Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/the-iphone-leak-gets-ugly-police-raid-gizmodo-editors-house-confiscate-computers/

by sgman • 16 years ago

257 294 16 years ago

nailer27• 16 years ago

...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks).

Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.

TotlolRon• 16 years ago

yes sir!

hoop2• 16 years ago

We may see Apple challenge the precedence in CA that bloggers should be treated as journalists under the law.

raganwald4• 16 years ago

> Surely Apple's counsel knows US law

Was this a typo? The search was conducted by police, not Apple. This is a criminal matter, not a civil one.

nailer27• 16 years ago

It clearly wasn't a typo. I'm well aware the search was conducted by police. I did not suggest otherwise.

I am saying that Apple asked the police to raid the property.

tvon5• 16 years ago

Seems kind of... excessive.

Granted, I guess if you want to see someone's email correspondence, this is the only way to do it.

dschobel2• 16 years ago

They could subpoena the hosting company if it's web/hosted email (ala Gmail).

danudey4• 16 years ago

While I've argued in several places that Gizmodo should face the penalty for what they've done (buying stolen property, then taunting Apple with it), this doesn't seem like the right way to go. As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism, and I would argue that, regardless of the quality of Gawker's work, Jason Chen counts as a journalist. I can only hope the court agrees.

I want to see Gizmodo get penalized for this, but if the choice is between that and ignoring the rights of journalists, it's not worth it.

ubernostrum2• 16 years ago

As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism

Except that's not a carte blanche shield. If a computer used for journalism was also used to store, say, records of a drug-running ring, would that computer be inviolable? Or seizable, with a warrant, as evidence in the commission of a crime?

kfury• 16 years ago

This is the crux of the issue. The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak. It was used to procure evidence for the buying and selling of stolen goods. Trade secrets are a civil matter. The fact that the police sought a warrant implies that they're pursuing the criminal case regardless of Gizmodo's publication.

IOW: Running a blog or being a journalist doesn't protect your computers from being impounded when you break the law and happen to also blog about doing so.

lionhearted2• 16 years ago

I've got extraordinary mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, people shouldn't feel like it's okay to buy stolen property for their own gain at the expense of the people it was stolen from. But then there's reasonable search and seizure...

Hmm, I don't know, I think I'm going to lean slightly towards stolen-property-bad side of the equation. If the editor wasn't a journalist, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all - if the head of engineering at another company bought a stolen trade-secreted device we'd be calling for his head. Buying obviously stolen property to profit from it is a bad thing and ought to be criminal - should there be exemptions made for doing it for journalism?

smallblacksun• 16 years ago

I see nothing at all unreasonable about this search and seizure.

<edit>oops, didn't mean to downvote you. Can someone fix that for me?</edit>

maxharris• 16 years ago

> should there be exemptions made for doing it for journalism?

No. That would mean that journalists could steal anything, write a story about it, and not face justice.

Suppose that you became famous for fifteen minutes (this happens to people from time to time: see Susan Boyle, etc.) The exemption you propose would allow the press to enter your home, steal things, and plaster images of you and those things everywhere, without any regard for your rights.

dschobel2• 16 years ago

So much for the 'clever marketing ploy' theory.

sp3322• 16 years ago

No such thing as bad publicity. Imagine gizmodo's ad revenues for today!

eli8• 16 years ago

No doubt. But I think dschobel meant the theory that Apple planted this phone to be found.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

Imagine them being included in calculations of penal fines, while you're at it. If a conviction ensues the value of Gawker's increased traffic and ad revenue will surely be scrutinized to determine the extent of their economic benefit.

huhtenberg2• 16 years ago

They pre-sell their ad space.

hoop2• 16 years ago

This will be very interesting to watch unfold. According to Gizmodo's letter to the Detective, they seem to feel that there is a legal precedence set for treating bloggers as journalists under the law in CA state. Both companies are based out of CA. But then again, so is the EFF; I wonder if we will see them step in.

