Gizmodo editor's home raided in iPhone prototype probe

[onehandle]

Source: AFP

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Gizmodo said Monday that California police raided the home of an editor for the gadget blog who revealed details last week of a secret next-generation iPhone prototype.

Gizmodo published excerpts from a search warrant that gave police permission to seize property from editor Jason Chen's home that was "used as the means of committing a felony" or "tends to show that a felony has been committed."

The search warrant signed by a local judge specifically authorized the seizure of "printed documents, images and/or notations pertaining to the sale and/or purchase of the stolen iPhone prototype."

Gizmodo last week said it purchased the iPhone prototype for 5,000 dollars from an unidentified person who found it in a California bar, where it had been lost by a 27-year-old Apple software engineer named Gray Powell.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100426/tc_afp/usitcompanytelecomappleiphonegizmodo_20100426220947

---

I believe that this confirms that it was not a publicity stunt.

[Happyhippychick]

1. How do I say this nicely?

Get a life people! It's just a cell phone!

And I have an Iphone, I love my Iphone, I plan to get the 4g. But this is ridiculous!

[brooklynite]

2. So, if you lose your phone, and I find it, I can keep it? After all, it's just a cell phone...

From the reporting I've heard, the prototype was in the possession of either the finder or Gizmodo for at least a month. Everyone knew what they had, and chose to cash in (either for money or publicity) rather than return the "lost" property.

[Ter]

27. Yes, you can keep it

It's a wrong thing to do (I found an iPhone two years ago and turned it into the Apple store in my mall), but as long as you don't steal it, if you find it it's yours.

[MUAD_DIB]

4. I would suggest that it is not ridiculous.

Perhaps the police are looking for something that GIZMODO still has that may not belong to them?

I find it curious that my fellow DUers are all for their rights, but seemingly don't give two hoots about the rights of others; regardless if those others happen to be corporations.

[liberation]

7. I just find it unsettling that public police force and justice are used as corporate enforcers

Last I checked, I didn't see the cops raiding the headquarters of your average bank whenever they try to pull a fast one on their customers.


If any of you were to lose a piece of your intellectual property in a public place, I am sure that if any corporate hack was to find it and figure they can make a mint out of it... you'll never see that piece of IP ever again, and you will be shit out of luck. And most people will be all too happy to point out that you deserved it for being so careless.


I find it mind boggling how quick people are to defend corporations when they screw up in such magnificent manner, all the while most of the society keeps a "fuck you that is how you learn buddy" attitude when people do mistakes.

[MUAD_DIB]

11. Why you have trouble seeing the obvious is startling.

1) If a bank was in possession of stolen goods and posted that very fact on the internets then I do not doubt that the police would be visiting them.
The police are supposed to protect and to serve: everybody's interests under the law.

2) Your speculation about a corporate hack is comical. I used to post my own artwork on DU long ago and then saw it showing up on other site: being credited to other people. You don't need corporate hacks to take your things when DUers could do it just as easily. I don't post anything like that any longer when somebody else is going to take the credit for it. The difference that you keep on ignoring is that the IPhone was property of a corporation. It did not belong to the person(s) who found it or GIZMODO for that matter.

If another corporation had paid for the IPhone then I am sure that you would never have heard of it again either, but that is not what happened. What happened is that GIZMODO seemingly thought that they were above the law in some way.

3) Your words. I find it mind boggling how quick people are to defend corporations when they screw up in such magnificent manner, all the while most of the society keeps a "fuck you that is how you learn buddy" attitude when people do mistakes.

I am not sticking up for the corporations, but I am sticking up for everybody by supporting the rule of law for all. Whether it is Apple Computer or Joe the Bartender they should all be treated fairly under the law, and when somebody stupidly claims to possess their property then those individuals have shown poor judgment in their actions.

Had GIZMODO been given the code for a new Democratic Underground widget how would you feel about them plastering that all over the internet? You see, it stops being funny when it starts being you.

[liberation]

17. That you think that ad hominems are an actual argument just because you number them...

that is rather startling too. Was I supposed to be impressed that you know how to count up to three, and surrender common sense to your "superior" argument.

LOL.

