21 ms·

IPhone Leak Investigation On Hold As DA Ponders Gizmodo Shield Law Defense

17 points by terpua 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago
The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry). So a guy finds a $5000 phone in a bar, sells it to the media, has the media look at it, and then returns it to its owner. The state, in an effort to prevent others from doing this, breaks into the writer's house, takes $5000+ worth of his property, are going to look at it for a few days, and then they'll return it. I smiled.
- staunch 16y ago
  That's one way to [re]ddit it. Here's another: The DA has reason to believe some guy is in possession of a very important piece of stolen property. They get a judge to sign a search warrant. The police execute the warrant. The guy's lawyer says the guy is a member of the media. The DA pauses investigation, and will likely kill it. The guy's property will be returned. His damaged door paid for. Everyone is perfectly safe and okay. The system works again.
- johnswamps 16y ago
  Do you know what the police do to people when these people take someone by force and keep them in a location where they don't want to be (kidnapping)? They take those people by force and keep them in a location they don't want to be. And do you know what they do when a person kills other people?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- ugh 16y ago
  “So a guy finds a $5000 phone in a bar, sells it to the media, has the media look at it, and then returns it to its owner.” That’s not the story Gizmodo told.
tvon 16y ago
It seems like Gizmodo could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had acted in a somewhat professional manner. They could have easily examined the device, taken it apart and re-assembled it, and returned it to Apple, and then published the story without revealing that they had paid $5k for it and without revealing the identity of the guy who lost it (the justification of which still mystifies me, at least in the manner in which they did it). At any rate, I wonder if the shield law coming into play now is more related to weather or not they feel they can legally extract information from the equipment rather than weather or not it was legal for Gizmodo to purchase the device, or for the "finder" to sell it. IANAL, of course.
mkramlich 16y ago
This iPhone raid is a reminder that only the government has the legal monopoly on trespassing, breaking-and-entering, and theft -- which are functionally equivalent to this raid & confiscate operation. These monopolies are in addition to those on kidnapping (arrest, imprisonment) and murder (executions, military actions). But... do not be alarmed.
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  And the alternative is? I don't know of anyplace worth living in that doesn't have laws and a means of enforcing them. Do you?
  - ewanmcteagle 16y ago
    It may not be about completely different alternatives but instead the degree to which government power should be limited.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Exactly. The argument is not, "Well, it could be worse." it is, "It should be better than this." When you give an entity the legal right to trespass, break-and-enter, steal, kidnap and kill you better be damn sure it is only done against "bad guys". Otherwise, that entity is the bad guy.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  You could always move to Mexico. I hear there's a thriving competitive market in those activities there. Why, just last Saturday seven government monopolists were killed in a great victory for free enterprise - without any bureaucratic red tape like warrants or detailed paperwork, either.
akadien 16y ago
All of this for a damn phone.

17 points by terpua 16y ago

The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry). So a guy finds a $5000 phone in a bar, sells it to the media, has the media look at it, and then returns it to its owner. The state, in an effort to prevent others from doing this, breaks into the writer's house, takes $5000+ worth of his property, are going to look at it for a few days, and then they'll return it. I smiled.

staunch 16y ago
That's one way to [re]ddit it. Here's another: The DA has reason to believe some guy is in possession of a very important piece of stolen property. They get a judge to sign a search warrant. The police execute the warrant. The guy's lawyer says the guy is a member of the media. The DA pauses investigation, and will likely kill it. The guy's property will be returned. His damaged door paid for. Everyone is perfectly safe and okay. The system works again.
johnswamps 16y ago
Do you know what the police do to people when these people take someone by force and keep them in a location where they don't want to be (kidnapping)? They take those people by force and keep them in a location they don't want to be. And do you know what they do when a person kills other people?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ugh 16y ago
“So a guy finds a $5000 phone in a bar, sells it to the media, has the media look at it, and then returns it to its owner.” That’s not the story Gizmodo told.

tvon 16y ago

It seems like Gizmodo could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had acted in a somewhat professional manner. They could have easily examined the device, taken it apart and re-assembled it, and returned it to Apple, and then published the story without revealing that they had paid $5k for it and without revealing the identity of the guy who lost it (the justification of which still mystifies me, at least in the manner in which they did it). At any rate, I wonder if the shield law coming into play now is more related to weather or not they feel they can legally extract information from the equipment rather than weather or not it was legal for Gizmodo to purchase the device, or for the "finder" to sell it. IANAL, of course.

mkramlich 16y ago

This iPhone raid is a reminder that only the government has the legal monopoly on trespassing, breaking-and-entering, and theft -- which are functionally equivalent to this raid & confiscate operation. These monopolies are in addition to those on kidnapping (arrest, imprisonment) and murder (executions, military actions). But... do not be alarmed.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago
And the alternative is? I don't know of anyplace worth living in that doesn't have laws and a means of enforcing them. Do you?
- ewanmcteagle 16y ago
  It may not be about completely different alternatives but instead the degree to which government power should be limited.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Exactly. The argument is not, "Well, it could be worse." it is, "It should be better than this." When you give an entity the legal right to trespass, break-and-enter, steal, kidnap and kill you better be damn sure it is only done against "bad guys". Otherwise, that entity is the bad guy.
anigbrowl 16y ago
You could always move to Mexico. I hear there's a thriving competitive market in those activities there. Why, just last Saturday seven government monopolists were killed in a great victory for free enterprise - without any bureaucratic red tape like warrants or detailed paperwork, either.

akadien 16y ago

All of this for a damn phone.