3 ms·
Gruber: Expert (or at least informative amateur) on the iPhone. Not a lawyer though. This is for the lawyers to decide at this point.
by gte910h 17y 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 17y agoLegal analysis of it by EFF's Senior Attorney: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-...
- danudey 17y agoShield 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.
- hga 17y agoAccording to Orin Kerr's analysis on The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/04/27/thoughts-on-the-legality-of-the-gizmodo-warrant/ http://volokh.com/2010/04/27/thoughts-on-the-legality-of-the...), while the US Federal law has this exception it's missing from the California state law.
- arn 17y agono one (not even the EFF) is saying that shield law protects you from committing a crime. If you read the EFF's post (linked above), there is a argument that the warrant runs a-fowl of the law. Not that they are immune to the law.
- gte910h 17y agoNo one is arguing the State of California can't get the evidence. Just the law states you can't use warrants to get it from journalists, just subpoenas, to allow to filter out items from other sources/stories. Federal law has an exception. State law doesn't have an explicit one.
- tvon 17y agoDeclan McCullagh and Greg Sandoval: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 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)
- tvon 17y agoFWIW, they're discussing this on MacBreak Weekly right now: http://live.twit.tv/ 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/ http://www.bagandbaggage.com/about/
- commandar 17y agoYet 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.
- tjogin 17y agoWe'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 17y agoCorporate 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.
- commandar 17y agoFair enough, I'm largely talking about Gruber doing things like comparing Darbyshire unfavorably to a drunk character from the Simpsons when the analysis I've seen from people who actually practice and teach law for a living has been far more moderate in its assessment of whether Gawker's arguments will fly or not. http://twitter.com/gruber/status/12909814399 http://twitter.com/gruber/status/12909814399
- pyre 17y agoI 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.