• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gizmodo editor's apt. searched and computers seized over iPhone prototype

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I hate Apple and Apple fanboys. Well hate is maybe a strong word, but I greatly dislike them.

However I am with Apple 100% on this. I don't care if one tries to hide behind the guise of journalism, but buying stolen goods just isn't cool. If Gizmodo is genuinely shocked and had no clue that buying stolen goods from a secretive company was going to bite them in the ass then they most definitely deserve to be sued into oblivion.

Like I said I really don't like Apple, but objectively speaking there is no way I can disagree with them on this one.
 
Even with all this free publicity, and I still find myself wanting an Android phone when the contract on my iPhone 3G runs out.

With Apple acting more like an evil Monopoly every day, getting a phone from a company who's motto is "Don't be evil" gets more all the more tempting.
 
Last edited:
ultimatebob said:
With Apple acting more like an evil Monopoly every day, getting a phone from a company who's motto is "Don't be evil" gets more all the more tempting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if only they practiced it rather than it just being a motto.

All major corporations are "evil".
 
My bet is the case will be thrown out, namely because of the illegal search warrant carried out. Jason Chen is a journalist, and is protected by laws against search warrants. (If the court wants something from a journalist, it must be subpoenaed) There is even a case that sided that bloggers are simply online journalists that are protected by these laws.

Not to mention it's been outed that Apple sits on the board of the task force that carried out the search warrant.

They pretty much screwed themselves over.
 
QurazyQuisp said:
My bet is the case will be thrown out, namely because of the illegal search warrant carried out. Jason Chen is a journalist, and is protected by laws against search warrants. (If the court wants something from a journalist, it must be subpoenaed) There is even a case that sided that bloggers are simply online journalists that are protected by these laws.

Not to mention it's been outed that Apple sits on the board of the task force that carried out the search warrant.

They pretty much screwed themselves over.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Depending on how you define "blog" then this could mean virtually anyone with a Facebook account could be considered a journalist and be immune to search warrants.
 
GodlessAstronomer said:
Interesting. Depending on how you define "blog" then this could mean virtually anyone with a Facebook account could be considered a journalist and be immune to search warrants.
Click to expand...

I think this is more towards bloggers who are paid/employed for their journalism. I believe this is how it is defined in law. An unpaid "journalist" is not covered by this law.
 
QurazyQuisp said:
My bet is the case will be thrown out, namely because of the illegal search warrant carried out. Jason Chen is a journalist, and is protected by laws against search warrants. (If the court wants something from a journalist, it must be subpoenaed) There is even a case that sided that bloggers are simply online journalists that are protected by these laws.

Not to mention it's been outed that Apple sits on the board of the task force that carried out the search warrant.

They pretty much screwed themselves over.
Click to expand...

Journalist shield laws protector their sources. They do not protect the journalist from doing the crime. If the probably cause for the search warrant was that stolen merchandise was purchase for $5000, then that's what they're getting him for, regardless of whether or not a story was written about it.

If you buy a stolen car the journalist shield law does not protect you simply because you wrote a story on it.
 
I don't like Gizmodo and I don't like Apple so whoever gets fucked is win win for me. 😛


And another thing, why do they need a search warrant anyway... why do they need to raid his house? I mean we already know before all of this he bought stolen property. What are they trying to find, the stolen phone that he already returned? That's all the evidence they need.
 
Last edited:
darkxshade said:
I don't like Gizmodo and I don't like Apple so whoever gets fucked is win win for me. 😛


And another thing, why do they need a search warrant anyway... why do they need to raid his house? I mean we already know before all of this he bought stolen property. What are they trying to find, the stolen phone that he already returned? That's all the evidence they need.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but I would think that they want email correspondence to narrow exactly down to who purchased the iPhone. Right now we just know that "Gizmodo" as an entity made the purchase. "Gizmodo" can't be charged with receiving stolen goods or serve jail/probation time, but employees of Gizmodo sure as hell can.

