| 0 |
Subject: iPhone raid and freedom of the press
Posted by: Tree
- [248472317] Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 11:47
the original news story was a bit of geek love - how an Apple Software engineer accidentally (or not) left a fourth-generation iPhone on a bar stool, and Gizmodo subsequently got ahold of the phone and reported their findings.
Instead of providing a ton of links, for the uninformed, there's a good timeline here.
what has happened since though, is something oughta worry anyone who has concerns about freedom of the press and all that comes with it.
Police officers raided the home of Gizmodo Editor Jason Chen, seizing several computers and related equipment. more on that here...
and of course, NPR (and plenty of other places too), raise the big question: "Debate: Did iPhone Raid Threaten Freedom Of The 'Press'?"
i sure think it does. |
| 1 | Farn @ work
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 11:59
|
Yeah, I'd have to agree. I understand they may feel the phone was stolen but seizing his computers is unlawful.
You can prosecute them for knowingly buying "lost" merchandise but seizing the computers is way over the 1st Amendment right.
|
| 2 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:01
|
I don't see the problem. There was probably cause to believe that Chen was knowingly in possession of stolen property. There was reason to believe that the items seized under the warrant contained evidence of the alledged crime. The fact that Chen was alledgd to have been a participant in the criminal act means that his being a member of the press is irrelevant.
|
| 3 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:02
|
Farn - The computer hard drives contained evidence of Chen's involvement and knowledge of the crime. This kind of evidence is always subject to seizure under a warrant.
|
| 4 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:06
|
There was probably cause to believe that Chen was knowingly in possession of stolen property.
but what makes it stolen property?
the iphone was given to an Apple Engineer to test it. he didn't steal it.
he subsequently lost it.
someone else found it.
they sold it to Gizmodo.
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:10
|
The police don't make the determination as to whether it was stolen or not. They follow the warrant in seizing property which might (or might not) have been involved in a crime.
Buying property from someone who clearly didn't own the property in question isn't a smart thing. Being a member of the press doesn't free someone from a charge of receiving stolen property.
|
| 6 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:25
|
How about if instead of it being iphone what if it was a stolen company laptop that showed the company knowingly did something wrong and police under a warrant confiscated the laptop and all computer records the journalist had of the data?
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:51
|
There's no indication that Apple did anything wrong.
In your hypothetical, this would be covered under whistleblower statutes. The police *might* confiscate the property in question, but the person holding the property has the opportunity to present it as being evidence of wrongdoing. If they show that it is evidence then the police hold onto it.
MBJ probably knows a lot more of the practical side of that hypothetical, however.
|
| 8 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:00
|
PD you are probably right that was probably not the best analogy, I guess the question is does ipod fall under news worthiness and it just seems that apple has convinced the local authorities of what needs to be confiscated. If a pawn shop buys stolen merchandise they do not come in and confiscate all of their computers.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:02
|
I certainly agree. I think the difference here is that we are dealing with an electronic device, the possession of which falls pretty squarely under industrial secrecy. It seems likely that a guys whose job it is to write about electronic devices, and who paid for the thing, is likely to have reproduced some protected information or details into his computer.
The police certainly can't know without checking!
|
| 10 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:08
|
Question for the real lawyers here: I know possession of stolen property is illegal, but is possession of lost property? Does intent or knowledge enter into it?
Question for the board: What are the odds Apple deliberately dropped the phone into the wild just as auto companies routinely drive slightly masked unreleased models around until they hit the rumor mill?
|
| 11 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:10
|
I don't think industrial secrecy is not covered by criminal law. Apple can sue but I don't think what he did was criminal offense.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:14
|
It is for the court, I think, but when he purchased a product from someone he knew didn't have the right to sell it he crossed the line, IMO.
In fact, I think he shed the journalist label the moment he opened his wallet.
|
| 13 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:20
|
When Chen paid for something and took it into his possession
, knowing it didn't belong to the seller , he clearly was
possessing it with intent to deprive the owner of it (even if he
gave it back eventually). That's a crime.