Gizmodo definitely saw this coming. If the pre-written legal defense doesn't give it away, they very publicly bought stolen property and (very likely) profited by doing so.

goatforce53• 16 years ago

That law seems to be written to say "journalists are allowed to protect their sources". Which is not the same as saying "journalists are allowed to commit crimes in order the get a story".

eli8• 16 years ago

Five bucks says there's a post on Gizmodo referencing the Pentagon Papers in the next 12 hours.

I don't agree with what Gizmodo did, but I definitely support strong shield laws for online journalists. I really hope they don't end becoming poster children for a free online press.

jamesbressi• 16 years ago

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple...

When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf?

I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere between $1000 to $5000, there was identification of the person and there was nothing remotely as swift or stern taken here to recover.

city413• 16 years ago

My house got broken into a few years ago, they took everything I owned except furniture and one tv. I later found my anime collection for sale at a local used dvd store (complete with my name written inside the cases of all the DVDs). I talked with the owner, he had photocopied the guy's drivers license who came in with them. Despite this, and my continually pinging the police, nothing ever happened. He got away with it scott free. I guess you need to be a multi billion dollar corporation to get justice in this country.

EDIT: And just want to add, lesson learned. I didn't have renter's insurance at the time, dumb mistake. I'm now always fully insured, and so should you be :)

tvon5• 16 years ago

I think it's more that you need to get a lot of publicity to get justice in this country.

edit: scratch that, publicity only works because it has the potential to bring more powerful groups to your aid.

BRadmin• 16 years ago

What happened to the DVDs?

pohl• 16 years ago

The treatment of your case was underkill.

eli8• 16 years ago

well, it's not that this is overkill... it's that the usual response is too weak. I wish this happened every time something of value is misappropriated.

count• 16 years ago

The trade secrets at stake here are probably worth WAY more than $5000 to Apple. Just because Gizmodo hasn't published any more details about the phone, or left out specific things, doesn't mean they don't know them. That information could be damaging to Apple and it's business relationships (say, if for example, it was shown that it's an LTE phone on VZW, and AT&T didn't know Apple was going to do that).

johSho7w6• 16 years ago

If these secrets are so valuable maybe Apple should rethink its policy of letting them walk out the door to go to a bar.

nailer27• 16 years ago

Your analogy has flaws:

- your robbers didn't tresspass or coerce you to give them anything

- your 'robbers' didn't state they called repeatedly offering to give it back and being ignored

ahoyhere3• 16 years ago

Think about it for a minute. It sucks that your stuff got stolen, but it's not shaking an industry, is it?

This is bordering on accidental corporate espionage. It's not just Apple that's pissed off, but think about what it would be like for other Valley companies to look at this case and wonder "What if it were us, next time?" -- if it wasn't pursued swiftly by the police.

That's the engine of the area's economy, theoretically at risk.

Anyway, unfortunately, the people who stole your stuff probably didn't post on a highly trafficked site about the crime. Gizmodo, on the other hand, did talk about how they bought the phone, and then committed possibly other criminal acts by posting the photos and details.

loso• 16 years ago

And that is my main problem with the story. I do not have a dog in the fight since I have a feeling that the whole story has yet to be told. But if this was anyone else cell phone, there would be no cops kicking down doors.

infinite8s2• 16 years ago

It would if Google or Microsoft lost some new "supersecret" prototype. People are making the false equivalence that this is the same as losing your phone. It is not. They lost an unreleased prototype of a phone that will likely sell millions. The information about the design of this phone would probably be worth lots of money to competitors.

pyre5• 16 years ago

My wife's car was stolen. When it was recovered we found ATM receipts in the car (presumably from the thief). The Toronto Police never called us back about it when we told them that we found the receipts. I mean, we had the bank account numbers of the thief (or at least someone that knew him/her). There was even a parking receipt from the Toronto Zoo and a receipt for school supplies from WalMart (along with an un-opened pencil sharpener).

I mean it was a f'ing car and the police did jack shit about it.

mos1• 16 years ago

You had ATM receipts generated by a known thief.

