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...
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
Granted everyone makes those types of comments however the problem with this situation is that you have an official from an agency established to serve the tax payers deriding one of their constituents to a journalist on record.
There is such a thing as discretion and this DA just stick his foot in his mouth because this is going to be thrown back at him. Hopefully there will be consequences when the next elections come around and constituents finally decide that they cannot have their rights further eroded.
"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.
It's a matter of perspective: If you disagreed with what the police did, it's "breaking in." If you agree, then it's serving a warrant. Also this tidbit:
It turns out that prosecutors concluded that neither Chen nor Gizmodo did anything wrong after all. Legally, that is. Speaking to CNET.com earlier this week, San Mateo County District Attorney Steven Wagstaffe said that there was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone associated with the tech site with "possession of stolen property" or "extortion."
There is a difference in the DA not having enough evidence to proceed further and the Gizmodo not doing anything wrong. There are many cases where the DA has to drop the case for lack of evidence.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
"20-something douche bags full of themselves" is a more apt description...
DA should be impeached.
1. Perjury during application for warrant.
2. Ethics violation for disclosing private information obtained via illegal warrant.
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.
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.
As I mentioned before, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. I already pointed out that the "purchasing the story" question was irrelevant because the crime is receiving stolen property.
Don't let the real world get in the way of your fantasy. In the real world, every DA cannot pursue every single case to trial. From misdemeanors to felonies, most DAs look for plea deals rather than trials. A DA has to balance whether he or she can win a particular case as whether to pursue. The DA has many facts on his side; the problem is that Gizmodo can present a defense here that might make it difficult to win a conviction.
Intent isn't required. What needs to be proven are 3 facts: That the article was stolen, that the recipient knew it was stolen and that the recipient did receive the article. See intent in that list? See anything about buying the article? So, as I pointed out earlier, the "purchasing the story" defense is no defense.
The problem you don't seem to understand that having facts on your side does not guarantee automatic wins in court. The defense gets to present their side as well and the prosecution has to build a case strong enough to counter any defense. They didn't believe they could do so in this particular case.
Take for instance the recent trial of Casey Anthony. I firmly believe she did it, but I believe her acquittal was correct because the prosecution really didn't have enough evidence against her. In the best light the prosecution could prove that Casey moved the body of her dead child in her car; they did not prove she murdered her child or that her child was murdered at all. I don't believe her defense that the girl died in pool accident but it is the job of the prosecution to prove murder occurred which they did not. All they had was the suspicious behavior of Casey and her history of pathological lying.
The DA in Florida pursued the case despite the lack of evidence. The DA could have waited as there is no statute of limitations generally on murder. The problem is the publicity of the case and the public's call for justice made not proceeding harder than proceeding. In this case, the DA looking at Gizmodo's potential defenses (and the fact they could qualify as journalists) and Gawker Media could hire a good defense team made it a hard win. Unfortunately in legal matters having money greatly helps your side. The DA didn't feel like gambling in this case.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.