For what it is worth I find it very amusing, and in a funny kind of way, for a corporation to lose a supposedly trade secret in a public restroom and then the state making a criminal case out of it. This is a civil cause, at best.

[MUAD_DIB]

19. Thanks for losing the argument.

Come again any time. ;)

You lost when you switched from this being about to the police doing their job to making it about a civil case instead.

You switched poorly...

[liberation]

21. Holy shit, I didn't know Steve Jobs posted on DU!!!

Awesome...

Wouldn't it be awesome if you could just "win" arguments by declaring yourself the winner?

[MUAD_DIB]

24. It would be great if you could win an argument.

Maybe that will happen for you someday. :rofl:

[mattvermont]

3. The corporate police

now reign supreme. What was the crime other than divulging corporate secrets.
I would understand if he worked for Apple, and had signed something, but wtf?

[MUAD_DIB]

5. The comedy that springs forth on DU at times...

What was the crime other than divulging corporate secrets?

Is that not, in and of itself, enough?

[liberation]

8. It sort of stops being a secret when it is left in a public rest room...

... you know what secret means, no?

[MUAD_DIB]

12. And it starts being "theft" and "poor judgment"

when not returned immediately.

... you know what illegal possession means, no?


Had this been a fellow DUer's property...a car for example, and had been "found" by a Freeper who then plastered their find all over the internets I can imagine how this place would be going crazy over it. Since, however, the property was was that of a big bad corporation then they have no legal rights to reclaim their property or make sure that everything related to it has been returned.

The ability to ignore the law for some while advocating it for others is not something that I would expect from a fellow DUer.

[liberation]

18. A car has an actual title stating its ownership.

But by all means, if you want to one up your ad hominems with false analogies. I guess you want to have a trifecta of intellectual dishonest arguments in a single thread.

As I stated before, this should be a civil matter at best. I am not advocating breaking the law, just because you can't comprehend that I think the public police force and legal system are being grossly misused in this case.

[MUAD_DIB]

22. Property is property regardless of title, sweetheart.

Nice fail once again. :rofl:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

6. The warrant states that there is probable cause that a felony was committed.

We may not be big fans of corporations around here, but theft is theft.

[MilesColtrane]

14. Receipt of stolen property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receipt_of_stolen_property

It's a federal crime.

And, possibly criminal conspiracy if it can be established that the purchase of the phone was OKed by the higher ups at Gawker. (Gizmodo's parent company)

[liberation]

20. But the issue is that "losing" something and "stealing" are kind of different concepts

This should be a civil case at best.

[MilesColtrane]

25. "Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers" only applies on the playground.

Taking someone's property without their consent is theft. It doesn't matter if it was taken out of their pocket, or if it was left at a bar.

[MUAD_DIB]

26. Why some people have a problem with that concept...?

[BanzaiBonnie]

52. MY husband and I are wondering if the device

might actually have been "lifted" from a pocket.

[Odin2005]

9. The Corporate SS. Fuckers!

[MUAD_DIB]

13. How so do you suggest that?

[pimpbot]

10. Apple is a steering member of the California Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team,

Basically Apple is killing any free publicity they got from this whole fiasco. Gizmodo never runs an anti-apple story, and now they are getting railroaded by some corpo-government agency.

[parasim]

15. a) of course they're a steering member...

Apple is one of the most innovative and profitable companies in silicon valley, largely due to their secrecy, of course they're going to want to enforce the very things that REACT was set up to do.

b) Apple certainly does not want the kind of publicity this tabloid blog garnered by posting pictures of the new design and internals of their upcoming product. Apple generates plenty of publicity on their own, they don't want some punks spoiling their June announcements regarding the iPhone.

and c) Gizmodo runs plenty of anti-Apple stories, it's just that they, like any other hack gadget blog out there, post stories that their readers want to read, and lately there's a lot that is pro-Apple. Still, Giz has been quite ruthless, like most other gadget blogs these days, trashing Apple for their insane policies on what can or can't be included in the App Store, etc.

