Originally Posted by Rigelian
Hmmm really? That's my logic? I don't think so. Recovering the stolen property is just fine. Getting the computers that reveal the means of gaining information from the source is what is protected by the shield law. It's kind of disingenuous on your part to misrepresent what my logic is though.
No one's misrepresenting the logic but you.
Let's break it down:
Offers reward for Apple prototypes
Someone finds unattended Apple prototype in a bar
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling AppleCare tech support
Someone calls Gizmodo with offer of an Apple prototype for $5 K
Under CA law, the prototype is clearly stolen property
Gizmodo pays $5 K, takes the prototype home, photographs it, disassembles it, and publishes all the details. Process takes several weeks.
Phone is most likely damaged by the disassembly. There is some question of whether it was even put back together.
AFTER the owner (Apple) contacts Gizmodo, they return it, but only after receiving an official letter from the attorneys. Phone is delivered in pieces
Gizmodo claims that their home (where the phone was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield laws because they were writing an article about disassembling the phone.
Gizmodo threatens to sue the police for getting a search warrant and confiscating items covered by the search warrant
Now, let's look at the analogy:
I offer reward for hot sports cars to drive
Someone finds an unattended Ferrari on the street
Finder makes only very, very token effort to find owner by calling local mechanic to see if someone reported a lost car
Finder calls me and says they'll give me the car for $5 K
Under CA law, the care is clearly stolen property
I pay $5K, take the Ferrari home, drive it around town, and publish a story about what it's like to drive a Ferrari. Process takes several weeks.
While driving the car, I have an accident.
AFTER the owner sees his car on my web site, he contacts me to ask for his car back and I return the damaged car, but only after getting an official letter from the owner's attorney.
I now claim that my home (where the car was stored) is covered by Journalist Shield law since I was writing an article about driving Ferraris.
I will threaten to sue the police for getting a search warrant and for taking things covered by the warrant
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations. None. Now, please explain how what Gizmodo is OK but what I did is wrong - citing the relevant sections of CA law.