5 ms·
Well he was a journalist which should have gave him rights against stuff like this (protect sources etc). They took ALL his computers, not just stuff related to
by dalore 17y ago
Well he was a journalist which should have gave him rights against stuff like this (protect sources etc). They took ALL his computers, not just stuff related to the stolen iPhone, again breaking the law that is meant to protect sources.
And if I recall when the story first broke, Apple did not admit it was their prototype until the pictures and story came out.
- FluidDjango 17y ago> the law that is meant to protect sources IANAL. Nor do I know all about journalists' rights v. police procedures, but I am puzzled at all the press and online discussion about "protecting sources": Seems to me that journalists should be able to protect sources of * information * - which is different than protecting sources of * stolen property† * ___________________ †or "stolen-ish" - whatever Calif calls found property that is supposed to lead to legitimate attempts to return it to rightful owner.
- commandar 17y agoThe problem is, by serving a warrant and confiscating all his computers and related devices, they've bypassed his ability to protect sources not just in this case, but in all other cases, as well. That's the rationale for making the legal path subpoenas rather than search warrants with journalists.
- GHFigs 17y ago[Chief Deputy District Attorney] Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether Chen is indeed protected by the shield law. -- http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/04/26/daily36.html http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/04/26/da...