[truthisfreedom]

16. I think this is just a matter of them trying to seize any data that may not have been released

in the online article. This could potentially be looked at as a corporate espionage case, for one simple reason: Gizmodo knew exactly what they were doing when they opened up the unit and described the inner contents. They knew what they had and made no effort to protect Apple's secrets. They revealed highly sensitive information to the public, information which could cause other manufacturers to stop in their tracks and begin new development to keep their products highly competitive with Apple's. The element of surprise is extremely important at Apple's level.

Gizmodo likely changed the course of smartphone development by revealing what they did about Apple's new iPhone. The problem is, they knew that they were revealing corporate secrets. There's simply no innocence involved.

I'd be surprised if Apple pursued anything other than trying to recover and/or destroy any unrevealed secrets, especially photos of the internal assemblies, which no doubt Gizmodo was in possession of and likely intended to reveal later, for their own personal gain.

[parasim]

23. Exactly.

You hit the nail on the head. I was appalled when I watched Gizmodo go nuts with that story. They proved to me that all they want is hits. and they got 'em, going on 9 million last I looked on that one story alone, not to mention the umpteen followups they posted. The best outcome for them is to simply be barred from liveblogging future Apple media events. They'll be real, real lucky if Apple doesn't play hardball with 'em.

[Democat]

29. Imagine this was 60 Minutes, no police would be raiding their house!

The corporate media has decided that web media shouldn't get the same protection as they do.

Why? Because mainstream media is approved by huge corporations, so they usually won't bite the hand that feeds them without permission.

Regardless of what you think of what Gizmodo did, this is a sad case of independent media getting screwed while the big media gets protection.

[Romulox]

30. In a related story, turns out leaked Iphone was legit... nt

[onehandle]

55. Yep. And it could hurt sales of the next iPhone if it was an advanced prototype.

If this prototype has even just one more planned to be released feature than the actual next iPhone, that's all the reviewers will talk about.

[Newsjock]

31. Police seize gear from Gizmodo iPhone blogger

Source: Associated Press

Authorities seized computers, digital cameras, a cell phone and other items from a technology blog editor who posted pictures and details of a lost iPhone prototype.

A computer-crime task force made up of multiple law enforcement agencies searched Gizmodo editor and blogger Jason Chen's house and car in Fremont, Calif., on Friday, according to a statement and search warrant documents provided by Gizmodo.

The warrant, issued by a Superior Court judge in San Mateo County, said the computers and other devices may have been used to commit a felony. Steve Wagstaffe, spokesman for the San Mateo County District Attorney's office, confirmed the warrant's authenticity.

Members of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team took several computers, hard drives, digital cameras, cell phones and other gadgets, plus Chen's American Express bill and copies of his checks.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/26/financial/f131943D33.DTL&tsp=1

---

More info, including a full copy of the warrant, here:
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

[SpiralHawk]

32. Wow -Totappletarianism

wrapped in a pretty fruit.

Me no like 'um.
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[onehandle]

53. The warrant states that there is probable cause that a felony was committed.

We may not be big fans of corporations around here, but theft is theft.

[NoNothing]

33. A felony?

What felony is he supposed to have committed?

[RoyGBiv]

37. Buying stolen property ...

That's the assumption anyway.

[Posteritatis]

40. The warrant would specify if it was stolen property. (nt)

[RoyGBiv]

42. The warrant is ambiguous ...

We don't actually know yet what the "probable cause" was that the DA took to the judge.

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/

[Posteritatis]

44. Note the section in the warrant about stolen goods

There's two things marked on it, neither of which is that.

[RoyGBiv]

45. What is your point?

The two things marked on the search warrant refer to the items to be searched and why they are being searched. The items, e.g. computers, etc., were not themselves suspected of being stolen or embezzled.

Read item #3 of appendix B in conjunction with the two items marked indicating the reason for the search and seizure.

The DA is looking for information regarding the transfer of an Apple 4G iPod from an Apple employee to Jason Chen. They suspect that the computers, etc. have information regarding this transfer and that the computers, etc. were potentially used in the commission of a felony or contain information that would reveal a felony has been committed.

So, since you seem to think the DA doesn't think this is about buying stolen property, what *do* you think the DA is searching for?