I would imagine the reason the computers were seized was to
look for coommunication and data by Chen and his
accomplices showing what he knew about the ownership of
the phone and what he'd dove with the phone after he got it.
Imagine that instead of a phone , it wad the Mona Lisa and
Chen was an art critic.
|
| 14 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:24
|
I am sure someone here is expert on legal aspects of corporate secrecy and can explain with what is legal and not.
Maybe you are right maybe you are wrong about the opening of your wallet part, my journalism ethics seems kind of fuzzy on that subject.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:28
|
So you'd make a perfect journalist, then.
:)
|
| 16 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 15:40
|
as a writer, this piece sums up my thoughts on the matter...
This case is unique, however, in that Gawker paid its source for someone else's property; had Chen not been a journalist, no doubt police could have arrested him for buying what's arguably a stolen good and compelled him to reveal his seller. But Chen's a journalist, and his iPhone seller is therefore a "source."
|
| 17 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 00:35
|
Posters keep calling it "stolen" property. It wasn't. It was lost.
The "finder" claims he tried to return it. He claims he called
Apple headquarters multiple times and they dismissed him.
If that's true, there would be records of the calls on his phone,
and I would think it would change the case.
Gizmo did not know the phone belonged to Apple when they
bought it. In fact they were skeptical and thought it might be a
planted fake. They in fact "doubted" it was a real Iphone
prototype at first.
They weren't buying a "stolen phone", they were buying a lost
phone that the finder attempted to return. (assuming all facts in
case are true as reported)
Further, they were not in anyway attempting to "keep" the
goods. They wrote a very public article that they knew Apple
would read, and when requested they immediately returned the
property.
So even under your premis MBJ, as soon as they bought the
device, they made it clear that they had it to the world, and
immediately returned it when requested.
The "Mona Lisa" premises is ham fisted. The analogy would be
this.
Someone "lost" the Mona Lisa, and the finder brought it to an
art collector who bought it and immediately went public letting
the word know he had the Mona Lisa, and as soon as the
rightful owner contacted him he unconditionally returned it.
That doesn't sound like a crime to me.
If all the facts are true, device was lost not stolen, finder
attempted to return it to Apple, Gizmo wasn't even sure it
belonged to Apple until they tested it (how would they know? at
first it was just a phone found in a bar) then this all seems very
heavy handed.
Of course we have to let all the facts come out now. There
might be more to the story then we know now.
Funny how Americans just jump on the bandwagon to support
the police and Apple's heavy handed tactics while this little guy
gets his life turned completely upside down, property and
essentially business confiscated by the police when essentially
Apple may have simply just F'ed letting this prototype get out
there.
|
| 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 00:41
|
Gizmo did not know the phone belonged to Apple when they bought it. In fact they were skeptical and thought it might be a planted fake. They in fact "doubted" it was a real Iphone prototype at first.
Yet they still bought it. Why? Because it *might* have been a prototype. Otherwise, why buy it, yes?
Since the only reason they bought the thing is because it might have been a lost Apple prototype, they knowingly bought something from someone that didn't own it. It isn't "losers keepers."
|
| 19 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 02:05
|
"Since the only reason they bought the thing is because it might have been a lost Apple prototype, they knowingly bought something from someone that didn't own it. It isn't "losers keepers."
And then they went public, told everyone in the world they had the lost property and immediately turned it over to the rightful owner as soon as they were contacted. THAT is a crime in America?
They didn't buy it to try and keep it, they bought it to take a look and then return it to the person who lost it. It would be different if they were trying to keep it.
Seems to me the real crime is that they f'ed with Steve Jobs, he's a powerful man in them thare parts, and his local mafia is exacting revenge.
(IF all facts in the case are exactly as Gizmo reported)
|
| 20 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 09:27
|
Nerve -First of all there is no reason to believe that all the facts are as Gizmo reported them. But...
Even assuming that - you need to understand the legal difference between lost, mislaid and abandoned property before you insist that this property was lost and that the finder was innocent. Even according to Gizmos' story here's what happened:
Finder was in a bar and found a valuable piece of property. Even if it was just an old 3G Iphone, it was obviously not something that was intentionally abandoned. His legal choices were to leave it alone or bring it to the attention of the management of the premises.
