It's not a first amendment issue at all. Jason Chen and Gizmodo committed a felony in the state of California by failing to return a property known to qualify as stolen under California statutes.
And that requires siezure of all his computers?
Come on man.....
Prosecute him for the theft and destruction of property then. Sue Gizmodo civily if necessary, but thats not what this is about. What they are doing is looking to plug the leak.
There's this cool thing called evidence. It's stored on PCs these days.
Yeah, but do you really think that is what this is about? Come on man. They are looking to finger the source of the leak, and find out who got paid for the phone.
Moraly wrong what they did, perhaps, but he is protected as a journalist to obtain information and protect his source. I'm sorry, there is a much bigger issue here then petty theft of an electronic devise.
The definition of reasonable time will come into play. I could be wrong but I believe Giz claimed they immediately tried to contact Apple and were having a hard time getting through the red tape that is corporate communications. That might grant them some leeway.
But I don't think there's much they can say regarding their disassembly of the product in question. Seems like vandalism or something.
Petty theft? Please. Ten grand large changed hands to put that phone in the Giz HQ, and that was just the highest bidder.
Slippery slope my friend. What next? Icrontic gets a copy of a game early through some semi nerarious methodology (friend at the developer forwards us a copy under the table) We post impressions of it, and then the cops show up and say, where is your PC, there was a game theft, how did you obtain this, yadda, yadda.
Its an exchange of information, yes, its illegal for the "source" to sell his tester, but, once again, Gizmodo is protected under the US first amendment, and the journalist does not have to tell anyone where he got that thing. Mistake they made was making some BS up about where they obtained it to begin with. A real journalist would have just said, "we obtained" and been done with it. I've been on record as saying, if Gizmodo did anything really awful in this whole thing it was releasing that guys name.
Listen, I'm not saying they did not having it coming, but what about the greater good?
Cliff, your impression of the law is wrong, I'm afraid.
You keep citing journalist protections, but you're evidently unaware that shield laws protecting reporters, editors and their outlets from revealing their sources are not federally mandated. Go look it up. Shield laws are handled on a state-by-state basis, and California offers no protection for criminal activity under shield laws.
And for the record: It's not even a good analogy, because we're not interested in partaking in (semi-)nefarious methodology, or publishing material we don't have a right to. We've had several opportunities to go to press with big stories like this, but we don't because we respect the relationship we have with other companies.
Cliff, your impression of the law is wrong, I'm afraid.
You keep citing journalist protections, but you're evidently unaware that shield laws protecting reporters, editors and their outlets from revealing their sources are not federally mandated. Go look it up. Shield laws are handled on a state-by-state basis, and California offers no protection for criminal activity under shield laws.
And for the record: It's not even a good analogy, because we're not interested in partaking in (semi-)nefarious methodology, or publishing material we don't have a right to. We've had several opportunities to go to press with big stories like this, but we don't because we respect the relationship we have with other companies.
Thats Icrontic's prerogative, and I completely respect that, but...
At the end of the day, Freedom of the press is established to help the press operate on a different level so they can obtain vital information, and protect the sources where that information comes from.
Gizmodo did a piss poor job, I'm not arguing that they didn't, but I'm still taking the stance that this is about Apple intimidating journalists that may want to print anything before their paid lackey Mossberg does...
Seizure of Gizmodo's PC's over this is overreaching their authority.
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
Gizmodo is arguing that California police stomped all over the reporters' shield law, which protects them from revealing anonymous sources, when they stormed editor Jason Chen's home and seized a bunch of his stuff.
But let's make this clear from the beginning: If the state court can somehow prove that Chen broke the law by knowingly buying a "stolen" (rather than lost) iPhone, the shield law isn't going to help them.
It doesn't matter that Chen is a blogger. Even if he was a reporter at the New York Times, the shield law protects journalists from revealing sources. It doesn't protect them from breaking the law.
I'm starting to see the point to the degree where Gizmodo essentially fucked themselves by coming out and saying they obtained stolen goods. If they protect their source up front maybe it never becomes an issue. The bar stool story was totally irrelevant to the story, yet they published it.
Dummy's.
So, I'll concede that there may be some merit to your argument that they had a reasonable warrant to issue given what we knew because they more or less told us.
Now, if Gizmodo never publishes where they obtained the device, then where are we? I wonder if the cops still get the warrant? We will never know...
Okay, I'm with you, fuck Gizmodo, but not so much because they aquired an Apple item in a shady way, fuck them for being so arrogant and sloppy in their handling of it. I mean, if your going to be a crook, do it right!! (like Intel)
Comments
And that requires siezure of all his computers?
Come on man.....
Prosecute him for the theft and destruction of property then. Sue Gizmodo civily if necessary, but thats not what this is about. What they are doing is looking to plug the leak.
Yeah, but do you really think that is what this is about? Come on man. They are looking to finger the source of the leak, and find out who got paid for the phone.
Moraly wrong what they did, perhaps, but he is protected as a journalist to obtain information and protect his source. I'm sorry, there is a much bigger issue here then petty theft of an electronic devise.
But I don't think there's much they can say regarding their disassembly of the product in question. Seems like vandalism or something.
//edit for Cliff's sake
Slippery slope my friend. What next? Icrontic gets a copy of a game early through some semi nerarious methodology (friend at the developer forwards us a copy under the table) We post impressions of it, and then the cops show up and say, where is your PC, there was a game theft, how did you obtain this, yadda, yadda.
Its an exchange of information, yes, its illegal for the "source" to sell his tester, but, once again, Gizmodo is protected under the US first amendment, and the journalist does not have to tell anyone where he got that thing. Mistake they made was making some BS up about where they obtained it to begin with. A real journalist would have just said, "we obtained" and been done with it. I've been on record as saying, if Gizmodo did anything really awful in this whole thing it was releasing that guys name.
Listen, I'm not saying they did not having it coming, but what about the greater good?
You keep citing journalist protections, but you're evidently unaware that shield laws protecting reporters, editors and their outlets from revealing their sources are not federally mandated. Go look it up. Shield laws are handled on a state-by-state basis, and California offers no protection for criminal activity under shield laws.
And for the record: It's not even a good analogy, because we're not interested in partaking in (semi-)nefarious methodology, or publishing material we don't have a right to. We've had several opportunities to go to press with big stories like this, but we don't because we respect the relationship we have with other companies.
Thats Icrontic's prerogative, and I completely respect that, but...
At the end of the day, Freedom of the press is established to help the press operate on a different level so they can obtain vital information, and protect the sources where that information comes from.
Gizmodo did a piss poor job, I'm not arguing that they didn't, but I'm still taking the stance that this is about Apple intimidating journalists that may want to print anything before their paid lackey Mossberg does...
Seizure of Gizmodo's PC's over this is overreaching their authority.
I'm starting to see the point to the degree where Gizmodo essentially fucked themselves by coming out and saying they obtained stolen goods. If they protect their source up front maybe it never becomes an issue. The bar stool story was totally irrelevant to the story, yet they published it.
Dummy's.
So, I'll concede that there may be some merit to your argument that they had a reasonable warrant to issue given what we knew because they more or less told us.
Now, if Gizmodo never publishes where they obtained the device, then where are we? I wonder if the cops still get the warrant? We will never know...
Okay, I'm with you, fuck Gizmodo, but not so much because they aquired an Apple item in a shady way, fuck them for being so arrogant and sloppy in their handling of it. I mean, if your going to be a crook, do it right!! (like Intel)