8 ms·
Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers
- postfuturist 17y agoThe warrant states that the search and seizure was to acquire evidence of a felony. It seems like there are worse things that could happen to him than having his computers seized. (Like getting convicted of a felony)
- darrenkopp 17y agoisn't this a bit excessive over something that would have been out in ~3 months anyway? An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their expose, then returns phone. Cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- amock 17y agoThey purchased known stolen property and used it to make some money before returning it. That's illegal and I don't see why they shouldn't be held responsible for what they did.
- rtrunck 17y ago"Known stolen property" When was that ever established?
- sophacles 17y agoNo. They purchased a phone "found at a bar". They acted in good faith that it had been lost. When asked to return the property, they did. There are exceptions for good faith actions in most "receiving stolen goods" type laws for a reason.
- jolan 17y agoThey're probably after the guy who sold it to Gizmodo since he didn't act in good faith.
- itg 17y agooh please don't pretend to be naive and as if you know all the legal implications of what happened
- rufo 17y agoSeveral sites have posted excerpts of California's penal code detailing how not returning lost property is equivalent to theft. Between that and the half-assed attempts of the "finder" to try to return the phone, according to California state law, the phone is almost certainly considered stolen.
- wmf 17y agoDisassembling the phone and posting pictures on the Web for profit then returning the phone counts as good faith?
- sophacles 17y agoBuying an item that is not blatantly restricted (e.g. is not marijuana), on claims of the seller that it is legit, is good faith. Further, upon request from the original owner, it was returned. This is also good faith... aka "oops my bad". What they did in between is called "I do stuff to my property", and perfectly ok. Note: this was my thinking before I found out CA has weird laws about this (see other replies in this thread).
- wmf 17y agoThere's no way to legitimately acquire a 4G iPhone prototype. So if the seller said "I've got a 4G iPhone here" then it sounds like he was basically admitting at least theft of trade secrets.
- darrenkopp 17y agodo you have a better idea on how to prove that a non-working iphone in a case that looks like an iphone 3gs but has some differences is in fact the next iphone?
- anigbrowl 17y agoPrior legal discussions, to avoid reinventing the wheel: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289252 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289252
- rimantas 17y agoApple has cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc. IIRC Apple cannot do that, DA can.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- darrenkopp 17y agoah, i just saw that this was from the REACT team, which appears to be independent. I was under the assumption that this was pursuant of civil action by apple.
- vaksel 17y agonot with Apple...the guy is lucky he didn't "take a walk" off a 12 story balcony http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/ http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/
- jonknee 17y agoIt's pretty unfair how the cops can take all of the tools you need for work without ever charging you with a crime. Jason's lucky in that he can easily loan another computer/camera, but many hackers would be in a serious trouble if all their computers were seized.
- wmf 17y agoCan you think of a better way to investigate computer crime?
- jonknee 17y agoCopy the drives? There's no reason to sieze a digital camera and both of the guys phones. Realistically they are simply looking for emails, there's no reason to take every bit of equipment the guy feeds his family with. If anyone has to be inconvenienced it should be the authorities. Someone who has not been found guilty or even charged with a crime should not lose their livelihood so the cops can look for a theoretical crime.
- gte910h 17y agoA guy I knew in college had a rootkit installed on one of his servers. FBI and GBI took his drives (I was his RA at the time, definitely was law enforcement, not a 18 year old's exaggeration). They brought them back around a month later after the crime lab made copies.
- sketerpot 17y agoIt shouldn't take a month to copy hard drives.
- gte910h 17y agoHave you seen CSI? Okay, that isn't at all like how police actually work. For most cases, police don't bother sending most of the evidence to the lab, because they won't get anything back except the one or two pieces that are absolutely essential to convict. In that environment, I'm not at all surprised it takes a month to copy hard drives.
- brandnewlow 17y agoThe only one I really feel sorry for here is Chen's wife. He at least gets to be the guy who broke this story. She gets to make wife-face at him for the next 4 months.
