or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
The computers and devices of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, seized in April as part of an investigation into the obtained prototype Apple iPhone, are now being examined for evidence.

Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, Calif., told Cnet on Wednesday that the authorities had begun obtaining information from Chen's devices. Previously, officials said they were waiting to determine whether the suspect was protected as a journalist under state laws.

Wagstaffe reportedly said that his department and Chen's attorney "came to an agreement on how Chen's computer and other equipment could be searched." That agreement calls for a "special master" to search the items seized. The special master is an independent volunteer who will search the devices to find what is believed to be relevant to the case. The appropriate information will be reviewed by Chen and his lawyers so they can make objections, and then a judge will decide what to forward to the district attorney.

Attorneys for Gawker Media, the parent company of Gizmodo, argued that the search warrant used to obtain Chen's devices was invalid. Authorities entered Chen's home in late April and seized four computers and two servers, along with a number of devices including an iPad, iPhone, AirPort Extreme and multiple external hard drives.

The editor was not arrested, but authorities broke open the front door to his home and searched the property, obtaining the electronics for evidence. Chen has still not been charged with a crime, though the investigation continues.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs spoke about the Gizmodo case at this week's D8 conference. The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience.

"There's a debate about whether he left in a bar, or if it was stolen out of his bag," Jobs said.

The saga of the lost prototype iPhone began in March when an Apple engineer went to a bar in Redwood City, Calif. The Apple employee frantically searched for the device when he discovered he no longer had it, but it was taken and sold by another person for $5,000 to Gizmodo.

The non-functional hardware was photographed and disassembled by the website. Gizmodo also asked Apple for a formal letter requesting the device, something Jobs said this week said he felt amounted to "extortion."

"This is a story that's amazing: It's got theft, it's got buying stolen property, it's got extortion," Jobs said. "I'm sure there's some sex in there."
post #2 of 93
Seriously
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
post #3 of 93
I'm sure if he would ask Steve Jobs to borrow it I'm sure he would have.

I need to boost my blog (see above) but I'm not paying $5,000 for a hot iPhone prototype. I mean seriously!
post #4 of 93
I watched as much of that interview as could on YouTube and Jobs comes as a very thoughtful, serious and focused individual....he doesn't seen to want to let this one go!

I would hate to be on his bad side!

Hope we can get a link to the video for the entire interview
post #5 of 93
His attorneys will try to associate any incriminating evidence with Chen's newsgathering activities.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #6 of 93
If there was sex in there, Jobs had already censored it. Bigot hypocrites ftw. \
post #7 of 93
Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?

This raises some difficult issues. On one hand you have the potential dilution of the role of the journalists, due to the fact that ANYONE can be a blogger, and therefore assumed to be covered by these rights and responsibilities traditionally granted formally trained journalist writers and presenters. What are the advantages of doing this? Do the protections offered traditional journalists in their role belong to the average blogger simply because they have created, or participate in, or are labelled "journalist" by the company supporting them in blogging activity?

Had I taken the time and effort to be formally trained as a journalist, I might have some real concerns about this - if potentially everyone can be a journalist (blogger), then there is no distinction for the role and the special rights and protections become problematic. The rights and protections assume a certain level of professionalism and adherance to standards, both industry and peer created and controlled. If anyone can assume the role of journalist de facto as a blogger, without regard to those standards and controls - the role of journalist is hopelessly compromised.

On the other hand, is the role of journalist an artifact of an earlier "analog" society, and are the role, standards, professionalism and protections no longer valid in the current digital information age? If so, then while Chen can under these circumstances claim to be a "journalist", can he really then also claim the rights and protections of the older role that is being made invalid?

post #8 of 93
"The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience."

I've watched the whole Gizmodo clip, and read the initial "quick and dirty transcript". I heard SJ call Chen a journalist, but I never heard him question whether he was a journalist. And I never heard the crowd gasp.

Are you just making that up?

BTW, I personally don't think Chen is a journalist, and I doubt SJ does either.
post #9 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience.

The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.

http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm
post #10 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

If there was sex in there, Jobs had already censored it. Bigot hypocrites ftw. \

try. Look how quickly your knuckles drag on the floor, and you descend into trolldom. A transformation that would challenge Industrial Light and Magic in it's swiftness and completeness.
post #11 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

His attorneys will try to associate any incriminating evidence with Chen's newsgathering activities.

Hasn't Chen already admitted publicly (by posting on Gizmodo) to buying the phone and disassembling it, then attempting to extort an admission of authenticity from Apple? I'm not clear what most "incrimination" is necessary for him to be charged.
post #12 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?