Can you see why this might not be the solid proof of identity that you like to imagine it was?

markbao3• 16 years ago

I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit.

Hope he has an offsite backup.

ErrantX8• 16 years ago

Just to stick up for the Forensics guys - it's not usually our fault unless there is actually evidence on there. Turn around times (at least in the UK) for actually processing evidence is less than a month.

It's the police/prosecutors that cause all the hold ups.

markbao3• 16 years ago

Sorry—definitely didn't mean to frame you guys. Definitely aware of that, which is why I mentioned law enforcement in general.

The whole thing kind of makes sense (holding equipment to make sure no potential evidence is released without a final decision)—but it's still frustrating and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution that makes it easier for both parties.

zackattack• 16 years ago

Friendly reminder: Everyone should always have an offsite backup! (one which they've practiced restoring!)

joezydeco4• 16 years ago

How do you practice a restore on a backup that you don't quite know for sure is a usable backup?

That's a big fear of mine. I'm not about to wipe my system clean and hope the test works 100%.

noonespecial• 16 years ago

I am impressed that he said that they did very little damage during the search. The last time I saw a search and seizure, it made a tornado look like a minor incident.

warfangle• 16 years ago

Which is crazy, because doing things neatly and methodically would find potential evidence that haphazard whirlwind searching would never find. (Compare NYPD Blue serving warrants to CSI Las Vegas serving warrants)

bsiemon• 16 years ago

Section 1070 California Evidence Code protects sources of information from discovery by the state. It does not protect evidence related to the commission of a crime.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&#...

nailer27• 16 years ago

What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.

rufo3• 16 years ago

Why didn't he do something reasonable, like turn it into the bartender or the police?

neonfunk• 16 years ago

Didn't he/she know the engineer's name? And have his facebook profile?

MWinther• 16 years ago

Well, the only way we know that to have happened is via Gizmodo's account of what the guy who sold it to them said. I'm not saying he didn't, but we've hardly gotten irrefutable proof that it actually happened. It is, after all, in the guy's interest to make himself look like he was trying to return it.

37prime3• 16 years ago

Do you really know if this is a fact or just hearsay? I bet you don't.

notaddicted• 16 years ago

lesson for next time: "we received these pictures and all this information from an anonymous source"

ErrantX8• 16 years ago

Well I'm a bit surprised. I thought the police would casually investigate just for form and then move on (and let Apple pursue it in the civil courts if they wanted).

fjabre• 16 years ago

Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism?

What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media?

The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would definitely explain the police raid.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis (http://gizmodo.com/5524843/)

jrockway22• 16 years ago

Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)

nailer27• 16 years ago

Because there's:

- a news organization

- matters of public interest

involved?

frossie2• 16 years ago

Are the specs of the 4th iPhone truly a matter of public interest? Interest != curiosity in this context. If a journalist has a source that says a state governor is selling senate appointments, that is in the public interest because the public has an interest (is a stakeholder) in clean government. If a journalist gets a stolen toddler toy that turns out to be covered in lead paint, the public has an interest in (is entitled to) knowing not to buy the toy.

The iPhone will come out in July (or whenever) irrespective of you knowing two months in advance its specs. Nothing changes. Nothing will be hidden. There is no "public interest". It's just idle curiosity, and it's not journalism to pander to it to the extent of participating in a very dodgy transaction.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

'Public interest' is a slippery term. Certainly the public is interested in smartphones, or there would be no audience for the story. But does the public have an interest in the intellectual property of manufacturers? Only in the most tenuous sense - state or federal workers' pension funds might be partially invested in Apple's stock, for example.

But it would be hard to argue that this story was presented with the aim of improving the public welfare, as you might if the contents of some confidential government documents were reported or publicized.

johSho7w6• 16 years ago

If a company can't keep its own secrets it should be their problem. We give protections to patents and copyrights for a reason.

po4• 16 years ago

We also give protections to trade secrets for a reason.

grellas2• 16 years ago

An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R...).

Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony investigation, with all that this signifies for Gizmodo. Should Gizmodo be worried? Without question. With the REACT unit on the case (which specializes in these types of tech-related crimes), and with a potential violation of the Espionage Act of 1996 being provable and punishable by as much as a $5 million fine and up to 10 years in prison (see my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289741), they are no doubt taking this very seriously at this point.

Of course, I cannot help sympathizing with Mr. Chen - what a horrible trauma to go through. A very ugly scene for him and his family.

prodigal_erik• 16 years ago

I feel for his wife. But I have to wonder whether Jason Chen is the guy who chose to wreck Powell's life to cram one more factoid into a big story, and what just consequences from that would look like.

jonknee3• 16 years ago

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.

nailer27• 16 years ago

It ruled that the lady in question "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity".

Ie, this lady wasn't considered a journalist.

Chen is an employee of a media organization. That the organization has a blog doesn't make it different to, say, AA Gill writing for The Times, which also has a blog. The main difference is The Times is a more recognized media outlet than Gawker media.

Interesting question: what if it were Engadget? AOL is a recognized media name (sad this was used by the judge in his definition). Or Reddit (owned by Conde Nast) started paying people to write about gadgets?

jrockway22• 16 years ago

Chen is an employee of a media organization.

A media organization with a legal staff, I might add.

eli8• 16 years ago

Does the NJ decision have any bearing on the CA shield law? My understanding is that they don't have much in common.

grellas2• 16 years ago

You are correct that a decision such as that in New Jersey involves completely different statutes and otherwise has no binding effect on California courts. Its effect, if any, would be strictly that its reasoning might be persuasive for a court in California interpreting an analogous statute.

I referred to the New Jersey just to illustrate how courts that are carefully considering such issues might rule on them (this takes the discussion at least a step deeper from that of "don't bloggers and reporters do the same thing" by showing the factors a court will look at in making such a determination).

If, on the other hand, what we have here is a true online media organization (as noted by nailer), then point well taken and the issue must be analyzed on that basis as opposed to standards that might apply if only a blogger were involved.

jkincaid• 16 years ago

The article you linked to says bloggers are not journalists by default. However, it does seem to indicate that "online news reporters" are protected. I suspect Gizmodo would be viewed as an online news source.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

It's certainly traumatic. What's worse is that Brian Lam, Gizmodo's editor-in-chief, apparently chose to leave Chen holding the bag; in their flippant response to Bruce Sewell, they directed him to recover the device from Chen, rather than at their editorial offices in San Francisco - I presume the REACT unit don't have jurisdiction in SF and a separate warrant will need to be issued.

houseabsolute• 16 years ago

Why would a state agency like REACT not have jurisdiction in a city that's in California?

jrockway22• 16 years ago

They're in California, not New Jersey, where the only precedent is in favor of bloggers: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7322507115485901...

Not surprisingly, Apple was involved that time too.

SamAtt• 16 years ago

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 is a federal law. If that was what triggered the search he'd have FBI agents at his door not San Mateo PD.

This is clearly about finding the person who stole the phone.

cperciva• 16 years ago

I know law enforcement organizations don't always work very closely together, but surely if they were both investigating crimes, they could negotiate to do one search and share the evidence they find, right?

jaxc• 16 years ago

From Wikipedia:

"In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

tokenadult2• 16 years ago

"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists."

I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most other bloggers). I wouldn't expect the typical blogger to be regarded as a journalist, legally, because the typical blogger doesn't maintain the standards of professional journalism.

(Note: I was a minor-league journalist, a reporter for a trade magazine, years ago. Big-league journalism is MUCH harder than blogging, by at least two orders of magnitude, and much more constitutionally important.)

nailer27• 16 years ago

Interesting. What about if Gawker has a house style guide, pays a comprable word rate, requests particular markup in copy for boxouts or artwork, docks pay for late copy, and asks you kindly not to be too aggressive about the big advertisers?

tokenadult2• 16 years ago

If the Gawker reporters write for editors (I don't know whether or not that is how Gawker is organized), then they are journalists by the definition I have read. I like your list of questions about other activities that might distinguish a journalistic organization from other organizations.

drewcrawford2• 16 years ago

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption.