- jsm386 17y agoNick Denton, the Gawker Media CEO tweeted an interesting question: Do bloggers count as journalists? I guess we'll find out. Police raid Gizmodo editor's home: http://gizmodo.com/5524843/* http://gizmodo.com/5524843/* http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12902208226 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12902208226
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y agoThe question's not whether or not bloggers count as journalists for the purposes of the shield laws, it's whether or not the shield laws apply when the journalists themselves are under suspicion of committing a crime.
- TallGuyShort 17y agoGizmodo points out that the warrant was invalid because it violated section 1524(g) of the California State Penal Code: (g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code. Section 1070 of the Evidence Code reads: (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated. I am not a lawyer, but I would point out that even though the description of evidence to be seized was extremely vague, the cops can seize the items on it, since the warrant was not specifically for the items mentioned in 1070. If the computer media contains such items, they are not admissible as evidence in a trial. Other data, such as proof of a felony (the reason for the warrant), should be, IMO.
- maukdaddy 17y agoThat seems to apply to undisclosed information or refusing to disclose sources. Neither of those apply to this case, presumably since it is about stolen goods or disclosure of trade secrets. Gizmodo is grasping for straws here.
- jamesbressi 17y agoSeems 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.
- qq66 17y agoYes, but in those instances was the person who received the stolen goods loudly boasting about it to tens of millions of people?
- jamesbressi 17y agoHow is that relevant or matter? (I mean that in the most polite way for arguments sake) Action is action. Theft is theft. Evidence is evidence. I can understand if you mean because the iPhone became "high profile", but that shouldn't make a difference in how our system works my friend.
- anigbrowl 17y agoAs has been observed by many, it's not simple theft. If this was about an expensive cashmere sweater belonging to Steve Jobs, I would agree with you completely. But there is a strong argument that the acquisition and subsequent publicity in this case infringed heavily on state and federal laws which protect trade secrets. You might or might not agree whether those laws apply here, but enough qualified people think they do that it explains the intensity and speed of the investigation.
- chc 17y agoIt seems like that just begs the question. It doesn't really explain why police action is so swift to protect trade secrets but so slow to protect actual property rights.
- gorm 17y agoAt least it was the real police and not the Apple secret police.
- vaksel 17y agofor those who don't know what he is talking about: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/ http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/
- gorm 17y agoNot really. I was thinking about this article from some months back on Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5427058/apple-gestapo-how-apple-hunts-down-leaks http://gizmodo.com/5427058/apple-gestapo-how-apple-hunts-dow...
- gte910h 17y agoI just have to republish this tech crunch comment, made me laugh so hard I scared my dog: From http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/the-iphone-leak-gets-ugly-police-raid-gizmodo-editors-house-confiscate-computers/#ixzz0mFB1tQFt http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/the-iphone-leak-gets-ugly-p... -- Shan - April 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm UTC How it’s[sic] stolen property? If you found a property which is unclaimed what you will do? Since Gizmodo was unable to find owner of that iPhone.. they published on their blog with various features so the owner would come and get it from them.. --
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- stevenbedrick 17y agoI'm surprised that nobody's commented on Gawker's legal response to the search, in which they point out that the search warrant (or, at least, the scanned copy on Gizmodo's web site) clearly shows that a "night search" was unauthorized, whereas the search of Chen's home just as clearly took place at night. Does that mean that the search was unlawful?
- zephyrfalcon 17y agoAccording to http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1533.html: "Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m."
- stevenbedrick 17y agoHuh. Well, I guess that answers that... thanks (to both repliers) for looking into it.
- rookie 17y agoCalifornia Penal Code 1533 In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Since Jason didn't get home until 9:45 and the police had been there for 'a few hours already' it did not start as a night search. IANAL but it is up to someone else to say if that means that the police needed to stop at 10pm or not.