When he instead took it home and dismantled it, he stole it. Having possession of property not yours with the intent to deprive the true owner of it (even for a short time) is a crime. There's no way around that.
He says he took it to Apple and got no response. Even if you believe tha cock-n-bull story, he'd already stolen it. He knew it belonged to a guy named Powell and he called Apple's corporate office. Right.
By the time he got to Gizmo, with that story, Gizmo knew that he didn't own it and that he would sell it for $5,000.00? You really think they thought they weren't buying something that wasn't the finder's to sell? They knew or should have known that they were buying stolen property regardless of whether it was a 3G phone or whatever it might be.
It doesn't legally matter that Gizmo made their theft public or eventually returned the phone. What is relevant is that they took it knowing it didn't belong to them and kept it (while using it for a commercial purpose, none the less) for a time unlawfully.
Forget that it turned out to be a prototype. If they'd simalarly acquired Powell's regular phone, dismantled it, and posted his pics on their Facebook page, would you think they were within their rights?
Anyway, the point of this thread is not to determine Gizmos guilt or innocence; none of us have the facts to make that determination. The issue tree raised was if this incident will somehow damage the general "freedom of the press" Tree seems to believe that it is impossible for a journalist to committ the crime of possession of stolen property, so long as they right a story about it. There is on such right. Journalists have no more first amendment rights that anyone else to serve as a fence for thiefs and when they do they should be prosecute just lik anyone else.
Here the police have clear reason to suspect a crime may have been committed by Gizmo and their investigation into it is run of the mill, but for the odd victim.
|
| 21 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 10:39
|
My point MBJ, is even if everything you say is true, the state going to this guys house, taking away 4 computers, his Iphone etc. is over the
top and it's happening because this is Apple and this is Apple's town.
Even if you are technically right, How serious is this, when they went public that they had it and they immediately returned it once Apple
asked for it, and they didn't attempt to conceal they had it. It's simply not that big a crime, even if it is one.
The only reason this guys house was raided and all his property was confiscated is because he did it to Apple. If it was my phone or your
phone, he announced he had it, and immediately returned it, the State wouldn't be raiding his house.
As far as the $5,000 goes, of course they hoped it was a prototype so they could scoop the story, but I guarantee you the $5,000 was
contingent on it being the real thing.
So my point is did they do something wrong? Perhaps. Was it so egregious that the Sate has cause to raid the guys home or business,
confiscate all his computers and his phone, even when he announced to the world he had it and was ready to return it...ah no. Not unless
you love a good police state.
|
| 22 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 11:25
|
Nerve - They served a search warrant. This is not unusual, even when Apple isn't the Defendant. You are wrong about this being highly unusual. KSP has a lab full of confiscated computers that have been siezed for investigations for child porn cases, finacial crimes or any number of other ivestigations that involve communications or data storage on a computer. The only reason this is news is the unusual defendant. Great pub for Apple dontchathink?
|
| 23 | Frick
ID: 213452810
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 11:45
|
MBJ, do the Federal shield laws not apply? From what I have seen, journalists can not have their work seized under a warrant, it needs to be subpeoned. From the follow ups that I've seen, the REACT agents have not looked at the computers that were seized while the issue if the person is a journalist.
But, I agree that journalists can get a free pass on a felony, there is just a different method of obtaining the evidence in question.
In the view of the law, I think he's going to be found guilty. He used a "stolen" item to profit. They had the phone for 2 weeks while they took it apart and investigated it before announcing they had it.
|
| 24 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:03
|
Frick- the only Federal law that I know of that applies does
not protect the journalist if the journalist himself is active in
the commission of the crime being investigated. It wouldn't
apply here. I don't think the guy who wrote tree's linked article
from NPR understood what crime was being investigated.
|
| 25 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:13
|
If the journalist believed that Apple "left" the phone to be found, played with and written about in a guerrilla marketing scheme, paying someone so that his website could be the "player" in this arrangement is a valid defense.
|
| 26 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:32
|
Great pub for Apple dontchathink?