If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption.

The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something somebody can pin on you if they want to.

Seriously. Go tick the checkbox.

philwelch• 16 years ago

Alternatively, don't buy stolen property and then publicly announce that you've done so.

Once you've committed a crime though, definitely be smart about asserting your civil rights, using encryption, etc. And even if you haven't committed a crime, assert your civil rights and use encryption. But probably the #1 thing you can do to not get harassed by police is to obey the law.

jrockway22• 16 years ago

Unfortunately, everyone is guilty of violating some law at some time. So it's best to ensure that your computer is not going to be testifying against you, especially when that is just one checkbox away.

You can always decrypt your drive when asked. But you can't encrypt it after the police take your computer.

slackerIII2• 16 years ago

What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?

donw• 16 years ago

You supply it, of course. But having the drive encrypted buys you time. The cops have to take the machines into evidence, nominally send them out to the lab for processing, and only then do they run into your encryption key.

They then need to go back to the judge, and get a court order to compel you to supply your encryption key. By which time you've gotten a lawyer, and can fight back.

iamjustlooking• 16 years ago

Does the 5th amendment not apply in this situation?

drewcrawford2• 16 years ago

Truecrypt supports plausible deniability: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

I don't do anything remotely heinous enough to warrant a court order to reveal my encryption key, however.

ajg1977• 16 years ago

You may want to read up on U.S. v Boucher, 2009.

Unless you're hiding evidence of something particularly heinous, refusing to provide a means of decryption may land you in more trouble than the crime of which you're suspected.

jrockway22• 16 years ago

This is a little different. The laptop was searched while unencrypted, and child porn was found. Only then did Boucher refuse to provide the key. This was also a customs case; where the courts have routinely held that your Constitutional protection against searches does not apply. (The courts are wrong, of course, but this issue remains unsolved pending new legislation.)

Either way, the Constitution is clear on this issue: "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". If a safe is found in your house, the government can do whatever they want to open it. They can blow it up, or they can ask your friends for the combination, or even just try every combination. But they can't punish you for not giving them the combination.

Cryptography is a very strong safe.

(A quick reading of related cases leads me to believe that this one is more relevant: http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/201/case.html. It holds that "In order to be "testimonial," an accused's oral or written communication, or act, must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information." Since reveling the decryption key is a factual assertion and discloses information, it is protected. Note that in Boucher, it is not clear that the key would disclose information.

But honestly, I think my Google skills are just better than the Appeals court in that case. I doubt that the decision would hold up in the Supreme court. And I especially doubt that one could be compelled to give up his or her key in normal, non-customs, criminal proceedings. IANAL.)

itiztv• 16 years ago

confiscation of server is still beyond me

zefhous• 16 years ago

Why's that?

You don't think that they would be interested in having records of email correspondence? It's not unreasonable that people running a site like gizmodo would run their own mail servers to increase privacy. Even if it wasn't a mail server (probably wasn't I'd think), there could easily be evidence on it.

ck22• 16 years ago

This can only happen to protect corporate rights (just try getting that kind of police response for your own problems).

I bet the police waited until they saw him leave the house.

Good luck if you think that hardware is coming back to you this decade, even if charges are dropped, or if you think you'll get the door paid for.

ahoyhere3• 16 years ago

I'm glad.

Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!"

It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong.

It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade secrets, or hey, ethics -- then they deserve what they get, legally speaking.

Anybody who thinks about it for a minute would realize that buying a prototype device that "got found at a bar" ("fell off the back of a truck"), made by a company with notoriously tight seals, and a huge legal team, and then explaining to the world that you bought it off some dude… well, that's gonna have consequences.

If bloggers aspire to be journalists, they're going to have to learn to have those second thoughts.

And learn that "checkbook journalism" just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods.

tmsh2• 16 years ago

I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets about Apple (the phone being turned off remotely and all)? Maybe, perhaps they're at fault for that.