[activa8tr]

34. I thought this was all a publicity stunt by Apple

Or is that just rumor?

[onehandle]

54. Nope. Looks like theft. And it could hurt sales of the next iPhones.

If this prototype has even just one more planned to be released feature than the actual next iPhone, that's all the reviewers will talk about.

[Buenaventura]

35. advertising is a felony? wow. n/t

[xultar]

36. That is such bullshit. This country appears to be under some sort of mass crazy

spell.

[cosmicone]

38. They wouldn't act this fast even if a murder is committed...

but for Apple, they will.

[cstanleytech]

46. Well didnt ya know $$$ talks louder than a dead body and apparently this DA

knows when to listen to it.

[Codeine]

39. I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Obviously there's an undercurrent here.

[abelenkpe]

41. He broke the law

You can't do that. The phone was in development and Apple is completely within their rights protecting their product.

Yes, it seems silly compared to illegal war, or people starving, or say global climate change or peak oil, but it's still against the law.

[Xithras]

43. He did not break the law.

It's possible that the person who originally had the phone broke the law, but that's a completely different topic. Apple says the phone was stolen. The "finder" claims that the half-drunk Apple employee walked off and left it sitting on the bar (which, even if true, still makes him a criminal, as walking off with a lost smartphone is a felony, as is selling it).

Gizmodo only broke the law if they knowingly purchased stolen property. Apple didn't allege that the phone was stolen until after Gizmodo bought it, and the seller claimed that it was a "found" device. While you might be able to argue that Gizmodo acted improperly in buying "found" gear, they didn't commit a crime unless a prosecutor can show that they knew, or should have reasonably known, that the phone was stolen.

[MilesColtrane]

47. "(Gizmodo) didn't commit a crime unless a prosecutor can show that they knew,

or should have reasonably known, that the phone was stolen."

That would be easy to prove.

Nick Denton, CEO of Gizmodo parent company Gawker Media has admitted in an interview with CNET that he paid for the phone, and that he knew the person he was buying it from was not its owner.


CNET article, "How Gizmodo Got Its iPhone Scoop":

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002975-261.html

On edit: It will be even easier to prove once the DA goes through Chen's emails.

Nick Denton obviously feels confident enough that the search warrant is a violation of the First Amendment to go on record stating that he knew he was taking possession of someone else's property without their permission.

[targetpractice]

48. Gizmodo bought the phone only because they believed it to be an Apple prototype

So... It's pretty clear that Gizmodo knew the phone belonged to Apple.. Yet, they bought it from someone who didn't have the right to sell it, and they disassembled it in order to disclose Apple trade secrets.

What right did Gizmodo have to disassemble Apple's property?

Upon edit: I meant to reply to the poster above you.

[Xithras]

63. And their first action was to contact the Apple employee to offer its return.

Thief steals neighbors lawnmower. Thief offers to sell you mower for $5, before he runs off with it. You hand the thief the $5, take the mower, and give it back to your neighbor. Have you committed a crime?

Gizmodo did not attempt to keep the phone, and they did not even request that Apple refund them the $5000 they spent on it. They obtained the phone from the finder/thief at their own expense, and then immediately offered to return it to Apple (which they have since done). That's a valid defense in this case.

The fact that they examined it while it was in their custody is irrelevant to determining whether or not their actions were a crime. They are a legitimate media organization, and the device was genuinely newsworthy. While the legality of the way they obtained it may be up for debate, their ability to examine the device and report on the new product was certainly a protected activity.

[MUAD_DIB]

65. GIZMODO had absolutely no right to do what they did. They were not the owners.

Their actions are very relevant and I'm sorry to say appear to be amoral in nature.

JHJC! The level that some will go to to protect others supposed right to hold onto a 3rd party's property, for profit, is beyond me.


Take a bow.

[targetpractice]

68. Not quite the way it happened...

Gizmodo admits that they held onto the phone for a week... They completely disassembled the phone in order to uncover Apple trade secrets. According to Gizmodo (from my reading), they didn't attempt to contact Apple until after publishing the article that disclosed Apple's trade secrets embodied by the phone.

Gizmodo didn't simply buy the phone, examine it, and return it to Apple as you describe.