"We don't seek to do good," says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. "We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
post #13 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.

http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm

At least in NJ they're not. In California...?

In any case it should be noted that journalist shield laws do not protect them against being pursued for criminal acts they may have committed. You know, like buying stolen property...
post #14 of 93
I think what may end up coming into play is Gizmodo's offer of basiclly a bounty for anyone that got the a new iPhone. If the DA can prove a link between the person that "found" it and the person that bought it, it may make there case a little stronger. What we don't know is if the guy in the bar knew it was a new phone. If he did, and that is a big if, and they can prove he knew it was valuable, it could be bad news for all involved. Apple has taken the stance that it was stolen under the law, and the "finder" did not have a right to sell it, and Gizmodo did not have a right to buy it / tear it apart. Asking Apple to prove it was theirs and then posting that fact maybe crossed the line also. This is going into a gray area with people blogging online. I don't think the protection applies here since we have evidence (his own posts) that he was in fact in possesion of a lost / stolen product. Claiming he did not know if it was "real" will be a hard sell, since it had that real nice Apple on the back.
post #15 of 93
I doubt that they will find anything on the phone itself, since it has been remote wiped, which I believe erases everything on the phone rendering it unusable.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #16 of 93
Rest assured, there was no sex. These are BLOGGERS we are talking about!
post #17 of 93

Gawker Media operates as a media gossip blog with the thinnest possible veneer of journalism it is possible to scrape down to without losing any letters from the word covering your activities. Some say that they have scraped it so much that the only letters left are j******ism. Gawker has in fact institutionalized a wannabe journalistic schaudenfeude that thrives on it's inherent illegitimacy and this bleeds from every pore of its bastard children: Valleywag, Fleshbot, Deadspin, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Jezebel, etc. It's a kind of affected, angry, whiney, pissy sort of blogging that is instantly attractive in the way a truly horrific carny sideshow is attractive.

The incessant "look at me! look at me!" post-traumatic adolescent undertone to both Gizmodo's blog and their activities out in public completely belie any claim to legitimacy.

post #18 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatdoro View Post

"The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience."

I've watched the whole Gizmodo clip, and read the initial "quick and dirty transcript". I heard SJ call Chen a journalist, but I never heard him question whether he was a journalist. And I never heard the crowd gasp.

Are you just making that up?

BTW, I personally don't think Chen is a journalist, and I doubt SJ does either.

I saw that segment of the clip on WSJ, and I agree with you that I did not see/hear something similar. However, it could have been edited out (all of the clips on wsj.com did seem edited).

But I disagree with you regarding whether he is 'journalist.' Compared to the sheer illiteracy and shallowness that I see out there -- even amongst the so-called mainstream media -- it does not seem to require all that much to be considered a 'journalist.'
post #19 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatdoro View Post

"The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience."

I've watched the whole Gizmodo clip, and read the initial "quick and dirty transcript". I heard SJ call Chen a journalist, but I never heard him question whether he was a journalist. And I never heard the crowd gasp.

Are you just making that up?

Yes, they're just making that up. I watched the clip as well, and no, the crowd didn't "gasp". Steve also never associated anyone with the word when he said "extortion". He listed extortion as one of the features of the case - but never said who, or toward what ends. This "report" is worthy of, well, of Gizmodo.
post #20 of 93
All this Gizmodo/Chen stuff is pretty irrelevant, anyway. The reporting of has already moved on to places like Vietnam and Portugal. Short of bringing the entire value chain back home -- which cannot happen -- there's nothing that Apple or California or its police/judges can do going forward.
post #21 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

All this Gizmodo/Chen stuff is pretty irrelevant, anyway. The reporting of has already moved on to places like Vietnam and Portugal. Short of bringing the entire value chain back home -- which cannot happen -- there's nothing that Apple or California or its police/judges can do going forward.

Yes they can!!!!

They can use the taser!!!! the taser!!!!!
post #22 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

If there was sex in there, Jobs had already censored it. Bigot hypocrites ftw. \

1f you want to watch sex in your iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad, assuming you own one -- you are free to do so. Even Steve Jobs gave you the freedom to do that.

Clueless? You ask HOW?

Use your browser. Anything and everything you want to watch, if it is in the internet,except "Flash" content.

But, I want my Apps porn!!! You, sulk and shriek and jump uo and down. And, you can too, like many were able to do. Jailbreak your mobile device and join forces with all porn-loving users to create a Porn Central.


