Who cares. It's not like they were uncovering some great conspiracy. They bought a fucking stolen phone and wrote a review of it to make money. Not to right some great injustice. This is stupid.
- Status
E
Element 117
"we make magical products, but we still want you all to know humanity doesn't DESERVE them. It deserves to be SHIT UPON. Apple, HARD CORE"?
---------- Post added at 12:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------
good to know you're cool with laws being broken "cause it's stupid."
---------- Post added at 12:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------
Who cares. It's not like they were uncovering some great conspiracy. They bought a fucking stolen phone and wrote a review of it to make money. Not to right some great injustice. This is stupid.[/QUOTE]
good to know you're cool with laws being broken "cause it's stupid."
M
Matt²
Sounds to me like a judge that thinks the internet is a "series of tubes"...
good to know you're cool with laws being broken "cause it's stupid."[/QUOTE]
And you're OK with laws being broken so someone can make a buck? I'm sorry that I have no sympathy for people who take advantage of laws meant to protect journalists. They bought a stolen phone and took pictures of it.
Don't forget they also bragged about the fact that they were able to buy the missing iPhone. There is very clear evidence that they committed a crime.
I don't think they should have the rights granted to journalists to protect them when they themselves have ZERO journalistic integrity.
I don't think they should have the rights granted to journalists to protect them when they themselves have ZERO journalistic integrity.
cnet said:
M
Matt²
There's more on the story.. may not have been Jobs that called the cops, looks like it was the guy that lost it in the first place.. also, there is a difference between paying for the phone and paying for the story, in this case an exclusive find, what technogeek wouldn't hand out cash for an exclusive peek at a gadget?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...arrant-sieze-gizmodo-editors-pcs-iphone-leak/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...arrant-sieze-gizmodo-editors-pcs-iphone-leak/
E
Element 117
No, that's actually the opposite of my point. If a civillian breaks the law, law enforcement is not suddenly granted a "well he did it first so we can too" card.And you're OK with laws being broken so someone can make a buck? I'm sorry that I have no sympathy for people who take advantage of laws meant to protect journalists. They bought a stolen phone and took pictures of it.
C
Chibibar
turn for the worst for Gizmodo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8645884.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8645884.stm
What are you guys talking about?
If the police are made aware of a crime, and if the state's attorney can show the judge that valuable evidence is in a given residence and on computers, then a search warrant can be issued to secure that evidence. No notice is given, of course, because such evidence might go missing if notice was served prior to the search.
Journalists are not immune to search warrants. They are immune to certain types of searches under _very_ specific rules in order to protect them and their sources from undue pressure.
However, when it's clear that a journalist HAS committed a crime, and in fact has published their crime, a judge is more likely than not going to issue a search warrant.
Just because they are journalists does not mean that they are immune from prosecution - in that case I might as well become a journalist, and break into Apple's labs, then when I'm caught say, "Oh, hey, I'm a journalist so you can't, you know, actually prosecute me for this."
There are some very narrow allowances made for illegal activities, such as in whistleblower cases (ie, journalists handling - but not paying for - corporate trade secrets, IP, etc) where there is a common good that will be served by making these things public.
But in this case, neither of these journalistic protections apply, even if you claim gawker/gizmodo have journalist rights. Firstly, they are committing a crime. Period. Second, there is no common public good served by disclosing this information.
So yes, of course they are going to cry foul when they are searched and _claim_ that the search is illegal. And of course the various organizations that support journalism are going to go on record that this is a bad thing. But that doesn't make either of them right.
The real worry that these organizations have is that this case may actually tighten down the standards journalists can now work under. If anything they should be angry with Gawker for forcing this open for legal scrutiny again.
But it doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, they broke the law, and they will pay the price. They are not immune to search and seizure and prosecution from criminal acts.
If the police are made aware of a crime, and if the state's attorney can show the judge that valuable evidence is in a given residence and on computers, then a search warrant can be issued to secure that evidence. No notice is given, of course, because such evidence might go missing if notice was served prior to the search.
Journalists are not immune to search warrants. They are immune to certain types of searches under _very_ specific rules in order to protect them and their sources from undue pressure.
However, when it's clear that a journalist HAS committed a crime, and in fact has published their crime, a judge is more likely than not going to issue a search warrant.
Just because they are journalists does not mean that they are immune from prosecution - in that case I might as well become a journalist, and break into Apple's labs, then when I'm caught say, "Oh, hey, I'm a journalist so you can't, you know, actually prosecute me for this."
There are some very narrow allowances made for illegal activities, such as in whistleblower cases (ie, journalists handling - but not paying for - corporate trade secrets, IP, etc) where there is a common good that will be served by making these things public.
But in this case, neither of these journalistic protections apply, even if you claim gawker/gizmodo have journalist rights. Firstly, they are committing a crime. Period. Second, there is no common public good served by disclosing this information.
So yes, of course they are going to cry foul when they are searched and _claim_ that the search is illegal. And of course the various organizations that support journalism are going to go on record that this is a bad thing. But that doesn't make either of them right.
The real worry that these organizations have is that this case may actually tighten down the standards journalists can now work under. If anything they should be angry with Gawker for forcing this open for legal scrutiny again.
But it doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, they broke the law, and they will pay the price. They are not immune to search and seizure and prosecution from criminal acts.
Necronic
Staff member
hmmm...
this one is interesting.
What about the story that the person tried to return it to Apple first but was told that it wasn't their property?
If this is the case, then I feel that there can be no crime, as the person who originally found it attempted to return it. After that attempt failed, the property became hers.