Is disassembling someone else's property in a quest to make profits by publishing trade secrets protected activity?

[MUAD_DIB]

69. Your ending query is the nut of this whole matter.

By their actions they made a profit.

[Democat]

51. If 60 Minutes or Fox News bought the phone the police wouldn't dare do this!

Do you also think that WikiLeaks should be raided and arrested for trading in stolen corporate and government documents?

There is a reason for the First Amendment - it's to protect speech and the media. Otherwise, the police will decide what gets reported and what does not.

[MUAD_DIB]

56. Perhaps 60 Minutes wouldn't do that. FOX might try, but their

corporate lawyers might suggest not to try something like that.


Does the first amendment cover theft?

I do not believe that the first amendment was created for the media to advertise that they are in property of items that are owned by others.

[Democat]

58. There was no theft by Gizmodo, they are the media who reported on the phone.

If the media gets a hold of documents that the US Government says are "stolen" - is that a crime for which they can raid the homes of those who work in the media?

BTW, did you know that Apple is one of the companies on the board of this police "task force" that raided this guy's house?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

You say that 60 Minutes wouldn't have done it. But, let's say that they did. Can you even imagine the media raiding Diane Sawyer or Walter Cronkite's house? Of course not, they wouldn't dare. Why? Because 60 Minutes has huge corporate sponsors and corporate lawyers. The police are treating internet media like they don't have the same First Amendment rights as mainstream media. Why? Because they are independent of the huge corporate media that is paid for and approved by huge corporations.

[MUAD_DIB]

59. Sigh...not this krap again...

:eyes:

What part of being in unauthorized possession of property that does not belong to GIZMODO, which they then advertise that they have in their possession on their website do you not understand?

If I come across your car with the keys in it do I automatically have the right to take it, disassemble it and then flaunt that on the internet? I don't think so.
Perhaps your are amoral. I am not.

By Jove, my fellow DUers continue to surprise me with how far they would go to stand up for being in possession of others property. It's mind boggling.


To answer your question: Yes. If the media gets hold of sensitive US Government information then they should very well be under investigation.
Since you love theoretical questions what if somebody came across detailed US nuclear launch codes? Would they then have the right to plaster them on the internets? You see, there is a thing called common sense. GIZMODO wasn't using it.
Perhaps your are amoral in that regard. Apparently you are in good company on DU.


What you are suggesting about US Government documents in a very similar way amounts to what BushCo did by outing Valerie Plame's identity to the press and destroying her field work and career as a CIA officer.

Oops! So what, right? Same difference. Try arguing your way out of that.

[NashVegas]

62. They Are Amateurs Who Think "It's All About MEEEEEEEEEEE"

Look at MEEEEEEEE!

[NashVegas]

61. 60 Minutes and Fox Would Have Been SMART and GROWN UP Enough to Cut Deals w/Jobs

To get exclusive first-look rights and an interview.

Gizmodo and Gawker don't think like pro-media and that's why they got busted.

[Xithras]

64. Indeed. While I think that Giz is legally OK, their actions were stupid in practice.

First, it's important to keep in mind that Giz isn't just a single idiot with Wordpress. It's a major tech news site that's been around for the better part of a decade and has multi-language affiliates around the world. There's a Gizmodo Australia, several in Europe, etc. They ARE a legit media organization, albeit a relatively small one. They have also been invited to media-only Apple events in the past, so are recognized as a legitimate media organization by Apple themselves.

Giz had a few different ways to play this, and they chose the stupidest one. What they should have done was bargained with Apple. Apple, in all probability, would have happily agreed to a deal with them in exchange for embargoing the article until after the new device was announced, and doing so could have easily gained Gizmodo "First Look" rights to the new product, which would have been very beneficial to them in the long run.

I would guess that, from here on out, Gizmodo will only get their hands on new Apple devices after they're released for sale. No more pre-launch press invites, no more demo models, and an utter exclusion from everything Apple. For a tech blog, that's a pretty horrific fate. Their handling of this was extremely stupid, and is going to seriously harm their ability to report on new Apple products from this point forward.