But making fun of a company, satire, should be protected by journalistic rights. Should, for instance, the Daily Show be prosecuted if they go after an interview and someone at the pentagon accidentally reveals classified information? It could be argued that Gizmodo knew the phone had 'fallen off the back of a truck' so to speak -- but their story seemed as much about the falling off of the back of the truck as the item itself.

At what point is there some (perhaps small) burden of responsibility on the people who messed up and lost the prototype? It doesn't seem like complete justice that suddenly Apple gets to come down hard with laws that aren't exactly clearly adjudicated yet. I mean if there were precedent -- if it were clearly known that anytime you come across a prototype, you run the risk of being prosecuted for not returning it to the company immediately, then OK, Gizmodo would be at fault. Maybe there is and I just don't know.

I get the sense that Apple has decided not to fault Gary Powell because that would be sort of a ridiculous move (see Steve Wozniak's thoughts at gizmodo). But that doesn't necessarily give them the right to take out their frustrations on Gizmodo. An engineer made a mistake. If anything, it's added publicity. Move on.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

They'd probably be mostly OK if they had just shown the exterior of the thing - it (or something very similar) has appeared in photographs on the internet before, I believe.

But the teardown showing the internals? That's got to be of significant interest to competing manufacturers.

krschultz4• 16 years ago

I'd be shocked if there was not precedent dealing with exactly this kind of stuff. This is hardly the first time a person in the press has paid for the inside scoop on a trade secret. Ignorance of the case law does not make a person (or corporation) innocent.

ahoyhere3• 16 years ago

Actually, if somebody interviewed by the Daily Show "accidentally" dropped some classified info for $5k, I'm pretty sure the Daily Show would be held culpable.

Alex3917• 16 years ago

"And learn that 'checkbook journalism' just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods."

Why is this?

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' - see reprint at http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-...

nailer27• 16 years ago

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets

What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

Arguably they are, under the Uniform trade Secrets Act (which is CA law):

"... (b) Misappropriation" means: ... (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: ... (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

In detail - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907

angstrom2• 16 years ago

I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed.

This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blowing. And you certainly don't have to steal in order to post an opinion. Suppose I find someone's credit card and I want to laugh at the silliness of the design on the card, do I really need to post pictures of the card along with the 16 digit number, expiration date, and security number before giving it back to them and hiding behind "Freedom of the Press"?

pingswept• 16 years ago

How do trade secrets even enter into this? They're planning on selling these phones all over the world. How could just possession of one be regarded as violating trade secrets?

eli8• 16 years ago

I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period.

The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, do we? If not then how do we protect one without the other?

Lazlo_Nibble2• 16 years ago

We already protect one and not the other. If the seller had only provided Gizmodo with the information they published (photos, teardowns, etc.) instead of the phone itself, Gizmodo probably wouldn't be in any legal trouble and the seller's identity would likely be protected by the shield laws.

hyperbovine2• 16 years ago

They bought stolen goods, period.

Sorry, at which point did the theft occur?

kjhgfghjknbv• 16 years ago

So what about photos of a new car prototypes? There are a bunch of magazines devoted to those.

Or reviews of to-be-released movies?

Or photos of celebs in public?

Not terribly happy about companies using the Police to break down doors to manage their PR.

Lazlo_Nibble2• 16 years ago

If Car & Driver bought a Ferrari prototype from someone who clearly wasn't its legal owner, then ran a big front-page teardown story on the car with a snarky sidebar about how stupid it was for Ferrari to "lose" it, do you really think the resulting police raid would just be "Ferrari managing their PR"?

joezydeco4• 16 years ago

Car makers disguise their field test prototypes with bras, dazzle paint, fake body panels, etc.

http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vauxha...