Oh, and shield laws don't protect journalists who have themselves allegedly committed crimes, only their sources. There is nothing illegal about the search warrant.
 
preslove said:
I'm no lawyer, but I would think that they want email correspondence to narrow exactly down to who purchased the iPhone. Right now we just know that "Gizmodo" as an entity made the purchase. "Gizmodo" can't be charged with receiving stolen goods or serve jail/probation time, but employees of Gizmodo sure as hell can.
Click to expand...

So here's another question, if I work for said company and they told me to go meet this guy and buy this phone off of them and I had no idea it was stolen, you're saying I go to jail?

Edit: And if they don't know who exactly bought it and want more info, why are they raiding just his house, why not the Gizmodo office?
 
Last edited:
Babbles said:
I hate Apple and Apple fanboys. Well hate is maybe a strong word, but I greatly dislike them.

However I am with Apple 100% on this. I don't care if one tries to hide behind the guise of journalism, but buying stolen goods just isn't cool. If Gizmodo is genuinely shocked and had no clue that buying stolen goods from a secretive company was going to bite them in the ass then they most definitely deserve to be sued into oblivion.

Like I said I really don't like Apple, but objectively speaking there is no way I can disagree with them on this one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same way. I hate apple because I switched to a first gen macbook that fell apart 18 months into ownership. Of course, Jason Chen is a terrible writer and a sycophantic douche apple fanboy probably biases me a little bit. I think its pretty rich that his fanboy-ness led him to do something so stupid as commit a felony AND infuriate apple. It's pretty awesome.
 
darkxshade said:
So here's another question, if I work for said company and they told me to go meet this guy and buy this phone off of them and I had no idea it was stolen, you're saying I go to jail?
Click to expand...

No. But, if there is an email on your computer that shows that you DO know that it is stolen, then you go to jail. The ENTIRE POINT of my post that you quoted was to say "they took his computers to figure out which employee knowingly purchased stolen property so that this employee can be charged with the crime." I'm sure that if the police don't find any emails to that effect, Gizmodo's lawyers could get the case(s) dismissed. Only a fool, however, would think that those emails don't exist.
 
preslove said:
No. But, if there is an email on your computer that shows that you DO know that it is stolen, then you go to jail. The ENTIRE POINT of my post that you quoted was to say "they took his computers to figure out which employee knowingly purchased stolen property so that this employee can be charged with the crime." I'm sure that if the police don't find any emails to that effect, Gizmodo's lawyers could get the case(s) dismissed. Only a fool, however, would think that those emails don't exist.
Click to expand...


Any ideas why they targeted Chen specifically and not Gizmodo's offices? Does Gizmodo even HAVE an office?
 
preslove said:
No. But, if there is an email on your computer that shows that you DO know that it is stolen, then you go to jail. The ENTIRE POINT of my post that you quoted was to say "they took his computers to figure out which employee knowingly purchased stolen property so that this employee can be charged with the crime." I'm sure that if the police don't find any emails to that effect, Gizmodo's lawyers could get the case(s) dismissed. Only a fool, however, would think that those emails don't exist.
Click to expand...


Like I said on the edit, why raid just one guys house? If Gizmodo the entity is part of it, they should be raiding the HQ. And what if I was the editor, knew lost prototype iphone is out there and told an employee who didn't know to go buy it, who goes to jail if I never touched the iphone. The point of my post is that a lot of this is fishy. But like I said, either way, I'm a happy camper since I dislike either parties but am more inclined to see Apple burned more than Gizmodo. 😛
 
Kaervak said:
In California if someone loses something, it's still their property for quite a while afterwards. So the guy that found the phone was, under California law, selling stolen property. Gizmodo bought stolen property. That's the explanation I've heard.
Click to expand...

Since the guy found a lost phone and genuinely tried to return it to Apple, it wasn't stolen property. Gizmodo simply paid $5000 for the privilege of returning the phone to Apple.
 
