaku's editors and writers in the past, "15 year olds" is a good way to describe their "professionalism".
The emails were private. They were unlawfully seized. The DA takes those private, unlawfully seized emails and compounds the wrong by commenting upon them in the media in a derogatory way.
He has absolute immunity for being a prosecutor, but he has no immunity for making stupid-ass statements based on illegally obtained information.
This is an easy section 1983 case, albeit for limited damages. This stupid DA just cost his municipality a few thousand dollars.
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.
and a search warrant was issued. The judge took into account the journalism angle and concluded (properly) that being a journalist doesn't make you immune to being prosecuted for theft, and being prosecuted for theft requires the same kinds of searches for stolen goods and other evidence of being complicit in a crime. They are free to argue that such evidence isn't admissible in a trial, but they are going to lose that fight (if they haven't already).
Basically, a crime was committed here.
We're talking about a Gawker Media property. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my brain cells being outraged about anything that happens to parts of the Gawker empire.
Call me when a responsible citizen's rights are being trampled, and I'll duly respond with all due outrage. But for these guys....live by the sword, die by the sword.
I agree with your opinion of them, but civil liberties are required to be non-selective, or they serve little purpose.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
In my state, for example, it is no longer allowed to prosecute a policeman for any crime they commit against a citizen, unless actual malice can be shown. That was a well-intended law that has backfired and led to all kinds of police abuses. But they can still be prosecuted under the Federal statute, 18 USC 242.
Ha. That wouldn't be Illinois, would it? I know in that State the police cannot be taken to court for false arrest, and any number of other things.
It's funny, you would think that politicians would be very aware of the disease of unaccountability (most of them already being infected themselves) but apparently the idea of gun-toting cops with immunity from consequence being a problem never occurred to them.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You do know the CIA commits crimes daily against Europe/Asia, in helping USA corps win contracts and beat competitors right.
Who cares if moto got the phone, it takes months and months to prep factories to make large quantities of orders. Besides apple didnt invent the LCD, they just ordered it from LG.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
See Conspiracy to Purchase Stolen Goods.
Again, I noted receipt of stolen goods, and possession of stolen goods. Both of those crimes are however not accessory to theft, and neither is Conspiracy to Purchase Stolen Goods.
In fact, the link you provided would be a good case to use in NY law against someone attempting to charge a receiver of stolen goods who was unconnected with the original theft with accessory to theft.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I... I have no words.
As has been previously pointed out, the warrant was issued legally. It was withdrawn later because Chen chose to cooperate and withdrawing it removed any ambiguity. Withdrawal does not imply illegality. That is a logical fallacy.
Thank you for signing up and owning his ass. I was so frustrated with everyone here saying the warrant was "illegal" just because the article implied it was so. My god people are stupid. I wish I had mod points to give you. Your posts were all excellent and yet the coward that claimed you were wrong didn't even bother to respond because you owned him so thoroughly.