...just like Apple did with the Fake 3G skin.

anigbrowl18• 16 years ago

reviews to-be-released movies

well might you ask. In this case, an unreleased movie made its way through a longer chain of people, eventually ending up on bittorrent...for which the uploader did ~5 months in jail and >1 year of supervised release: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm

Not an identical situation, of course...but not so very different either. Apparently the sentence was reasonably light on the basis that there was no profit involved. Adding $ into the equation usually changes things for the worse in a case like this.

joubert• 16 years ago

I don't think a celeb in public would fall within the gambit of trade secret protection, unless you mean the latest lactic surgery technique the celeb sports.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

This series of events is why "real" news outlets have legal council. You can, thankfully for society, get away with a lot of stuff as a journalist, but some things are illegal. Particularly, when we are talking about commerce and not politics / public safety.

rufo3• 16 years ago

One fact I find interesting: Engadget was offered the device as well, but was advised by their counsel (in no uncertain terms) to not acquire the prototype.

douglasputnam• 16 years ago

Wow, what's really excessive and shocking is that a Gawker employee has the stones to claim he's a journalist.

raganwald4• 16 years ago

Everyone is debating the whole "Good Faith" thing again. Here's a suggestion: Ask how it is "Good Faith" to "find" something in a bar? This isn't your house, your place of work, or a public space, it's somebody else's property (a phone) inside somebody else's property (a bar). Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse?

Long before we get to the question of how hard the so-called finder tried to return the phone to Apple, I think that wrongdoing occurred the moment he left the bar with the phone in his pocket.

nailer27• 16 years ago

> Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse?

Since you're a good person who wants to call the owner and give it back the next morning before someone less scrupulous steals it? What do you want them to do, leave it there? Give it to the bar staff who you don't know? Give it to the cops who'll simply tell you to contact the owner yourself?

raganwald4• 16 years ago

Pick up phone. Wave to bartender. Done. Or pick up phone, drop at police station, done. Or pick up phone, use Safari to place notice on craigslist, done.

Once I exit the property with the phone, I've done wrong. The onus is now on me to follow through and get it back to the owner, not take a half-hearted effort to get through to Apple on the phone before selling it to someone else who is also not the owner.

p.s. I see you've replied to my points in your message. This makes the thread of conversation hard to follow. Yes, give it to bar staff you don't know. It's not your phone, it's not your bar. It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting, especially when you end up selling the phone for your own gain. Likewise, try giving it to the police and see what they say. That would be a lot more convincing than not doing so and selling the phone later.

flatline• 16 years ago

What if he'd dropped it on the street instead? Should you leave it on the street, to get rained on, run over, stolen, etc., or take the phone and attempt to return it to the original owner? Finding the phone disabled, what do you do next? Throw it out? Return it to the street? Turn it in to the police? Presumably you've figured out it's some sort of prototype that is property of a corporation, so you contact them about it. No reply? I could see myself doing the same thing as the original finder, if all pieces of his story are to be believed.

raganwald4• 16 years ago

We agree that the street is a very different situation than a bar. I agree that if you find it in a public place you should pick it up and try to return it. That's why I specifically said this isn't your home, your place of business, or a public place.

But if you find something on somebody else's property, you can find the owner while still on the property or give it to the person in charge of the property. Taking it off the property puts a very big responsibility on your shoulders to do the right thing in a tearing hurry or be judged a thief.

To me it is very simple. You can find lost property in a public place. You cannot find lost property on somebody else's property. The owner may have lost it, but you can't take it away. Going onto somebody else's property and taking something home that doesn't belong to you is pretty clear-cut.

lt• 16 years ago

A couple weeks ago I saw a phone falling off a biker's girl back pocket. I stopped and picked up, but the girl was already gone.

We called a couple numbers on her cell trying to get her to call back. Eventually she did - turns out she was running away from her family with her ex; and we "ruined her life" by calling them. She never came back to pick it up.

Next time the phone will remain on the ground.

pavs• 16 years ago

They received the best traffic in Gizmodo's history, but at what cost?

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7gizmodous&r=3...

They will probably milk more traffic from this new iteration to this drama.

