Police seize Gizmodo editor's computers

Hyper-Me

Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers - Iphone 4 leak - Gizmodo

I'm sure most of you have seen the Gizmodo iphone prototype leak story.

Cliffs notes: Apple engineer leaves iphone in bar, someone finds it. Sells it to highest media bidder, which is Gizmodo for 5000$. Gizmodo knew what they were buying (i.e. - knew they were recieving goods that werent legally able to be sold)

Now, Gizmodo is hiding behind a California law that says a journalists equipment can't be confiscated by police.

So what do you think? Should those at Gizmodo who participated be charged with recieving stolen property? Or should they get off by hiding behind a loopehole law?

Bl8ckr0uter

Meh, don't care either way and I can see the justification for both points.

I am curious though, what are they looking for? The pics are on the net so what is to gain by taking his computers? Why won't gizmodo just return the device I mean it is just an F'ing phone, it really isn't worth it.

mikej412

Hyper-Me wrote: »

a journalists equipment can't be confiscated by police.

The PC was seized from a suspected criminal -- who might also be a "journalist."

the_Grinch

I say charge them and for a very good reason. Real reporters that work for news publications have lawyers who would have said you can't do this or that. So let's say they don't get charged and the police allow them to claim they are journalists. What's to stop any yahoo with a blog from arguing the same point? I have a blog that people read with news on it, does that make me a reporter? Does that give me free reign to do break the law? This will open a whole can of worms if not done right.

snadam

I'd be more pissed that I bought a prototype of a phone for $5,000.

notext

There is a larger issue then just buying the property you know didn't belong to the seller.

The biggest issue is that they knew before making their post that the phone was a next generation Apple iPhone prototype. By releasing pictures and description of the unreleased device, Gizmodo could have caused irreparable harm to Apple. They allowed all of the iPhone's competitors to see the device which will give time to adjust the design of their devices to compete with the iPhone. Think of it along the lines of corporate espionage.

laidbackfreak

notext wrote: »

Gizmodo could have caused irreparable harm to Apple.

Somehow I doubt it, these devices always have a way of being "leaked" prior to launch, its a win-win for the vendors.

If this device is so "secret" I'd be looking more at internal policies inside the corporation to find out how it got outside the building in the first place.

veritas_libertas

laidbackfreak wrote: »

If this device is so "secret" I'd be looking more at internal policies inside the corporation to find out how it got outside the building in the first place.

Knowing how angry Steve Jobs can be (or at least that is his reputation), I am sure that has already happened.

Forsaken_GA

If they hadn't paid for it, I'd be with Gizmodo, I like the free sharing of information.

However, since they decided to commit a criminal act just to scoop some other folks.... I can't say I have any sympathy

Forsaken_GA

laidbackfreak wrote: »

If this device is so "secret" I'd be looking more at internal policies inside the corporation to find out how it got outside the building in the first place.

I don't know if you read the original Gizmodo article, but the new version was inside a shell mocked up to look like a current 3G iphone, so at first glance, there was nothing to make it exception or mark it as a prototype. It wasn't until someone got their hands on it, noticed the enclosure was pretty cheaply done and decided to crack it open to get the prize inside.

So since someone went to mock up a wrapper for the candy, I'm betting it was allowed outside for field testing, and so not a violation of apple protocol. Obviously, apple protocol would frown upon losing it.

There's actually another link on the top of Gizmodo currently about an Apple engineer that was fired for showing Woz the Ipad on the day of it's release. They had an email authorizing it, except that the model that Woz was shown was the 3G version, which apparently they were NOT allowed to show. Apple considered this an unforgiveable leak and fired the engineer. By all accounts, the engineer who lost the new iphone has not been forgiven, so I guess apple might have some mercy when it comes to simple mistakes

Hyper-Me

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Knowing how angry Steve Jobs can be (or at least that is his reputation), I am sure that has already happened.

I know a couple people that worked for apple. Apparently it's not uncommon for steve jobs to run into someone in cupertino (say on the elevator) and ask them who they are and why he should keep them on payroll. If their answer didn't satisfy they were shown the door.