[truthisfreedom]

49. Moral of the story? Don't buy stuff from people who don't own it.

Especially when you know that the owner is a very powerful corporation with a highly vested interest in the item involved. WTF did he think was going to happen?

[boppers]

50. Among the items seized:

1 seagate exsternal 250 GB hard drive
1 HP MediaSmart searver
1 Canon reblel XTI digital camera
1 black western digital exsternal hard drive
1 Apple Ipad 32Gb with power cord

Apparently, the guy had quite the clever black market operation on poorly spelled, and poorly capitalized computing devices.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

57. the Gizmodo story is bullshit,

The phone was in his jacket pocket, his jacket was on the back of his chair. The thief grabbed both and ran and just happened to get lucky.

[onehandle]

60. Where did you hear that?

If that's true, somebody is going to jail.

[tomhayes]

66. People saying "no crime was committed" with 100 certainty are INSANE

1)This will all play out in court.

2)The only facts we "KNOW" are as follows:
a)Apple property was in the possession of someone who did not own it
b)That person sold the property to Gizmodo
c)Gizmodo paid money for the property, knew the person who sold it to them did not own it, wrote many stories on it, disassembled it, and gave it back when Apple demanded it.


That's it.

3)We don't know
a)If the Apple employee "lost it" by setting it down, or
b)if was taken from him (possibilities range from pickpocket to home invasion robbery.)
c)We don't know how the person who sold it to Gizmodo got it:
i)found it
ii)stole it (either from that bar, or from somewhere else.)
iii)bought it from another person

Apple will likely argue that:
1)The phone was stolen (either by outright theft, or converted to stolen when the finder a)didn't make a reasonable attempt to return it, b)sold it to another party.)
2)The person who stole it is guilty of a felony
3)Any person buying the stolen property was also guilty of a felony

Gizmodo an will likely argue:
1)That buying the phone was journalistic freedom
2)It wasn't stolen property because
i)They didn't steal it
ii)The person who sold it to them "found it" and "made a reasonable attempt to return it" and when that failed they had the right to posses it and/or sell it
iii)If it was stolen Gizmodo didn't know that it was
iiii)and anyway the public has a right to know!!


This will all get settled in court, and we have our own theories, and it's fun to watch a train wreck.

Personally I think Gizmodo will get their asses handed to them in court on the receiving stolen goods angle.

Then they'll be more cases involving:
1)Revealing who sold the phone to Gizmodo
2)Industrial espionage
3)Trade secret violations
4)Revenue damage

And Engadegt might be in play here too - the allegedly had a person approach them with the same deal. They could help identify them or provide more backstory.

et,etc. Gizmodo bought a lot of stories for $5k.

[Xenotime]

67. Watch. It won't even be the same thing when it comes out.

[Blue_Tires]

70. Holy damn...I hope it was worth it for a phone...

If they were going to pull this stunt, I'd at least have hoped there was some journalistic dynamite behind it (i.e., proof that the phone is a mind-control device or something along those lines), rather than a rinky-dink rundown on its features...

As a former journalist, I'm very interested to see how Gawker reacts to the raid...Will they sack up, take full responsibility and defiantly say they would do it again in the name of the public's right to know? OR Will they whine, cry and go into "persecuted six-year-old" mode because they didn't knooooooowww the phone was stolen and Apple is being too meeeeeaaaaannnn to them...

Either way, I hope it was worth it to them, because there is no way Gawker comes out of this looking good (although they will still never be as filthy as pacesetters TMZ)...At best they bought in good faith a coveted item on a "no questions asked" basis...At worst they knowingly bought stolen corporate property, and may have actively participated in the theft...And once the phone was in their hands, they weren't content do the classy thing by calling Apple and offering to give back the phone in exchange for a pre-embargo detailed exclusive (this kind of supports my assertion that Gawker had a part in the phone's theft) -- They had to go ALL out with details, photos, and even boasting about the check they willing scratched out for it while traffic flooded their site...Did they really think this wasn't going to come back on their heads??

I'm not in any position to give lectures on journalistic ethics (especially to the new generation of cyber-muckrakers), so if that's how they roll, then fine -- But they had better fuckin' own this....