From my perspective bad for them better for gizmo who I have visited everyday this week. Never visited them before unless I googled a story and stumbled there.
I own a mac book, an I pad touch, love Apple, but also see the pompous arrogant aspect to the handling of the case.
One of their employees F'ed up. Get over it, you win some and you lose some, but don't play the heavy hand and call in the mob. It's David vs. Goliath and Apple is getting bad publicity in my opinion. The hipster crowd they try to cultivate isn't going to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the raid.
|
| 27 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:35
|
By the way MBJ got a laugh about your comparing purchasing a "lost" phone with Child porn.
Why does everyone keep calling it "stolen" when it was left in a bar?
Yeah I know you come up with a DA's rational why it's technically stolen, but that's why people don't like DA's... 8^]
|
| 28 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:58
|
#25 Exactly.
|
| 29 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:37
|
i said the same thing during a conversation at work. i'm not convinced this was an accident.
|
| 30 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:36
|
And I said the same thing in #10.
|
| 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:46
|
I said the same thing in my head, as I read the posts.
|
| 32 | Frick
ID: 213452810
Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 20:29
|
Looking at Apple's history of not leaking specs, I don't t think this was intended. There are stories of developmental equipment being chained to desks.
I don't see the leak being a planned event. The follow up raid seems to confirm that IMO.
I have several Apple devices, but this doesn't make Apple more appealing to me. I love the way Apple products just work. I don't care for the way Apple is closing their platforms and forcing everything though them.
|
| 33 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:54
|
Surprise, surprise. Turns out that the thief that took the phone
from the bar never called Apple and never claimed to have.
The phones owner returned to the bar to get the phone but
he'd already made his get away. He's in trouble.
Sometimes I wish people would surprise me, but they usually
don't.
Also, evedently Cali has its own jouranlist shield law. I have
no idea if it would differ from the ones I'm familar with, but I
doubt it since Gizmo was complicity in the theft.
|
| 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:47
|
Scott Adams weighs in:
The reporter is claiming shield law protection but, as the post above indicates, this wouldn't offer any protection to a reporter under direct investigation. Makes sense: A reporter cannot claim privilege to cover up their own crime.
|
| 35 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, May 03, 2010, 16:08
|
And as I said my opinion completely changes if there was more to
the story. I haven't read a link...MBJ? But knew if he called Apple
there would be telephone records, so dumb lie to tell if you really
didn't.
uhhh I used a payphone.???
|
| 36 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, May 09, 2010, 15:01
|
Well here's your good publicity. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central
calling out Apple for having become everything they always
stood
against. Becoming "The Man" just like Microsoft.
Funny clip, first one on the page called "Appholes"
href="http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2010/05/03/the-
daily-shows-best-apple-moments/" target="_blank">link
|
| 37 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sun, May 09, 2010, 15:43
|
People are asking about the status of the phone as lost or stolen. One of the articles had an outline of Ca law which indicates if you find an item you do not own it. You must make reasonable efforts to find its owner and return it. California law was pretty clear according to the article - the person who found the item had no right to sell it and it was to be treated like stolen property under Ca law.
I don't remember which article to link it unfortunately.
|
| 38 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, May 14, 2010, 20:46
|
Seriously, how anyone can continue to defend the actions of the thief and his fence in this case on some kind of made-up journalistic privilege grounds mystifies me
According to the statement, the saga began March 25, when Apple engineer Robert "Gray" Powell left the iPhone prototype in the bar area of Redwood City's Gourmet Haus Staud restaurant.
It said Gizmodo paid Hogan $5,000 for the device, cracked it open and posted images of it on April 20 despite a phone call from Jobs the day before demanding website editors return the gadget. Gizmodo promised Hogan an additional $3,500 bonus if Apple formally unveiled the device by July, according to Broad.
Now, Chen is under investigation for theft, receiving stolen property and damaging property, according to the affidavit. The affidavit also suggests Hogan and a third roommate, Thomas Warner, also may face criminal charges, and alleges the two panicked and attempted to hide evidence when they caught wind of the criminal investigation.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|