DevilWAH

Sorry can't feel any sympthy for apple.

At the end of the day they are where they are by taking advantage when they had the chance, and bending the rule to allow them to rip other peoples ideas off. Just like microsoft and all the big companies.

It's just a phone, if they didnt want it leaked then it should bever have been out side ther buildings or control.

Who here belives that apple would be throwing up such a big fuss if it was a bran new nokia prototype that had been found? Do you think they would be saying, "well we musent look at that so we don't gain an advantage"?? Or would Steve be doing like all the other manafactures are at the moment and using the leak to his advantage?

Hyper-Me

There wasnt much risk of corporate espionage....Apples Iphone is always a year behind the competition anyway LOL

subl1m1nal

To me, the leak does nothing but state the obvious. Apple is going 4G. Not much is known about OS improvments or the apps that are on it because Apple disabled it. Nothing but a new phone with different hardware.

I'm sure the reason Apple sent the police after him is to retaliate.

Hyper-Me

subl1m1nal wrote: »

To me, the leak does nothing but state the obvious. Apple is going 4G. Not much is known about OS improvments or the apps that are on it because Apple disabled it. Nothing but a new phone with different hardware.

I'm sure the reason Apple sent the police after him is to retaliate.

How is that obvious? The ONLY carrier with 4G is Sprint and the iPhone will not be on sprint. Verizon will be next up with their 4G LTE network, but its still a ways away. AT&T is quickly falling behind. With the yearly release pattern of the iPhone, its doubtful you will see an actual 4G model until next year at the earliest, but more likely the year after that. Unless Apple gets their phone on Verizon and puts an LTE radio in it.

networker050184

Hyper-Me wrote: »

There wasnt much risk of corporate espionage....Apples Iphone is always a year behind the competition anyway LOL

Reminds me of this picture.

astorrs

OMG that's hilarious networker050184

shaqazoolu

I'm 100% convinced Apple leaked that device on purpose.

subl1m1nal

What would be funny is if it were a diversion, and Apple isn't even going 4G. Just did it to throw everybody off.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ | /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|\| | / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ | : |/ :: ::----, / :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :

Hyper-Me

subl1m1nal wrote: »

What would be funny is if it were a diversion, and Apple isn't even going 4G. Just did it to throw everybody off.

I still dont know what you are talking about.

AT&T has NO 4G network.

There was NO 4G radio in the leaked prototype, atleast from the articles.

People are calling it the IPhone "4G" because its the 4th generation Iphone, not because it has a 4G radio in it.

cablegod

I lost all respect for Gizmodo after the CES show shenanigans, I think it was the 2008 show.

Devilsbane

I say no, my reasoning is not a legal one, it is a common sense one. If you are stupid enough to bring your test product out of the work place, and also stupid enough to leave it behind at the bar... then you deserve to have it stolen.

On a legal note, I disagree that the property is stolen. California law says that if you find something and you don't REASONABLY try to find the owner then the property is stolen. What is reasonable? His claim is that he made an attempt to find the owner. The evidence suggests otherwise. Can't really decide one way or the other until in a court room with all of the facts.

So in order to charge Gizmodo, it first must be proven that the property was stolen. You can't be in posession of stolen property that was never stolen correct?? Also, Gizmodo can make the claim that the finder of the product said it wasn't stolen. If he told Gizmodo that he found it and was unable to locate the owner then why wouldn't Gizmodo take it? I believe that a jury would likely aquit, would you charge someone of posession of stolen property when they have been assured it wasn't stolen? How could Gizmodo have done differently? Run a background check on this guy and all his friends?

jeremy8529

The thing that you are forgetting is this, it was obviously not a product that was ment to distributed to the public. It's like someone selling you a proto-type AMD CPU that you know isn't suposed to be released for a year. It doesn't take much common sense to say, "You know, im betting that the guy who got this probaly didn't find it on newegg." Im sure Gizmod knew exactly what he was buying if he spent 5,000 bucks on it.

TheShadow

Two things do bother me.