After the property became hers, then there is not theft. What there is is a person with a very strange item that is very very interesting. If it is an Apple product, then there is a story (why did they not take it back), since Apple says it is not their product it means there is a story there that may not just be "OMG IPHONE 4" it could be "is this some home-made iPhone?" or "ITS ALIENS!!!" (you never know)
This also brings into question whether the property itself is the concern. On an entertainment level, people recieve leaks about the contents of a movie or a tv show, are they breaking the law by releasing that information?
On an industrial level...its a bit different. I heard a story once about some guys working at an aerospace firm who noticed that some people visiting from a competing aerospace firm left some very sensitive data. They weren't sure what to do with it so they sat on it for a couple days. When they finally decided that it would be stupid to try and use this information they went to their boss. They were fired immediately for even going so far as to sit on it.
this one is interesting.
What about the story that the person tried to return it to Apple first but was told that it wasn't their property?
If this is the case, then I feel that there can be no crime, as the person who originally found it attempted to return it. After that attempt failed, the property became hers.
After the property became hers, then there is not theft. What there is is a person with a very strange item that is very very interesting. If it is an Apple product, then there is a story (why did they not take it back), since Apple says it is not their product it means there is a story there that may not just be "OMG IPHONE 4" it could be "is this some home-made iPhone?" or "ITS ALIENS!!!" (you never know)
This also brings into question whether the property itself is the concern. On an entertainment level, people recieve leaks about the contents of a movie or a tv show, are they breaking the law by releasing that information?
On an industrial level...its a bit different. I heard a story once about some guys working at an aerospace firm who noticed that some people visiting from a competing aerospace firm left some very sensitive data. They weren't sure what to do with it so they sat on it for a couple days. When they finally decided that it would be stupid to try and use this information they went to their boss. They were fired immediately for even going so far as to sit on it.
This is akin to saying, "We purchased the stolen Mona Lisa, and knew it belonged to the lourve. We called their phone, got their receptionist who said, "I can't help you", and so we figured it was ours to keep."
That defense simply won't fly in court. I'd be very surprised if they attempted to plead not guilty based on that. The phone was clearly an unreleased Apple prototype, otherwise they wouldn't have paid for it. The fact that they paid for it, and that they published information on it shows they knew exactly what it was and who it belonged to.
I'm not sure what type of defense they might try to make, but there's no law that says, "As long as you make some perfunctory attempts to return property that isn't yours, you can keep it." I don't know where people get this idea from, but it's simply not true. There is no "finder's keepers" except under very limited circumstances, which certainly do not cover this scenario.
Regardless, the whole reason the computers were seized is to find out the identity of the person that sold the item to gawker. While Gawker purchased stolen property illegally, the person who sold it is in much hotter water.
* - Replace "stolen" with "lost" if it makes you feel better. Even if it was found, it still is not within the rights of the finder to sell it, nor gawker to buy it knowing what it was.
Oh? Please quote the law and/or case law. It's a very common misconception, so I'm very interested to see why people think there's a legal basis for this.
THEY BOUGHT STOLEN PROPERTY AND PUBLISHED A STORY BRAGGING HOW THEY BOUGHT IT FROM SOMEONE WHO "FOUND" IT!EFF Rep said:
Jesus Christ people are stupid about this.
also Hope the story was worth it for Gizmodo as they can pretty much kiss their press invites to Apple events good bye. They get to now be the half-rate secondary source with apple like they are with the other 90% of their content.
Looks like that code does not cover him. All it does is prevent warrants being issued for evidence carried by reporters/journalists/news organizations who have evidence on a source for a story/article/report. In other words, if they ONLY have evidence that can be used to testify against a source (not themselves) they used for their publication, then they cannot be forced to testify, nor can they be searched or their property be seized.
It certainly does NOT cover them if they themselves are accused of committing the crime.
"adjudged in contempt" - insofar as I can tell it means that they cannot be given a search warrant just because they refuse to testify. Only in that very limited circumstance can they be protected from search and siezure.
Here are the sections referenced:
When, for what, on whom search warrants can be executed against:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1524.html
Exemption - items that cannot be searched for:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/california-evidence-code-sec-1070
But I have to admit, Gawker is playing the public very nicely. They really do have a lot of people convinced that journalists are above the law and immune to prosecution from criminal acts.
Here are the sections Gawkers is specifically NOT referencing:
I'd like to see gawker post california penal code 487, defining Grand Theft:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/487.html
Note that the property taken does not have any special requirements - you don't have to take the property off a person in order to constitute theft. Picking an abandoned item off the ground can constituted theft. However, we get a more precise definition of theft on coded 484:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s484
This is why it is unlikely that they will attempt a "finder's keeper's" defense - because there is no such defense - and even if there was such a defense it wouldn't apply to for gawker. They took someone else's property from another person (487c above) - in other words they committed grand theft by buying property from someone whom they knew did not own the property in question.
That's all there is to it. They cannot claim that they had a reasonable belief that the property belonged to the seller. They paid $5,000 for an object that will eventually sell legitimately on the market for $600 with no contract. They have published all this information. There is a solid line that divides the "Yes, the object belonged to the seller" and "No, the object did not belong to the seller" and by their actions they proved they knew which side of the line they were on when the purchased the illegally obtained property.
It's going to be an open and shut case, and Gawker can't really even hope for a nice plea bargain in exchange for testifying against the person that obtained the property in the first place. The DA will want to demonstrate that media corporations are not allowed to commit grand theft for the purposes of a story, especially in a tech rich state such as California where trade secrets and IP are one of their biggest exports.
I'm with the First Lady on this one, I think. It seemed like a pretty dickish thing to have done in the first place. I don't wish ill-will on the gawker folks but they may have made a mistake here...
- Status