Whats the worst possible scenario for Gawker? Will they get fined or will the editor go to jail?

ccarpenterg• 16 years ago

Perhaps this is related to an industrial espionage issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Espionage_Act_of_199...

terrellm• 16 years ago

I got a kick out of this:

"These are Jason Chen's computers" http://topherchris.com/post/551530253

ryanisinallofus2• 16 years ago

Let's all be honest. If this was anyone other than Apple you would all be up in arms about this.

icey• 16 years ago

I think if Gizmodo hadn't decided to publish the engineer's information more people would be up in arms about this.

ryanisinallofus2• 16 years ago

I agree. If they just would have blocked the guy's name out they would look better in the public's eye.

istari• 16 years ago

The police should now post the contents of Chen's hard drive online. After all, they did find it.

wmf• 16 years ago

No, they should sell the contents of his hard drive to the highest bidder. After all, I hear police departments tend to be underfunded.

TallGuyShort• 16 years ago

Does anyone know to which email he is referring in his account? Is it perhaps an email about the section in the penal code?

blahbeeblahbee• 16 years ago

IF you tweet, can you use the same legal argument as being protected under "Free Speach and Journalisim?"

Therfore giving you legal immunity regardless of the content that you are tweeting?

Illegal drug use, felony activities etc? Or blind ignorance of common ethics and civil code?

Would be an interesting outcome and an explosion of online journalisim if this proves to be the case... Don't you think?

mr1900• 16 years ago

I wonder if the police would search a house if it was an iphone of a normal citizen.

jsz0• 16 years ago

What Gizmodo did might have been illegal but I have no real problem with it. I feel like Gizmodo made a calculated risk breaking the letter of the law. I can't say I haven't done the same thing involving copyright law, drug law, speeding, etc. Ultimately I read the story and looked at the photographs so it would be a bit silly to get upset at Gizmodo over it.

jajabe2• 16 years ago

Shield laws protect journalists/sources. In an ideal world, we'd be cheering for a good guy. In this case, the TMZ of tech is in the crosshairs. Not going to do any armchair lawyering, but I sure can't wait for the other side (not the whitewashed Gizmodo story) of the story to come out. Sadly, the conditions for Godwin's law are rapidly being met on this situation. sigh

jajabe2• 16 years ago

Sukotto• 16 years ago

Legal issues aside, I would have been cool with it if they'd taken their scoop then made an attempt to return the phone. Instead they kept it and screwed over the poor guy who lost it.

Funny how I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now.

martythemaniak• 16 years ago

Did Microsoft ever sink so low as to legally attack a publication out of petty vindictiveness?

metamemetics2• 16 years ago

A surprisingly easy way to get a phone back is to text-message that phone and say, "If you find this phone, please call this Number: XXXXXXX Thanks!". It's worked for me twice, I don't know how many people do this simple step after loosing a phone.

catch232• 16 years ago

How many unreleased iPhones have you lost and gotten returned using this method? I think the person who found the lost phone knew exactly who it belonged to, but decided to resell it for $5000 instead of returning it.

metamemetics2• 16 years ago

I thought the finder contacted a random apple support employee. The finder should be commended for even taking the effort to look up an apple support phone number if he actually did. The person who lost it should have plastered a lot of nice text messages to the phone with a number to call to return it from a friends phone immediately after noticing it gone. Say how you really need the phone numbers on it. A very low-tech solution that almost always works, you'd be surprised at the good-will of phone finders if they are presented with a super-easy way to return it that takes little effort on their part.

ck22• 16 years ago

Apple serves on the steering committee of REACT, a special task force involved with the investigation.

This explains mostly how if we left a cellphone in a bar, why we could not get the police to even take a report, let alone raid the house of the person who bought it from someone who found it, but Apple can.

delackner• 16 years ago

I am particularly fascinated by the gleefully accepting rationalizations that some people are offering in support of gizmodo, in support of the theft of physical goods, and the buying of such stolen goods. This is the first physical object I can think of where people seem to be applying the same hand wavy feel-good-ism that people use to justify their own software piracy. This is not just copying bits people.

Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

Related Stories