Gizmodo Editor's House Raided by Police

[MyNameDidntFit]

This, my good friends is a very interesting story. Last week, Gizmodo revealed a leaked iPhone 4G (http://www.mature-gamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10166) and, now, the editor of Gizmodo, Jason Chen, has had his house raided by California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) under a search warrant and had some four computers and two servers confiscated, amongst other things.

Interesting? Yeah. But what makes it even more interesting is what the COO of Gizmodo's parent company Gawker Media LLC, Gaby Darbyshire, has brought to light. It appears that, under California law, no warrant may be issued for the confiscation of a journalist's property.

Furthermore, the warrant issued did not approve a night search. When Chen arrived home at 9:45PM to find the REACT officers on his premises they stated they had been there for 'a few hours' already -- basically stating that they had executed a night search under the authority of a warrant that did not authorise such a search.

Yet further, the idea of the iPhone being 'stolen goods' is very much up in the air with the issue of it being lost and abandoned property as when Apple remotely 'bricked' the phone they effectively abandoned it. Lost and abandoned property is, under law, an iffy topic, but as I understand it, any property that has been both lost and abandoned is not considered to be stolen.



While Gizmodo may very well wind up in serious trouble for the possession of the iPhone 4G, this situation is looking a whole lot more interesting for REACT and any other California agencies involved after Darbyshire pointed out their botched warrant.

The full warrant, list of items seized and a few items of correspondence between Darbyshire, Chen and the Detective responsible are available on Gizmodo's website (hit the source link below).

Source (http://gizmodo.com/5524843/)

[Jason]

Wow. Looks like a hell of a bad move by REACT, but I have little sympathy for Chen - he knew what he was in possession of was someone else's property, knew exactly whose it was, and failed to return it. In my eyes, this isn't too far removed from stealing. Unfortunately, there's a little too much of this kind of 'journalism' going on these days, and it's worrying.

On the flipside, by the sounds of things, if what Gizmodo claim is true (which I have no reason to doubt), then REACT are pretty much open to all manner of potential lawsuits.

[MyNameDidntFit]

They did return the iPhone. They knew only that it was an Apple phone, not whose it was (Gray Powell, an Apple software engineer, if you're wondering).

All the Gizmodo articles related to this saga can be found from the bottom of this article: http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

[Jason]

They did return the iPhone. They knew only that it was an Apple phone, not whose it was (Gray Powell, an Apple software engineer, if you're wondering).

Well, they held it hostage. They refused to send it back until Apple officially claimed it and announced it was theirs. And as you said, they knew it was an Apple phone - why not send it back to Apple? It's aggressive journalism, and whilst it's not illegal, you can't do this kind of thing and then run crying and hiding behind the 'freedom of the media' laws when the authorities decide to play hardball. Yes, the Police fucked this one up pretty badly, but I'm pretty sure they must have needed something better than a hunch to issue a warrant, even if it was badly carried out.

[MyNameDidntFit]

The laws they're, uh, 'hiding behind' are, well... kind of there to 'hide behind'... why else are they there?

Gizmodo received what was possibly a leaked product, checked it out, inquired as to the owner, waited for them to officially claim it -- wouldn't want it falling into the wrong hands -- and then gave it back. There's really no issue there in my opinion.

You can't run crying because someone found your lost and abandoned property and decided to look at it before they gave it back -- otherwise the next time I leave my wallet somewhere I'll be suing the guy that gives it back.

[Konrad]

Well, they held it hostage. They refused to send it back until Apple officially claimed it and announced it was theirs. And as you said, they knew it was an Apple phone - why not send it back to Apple? It's aggressive journalism, and whilst it's not illegal, you can't do this kind of thing and then run crying and hiding behind the 'freedom of the media' laws when the authorities decide to play hardball.

But that's what "'freedom of the media' laws" are there for. If not to hide behind them, then what for? If this wasn't to be an acceptable behaviour, no laws would protect it, Gizmodo would not have done what they did (most likely) and nothing would have happened.

I mean... that's the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights in America. So you have something to cry to when the authorities decide to play hardball.

Yes, the Police fucked this one up pretty badly, but I'm pretty sure they must have needed something better than a hunch to issue a warrant, even if it was badly carried out.

All it takes to get a search warrant is "probable cause" to believe a crime was committed. This is just a step above "reasonable suspicion."
Either way, if the search was illegal then nothing they just took is going to be used against him. Since I'm guessing they took all the evidence they need - whatever case Apple is trying to build up isn't going to hold up.

[Jason]

Ah, but the difference is, your wallet isn't a commercial product, the guy that finds it doesn't post all about it on the internet, and his doing that doesn't potentially force you to rethink what would almost certainly be a multi-million dollar advertising campaign.

At the end of the day, it looks like Gizmodo were playing with fire and appear to have got a little bit burned. I hate to say it, but I'm on Apple's side with this one. It was clearly their property, and Gizmodo not only forced them to 'announce' the iPhone earlier than they were planning to, potentially causing a major rethink in their marketing scheme, but posted details about it all over the internet. Imagine the kind of boost that'll give Apple's rivals in the smartphone market. They now know what Apple are doing next, and they've got a pretty good idea of the specs.

[Jason]

But that's what "'freedom of the media' laws" are there for. If not to hide behind them, then what for?

In my eyes, 'freedom of the media' laws are there to prevent a journalist who has uncovered a public interest story about a prominent figure (let's say a national leader, for example) being censured because it would harm said leader's image. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they're NOT there so 'journalists' can hold new technology to ransom and force a company to publicly announce something that they may not be ready to announce (see my previous post regarding Apple's rivals) without recourse to some kind of legal action.

[MyNameDidntFit]

The specs? They've got no idea what the specs are. If you look at what's been released it's what they managed to guess by looking at it.

Gizmodo were playing with a match and Apple threw a bucket of napalm on them. They had returned the iPhone... what good was to come of having the authorities breaking into Chen's house and confiscating all his computers and storage devices? A hunch that he may have kept some secret info on the phone? Hahahaha. If that constitutes sufficient cause to break down a guy's door and confiscate his belongings, freedom of speech has a rocky future ahead of it.