Gruber: Journalist Shield Law Won't Help in Gizmodo Case

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/26/blodget-shield-law

by sabat • 16 years ago

27 50 16 years ago

sabat2• 16 years ago

Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves.

But the Apple employee, Gray Powell, admits to having lost the iPhone prototype. It was not stolen, and no one is accused of having stolen it. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-engineer-gray-powell-...

So where's the felony? Chen couldn't have bought stolen goods if the goods were not stolen but merely lost.

seb• 16 years ago

The phone was sold. The finder made a profit from the phone he found, instead of turning it in to the police or bringing it to the owner.

ryoshu• 16 years ago

Apparently he attempted to contact the owner (Apple Inc.). Just because Apple's bureaucracy prevented the phone from being recovered immediately doesn't mean he stole the phone.

gte910h4• 16 years ago

Either way, the POINT of the shield law is to protect all other items not connected to the case.

So if Gizmodo say, talked to a source who committed a crime last Feb, THAT correspondence should never ever should end up in the hands of a prosecutors office unless they subpoena it and Gizmodo gets to go in front of a judge and move for the subpoena to be quashed.

For journalists, you have to subpoena items, not seize them. That's the important point now.

The DA's may or may not be allowed to see what giz knew and when they knew it about this case. But it's very unlikely they are allowed to know everything else on that hard drive, and they went about getting what they are allowed to know the wrong way (search warrant rather than subpoena).

sabat2• 16 years ago

The phone was sold. The finder made a profit from the phone he found, instead of turning it in to the police or bringing it to the owner.

Does California state law, or federal law, mandate that you have to attempt to return found items? That would be news to a lot of people.

tzs• 16 years ago

Losing something does not extinguish title in that thing.

hernan7• 16 years ago

http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/04/gruber-wants-to-make-a-citi...

Fake Steve Jobs: "John, dude, I love you like a son, but you’re letting this get to you, it’s getting under your skin, you need to let it go"

pohl• 16 years ago

That post feels like it was ghost-written by someone who can't tap into the voice of the FSJ character. Or maybe Dan's having an off-day.

I love the pic, though.

neonfunk2• 16 years ago

Yes, I'm being a gruber apologist, but that post was written days ago, before the raid. If anything, I think that there was a raid vindicates gruber's sense that this is serious business, and that the police are treating it as such.

pyre8• 16 years ago

The police are only treating it as serious business because it's a popular news item. (and it gets the DA's name in the papers)

RyanMcGreal• 16 years ago

It's funny because Fake Steve has now written at least four or five posts about the matter.

tptacek• 16 years ago

I'm nowhere near the apologist for Apple that Gruber is and the Gizmodo thing is way, way under my skin. The TechCrunch Twitter debacle is still under my skin for exactly the same reason.

tjogin2• 16 years ago

Gruber is no Apple apologist, he's just too insightful to come up with rants and raves about how one could "fix" Apple's business with a simple adjustment — unlike everybody else with an opinion on Apple.

gte910h4• 16 years ago

Gruber: Expert (or at least informative amateur) on the iPhone.

Not a lawyer though. This is for the lawyers to decide at this point.

ryandvm• 16 years ago

Legal analysis of it by EFF's Senior Attorney:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-...

danudey3• 16 years ago

Shield law doesn't protect you from committing a crime. The issue here is that Chen is suspected in (or suspected of being complicit in) purchasing stolen goods.

If the phone finder had found the phone and sent photos and info to Gizmodo, they would be protected, but since they purchased the phone they've also committed a crime and have forfeited their journalistic protection.

tvon3• 16 years ago

Declan McCullagh and Greg Sandoval: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=newsL...

(for the sake of adding opinions, as opposed to refuting the EFF opinion)

tvon3• 16 years ago

FWIW, they're discussing this on MacBreak Weekly right now: http://live.twit.tv/

I tuned in late but I believe they have a lawyer giving her opinion.

edit: yeah, it's Denise Howell from http://www.bagandbaggage.com/about/

commandar2• 16 years ago

Yet Gruber's been gleefully declaring Gaby Darbershire, who's an attorney with years of experience in corporate law, a hack for the last few days now.

tjogin2• 16 years ago

We'll see won't we? I'm betting Gruber's right. Being a journalist doesn't mean you are allowed to buy stolen goods.

mbreese• 16 years ago

Corporate law doesn't necessarily equate with CA criminal law.

Also, I know she's a member of the bar of England and Wales, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything to the CA criminal justice system.

Then again, I too am not a lawyer.

pyre8• 16 years ago

I think that point is that Gaby is a lawyer in the UK, not licensed to practice in the US, and probably not well-versed in California's state laws. So for her to give legal advice about how to not commit a crime in California is a little disingenuous.

mattvanhorn• 16 years ago

I think I'll believe the lawyers at EFF more than a disgraced liar of an analyst and a professional Apple fanboy.

rufo2• 16 years ago

"Disgraced liar"? Is there something in particular you're referring to?

maukdaddy• 16 years ago

EFF is biased too.

VeXocide• 16 years ago

The best defense is a good distraction, it's just that.

papachito3• 16 years ago

Gruber is taking apple fanboism to the extreme. Wishing some guy would go to jail for a _lost_ iphone, just wow.

tvon3• 16 years ago

You're really glossing over the details there.

pyre8• 16 years ago

The point is that taking a lost item and saying, "finders, keepers" is against the law in California. Gizmodo would not be on the wrong end of the law if they had purchased pictures of the prototype from the guy that found it (and the shield laws would apply). By purchasing the prototype itself, they were in possession of the 'stolen' property, and their actions once obtaining it were restricted by law.

papachito3• 16 years ago

The law says the finder has to try to contact the owner, he tried and they didn't answer his calls. So he's supposed to just burn the phone or make it magically disappear?

habika13• 16 years ago

This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone. ========================================================== http://greatlawgroup.com

Gruber: Journalist Shield Law Won't Help in Gizmodo Case

Related Stories