1. The definition of stolen. If you find something that is lost and there are no markings on it is it automatically stolen? Does this definition apply simply because he supposedly knew it was a prototype? Given you find a diamond on the street and you are not a jeweler so you assume it is just a costume stone, are you Innocent? If you are a diamond merchant are you automatically guilty?

2. What allows the police to seize 4 computers and 2 servers. If Gizmodo trade secrets are leaked are they not just as responsible? Suppose it was 40 computers and 20 servers where is the cutoff for a supposed crime of receiving a $300 phone until the fake case was opened.

It is getting so in the U.S. at least if you get a ticket for jaywalking they want to seize your computers. There needs to be some legal limit somewhere. Cross the border possibly lose your laptop was a stretch but understandable but others seem to just be fishing trips.

snadam

Sounds to me like a few doses of common sense would solve all these issues. There are SO many points in this whole story that just lack good judgment it's mind boggling.

I have a question for anybody on the forum who reads this. Would you have tried to sell that device you found in a bar, calling multiple 'tech news' agencies for a buyer, knowing damn well it wasn't yours to sell in the first place? Would you have bought that phone from 'some guy' in a bar for $5000 without thinking about who this guy is and where did this device come from? If you answered NO to both, then your morals and ethics seem to be in place, and most likely would avoid a situation as this. If you answered YES to either of those questions, then quite frankly you need to be ready to accept whatever punishment comes your way.

darkerosxx

shaqazoolu wrote: »

I'm 100% convinced Apple leaked that device on purpose.

Agreed. Publicity stunt.

Hyper-Me

snadam wrote: »

I have a question for anybody on the forum who reads this. Would you have tried to sell that device you found in a bar, calling multiple 'tech news' agencies for a buyer, knowing damn well it wasn't yours to sell in the first place? Would you have bought that phone from 'some guy' in a bar for $5000 without thinking about who this guy is and where did this device come from? If you answered NO to both, then your morals and ethics seem to be in place, and most likely would avoid a situation as this. If you answered YES to either of those questions, then quite frankly you need to be ready to accept whatever punishment comes your way.

Any other company? No.

Apple? Probably yes...knowing how much I hate that company because the epitomize everything wrong with corporations today would make me want to purposefully expose their device before launch.

msteinhilber

My opinion of what lead up to the article about the new iPhone leaked on Gizmodo and the events that took place afterwards is irrelevant and would likely just take the thread into no no land with politics.

But I will present a couple random thoughts. Would you expect the same level of cooperation from law enforcement if it were an organization other than Apple? And hypothetically if it was Apple but they were not based out of California, do you think any DA would have taken Apples complaint and executed warrants based on it? I would have to say no to both, I can see the case spiraling into a big gray area between whats a crime and what's protected under the journalism shield law (namely the name of the individual whom provided the device to Gizmodo, which Apple appears to have learned as a result of the seizures from the warrant). I can't see any DA risking potential lawsuit based on the argument just presented unless the complainant was a company of the size and stature as Apple is also while residing in the state of California as we can all assume it's in CA's best interest to keep Apple happy and within the state. That being said, most of that power that Apple can flex is irrelevant if they resided outside of the state of California. None the less, despite what is considered lawful or not (on the part of the finder of the phone, Gizmodo, as well as Apple and the DA's issuing the warrants) it doesn't make what took place with the device OK.

Forsaken_GA

I don't know, I think that saying this was a planned leak is being a bit too cynical. Apple is usually a bit more subtle about it's leaks, I'm far more inclined to think that smart computer guy goes to a bar and forgets his phone is perfectly plausible. Then there's the fact that the WWDC is scheduled so close to this event... I can't see The Steve being ok with Gizmodo stealing his thunder.

And finally, the police are involved. That's an awful long way to go for a publicity stunt. The indications to me are that Apple is *seriously* pissed this got out.

Hyper-Me

I agree with Forsaken.

Apple purposefully doing the leak and then pressing charges would be filing a false police report, maybe even obstruction of justice.

While a couple of misdemeanors dont mean much to Apple, I would think that would end up a PR nightmare. (at least I would hope. Its ridiculous what Apple gets away with, even when they do it in the publics face)