James Berriman, the founder and CEO of digital investigations company Evidox, explained that whether criminal charges are brought through the DA's office may be determined by intent.
"One of the elements of criminal law is that there is a mental state associated with it," he told FoxNews.com. "Did they have the requisite mental state? Paying for a story is not a crime," he added, wondering "Were they paying for the property, or were they paying for the story? Or were they paying for it in order to return it?"
Gizmodo has publicly stated that it was uncertain whether the iPhone was real at the time it purchased the device for $5,000.
Click to expand...
Full article:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...arrant-sieze-gizmodo-editors-pcs-iphone-leak/
 
1. Does Gizmodo even have a California office? 2. Jason Chen was the most senior editor who wrote the story.

Why do you people think that this is a freaking conspiracy or some illegal jackbooted thug oppress the little guy situation. There are two things that prosecutors and law enforcement hate the most: 1. Fugitives from the law flaunting their freedom. 2. Criminals who brazenly flaunt and brag about their crimes.

#2 is why this shit is going down. Not because of some freaking conspiracy.

Look, I am usually up in arms whenever law enforcement oversteps their authority, but this is not one of those cases.
 
Whatever happens, this makes me like apple even less than I already do. Their employee lost the phone, it ended up in the hands of the media. As soon as Apple came forward and officially laid claim to the item Gizmodo turned it over. End of story.

Apple is just being a whiny crybaby now.
 
destrekor said:
As much as I absolutely was foaming at the mouth over the level of retardation during that moment of so-called journalism, how/why is anyone under investigation?

They have been in contact with Apple, and have returned the device. They posted their story.

Not that I really care to defend them here, though I do feel relieved, if I feel anything, that this wasn't one big sponsored story. Sounds like it may all have been the truth.

Where's the felony, other than purchasing what amounts to known stolen goods, if it could be called stolen. But they didn't cover anything up, unless the employee who lost it is claiming he was drugged or something, lol.
Click to expand...

It was obvious it was stolen......in California it is a felony to purchase stolen items....
 
isekii said:
What if he purchased a lost item, did a review on it and returned it to the owner ?
How does that work out ?
Click to expand...

If it were an iPhone 3Gs I don't think it would be a big deal. This guy exposed trade secrets with regards to an unreleased device for profit. It could hurt Apple stock and current iPhone sales.

This is why companies like Apple do not announce products months in advance. They don't want to lose potential current sales. This was not like a blurry photo taken from a Chinese production line. Gizmodo meticulously deconstructed the device and leaked the trade secrets in a steady stream on their blog.

Apple could easily say that being they sell 8M iPhones a quarter, and that they predict this leak hurt N% of those sales and in turn hit Gawker and Gizmodo with a N (million | billion) dollar lawsuit.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that Gizmodo will no longer exist this time next year. Anyone remember thinksecret.com?
 
dwell said:
If it were an iPhone 3Gs I don't think it would be a big deal. This guy exposed trade secrets with regards to an unreleased device for profit. It could hurt Apple stock and current iPhone sales.

This is why companies like Apple do not announce products months in advance. They don't want to lose potential current sales. This was not like a blurry photo taken from a Chinese production line. Gizmodo meticulously deconstructed the device and leaked the trade secrets in a steady stream on their blog.

Apple could easily say that being they sell 8M iPhones a quarter, and that they predict this leak hurt N% of those sales and in turn hit Gawker and Gizmodo with a N (million | billion) dollar lawsuit.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that Gizmodo will no longer exist this time next year. Anyone remember thinksecret.com?
Click to expand...


Whether they released trade secrets or not is not really an issue, unless they have some sort of NDA they are in breach of. Its Apples responsibly to keep those things secret if they want them so.

The whole issue will come down to how the phone was obtained and the legal issues involved there.

Now if the phone was found to have been obtained illegally then, yes, they are going to be in deep shit, but otherwise they have no responsibility to keep Apples secrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top