But, if you have any neuron still firing at the top, Steve Jobs already gave you a better solution to get the porn you want.

Do I have to also remind you what he said?

I am glad Steve Jobs opted from the beginning not to include porn Apps in the iTunes and Apple mobile devices ecosystem.

This is not out of hypocritical prurience like those ministers so addicted to sex cravings in their own lives, they have to denounce everyone else practicing what they love so much. They are laden with guilt from their own sins.

Banning porn is simply a good business strategy. It is also to spare more than likely most of the Apple mobile devices users from the ubiquity of porn sites and their intrusive and spamming ways.

There may be more than 200K Apps now. imagine the Pandora's box that would ensue, if every porn creator decide to submit their porn app. Imagine all the the breaks that will be taken and tissue paper that would be consumed by all the extra Apple staff hired just to curate these porn Apps, if these staff happen to be like you who cannot live a day or a minute without. their porn App.

Imagine the drop in profit margin of Apple for all these extra expenses in time and resources. Unless, of course, Steve Jobs will put the "perpendicular test" for the males and the "fluid secretions" for the "fairer sex" for the prospective porn evaluators. But, if these porn evaluators will fail the screening test, how could they really provide you the porn Apps that will make you exceed well above the basics of the "perpendicular test" or the "fluid secretions"?

Imagine the outcry in the blogosphere, if there was ever a single porn App submitted that would not be accepted.

OK, let us say Apple decided to take the more open approach to bow down to people like you who cannot live uness their porn is in every device they own. So, how would you like to see porn spams hijack all your search for any App? I am sure the all the other Apple mobile users would be so willing to be so invaded.

Apple is big in the education market.
How will they market their iPads to schools? All the porn that your teen sons and daughters were afraid to ask but dyring to know and try? The teens would love their iPads. Free thinkers that American parents are would give their sex-craven teens the freedom to explore their bodies, with their friends or Facebook buddies.

Oh wait, most porn in the internet are now mostly free
, because they are so ubiquitous. How to pay for them? iAds come to the rescue! Steve Jobs would love to unleash the creativity of Apple to save the porn industry.

I could go on, but I am sure you are dying to share with us the wisdom of having porn in every platform know to mankind. How about the instant latest porn alert in the multitask?

CGC

N.B.
The fact that I know a bit about the "products" and the ways of the industry is telling. But, like many people, many would likely be satisfied to have their desires not invade every toy they have.


CGC
post #23 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?

This raises some difficult issues. On one hand you have the potential dilution of the role of the journalists, due to the fact that ANYONE can be a blogger, and therefore assumed to be covered by these rights and responsibilities traditionally granted formally trained journalist writers and presenters. What are the advantages of doing this? Do the protections offered traditional journalists in their role belong to the average blogger simply because they have created, or participate in, or are labelled "journalist" by the company supporting them in blogging activity?

Had I taken the time and effort to be formally trained as a journalist, I might have some real concerns about this - if potentially everyone can be a journalist (blogger), then there is no distinction for the role and the special rights and protections become problematic. The rights and protections assume a certain level of professionalism and adherance to standards, both industry and peer created and controlled. If anyone can assume the role of journalist de facto as a blogger, without regard to those standards and controls - the role of journalist is hopelessly compromised.

On the other hand, is the role of journalist an artifact of an earlier "analog" society, and are the role, standards, professionalism and protections no longer valid in the current digital information age? If so, then while Chen can under these circumstances claim to be a "journalist", can he really then also claim the rights and protections of the older role that is being made invalid?


I am formally trained as a journalist. Despite what the law may say, someone who keeps a blog is keeping a journal in the strictest sense of the word. If you keep a journal, you are a journalist.

HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics. Being a journalist does not mean you can commit felonies whenever you feel like it. Jason Chen committed felonies when he paid for stolen property (stolen as defined by California law), when he divulged trade secrets online, and when he disassembled and damaged valuable equipment.

I'm not sure the discussion on whether or not he is a journalist even matters. If you commit a crime, you should be punished.
post #24 of 93
As has been said (only) a few times by others, I think it's very dangerous for any profession to be told it's above the law, and I hope very much that's not what will happen here.

However you fall on the "Is a blogger a journalist" divide, what was going on here was not journalism, was not ethical, and was not in service of the public good. It was simply a matter of illegally buying and then publishing one company's trade secrets for purely personal profit.
post #25 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Rest assured, there was no sex. These are BLOGGERS we are talking about!


The girl friend who ratted them out is definitely not get any now.
post #26 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I am formally trained as a journalist. Despite what the law may say, someone who keeps a blog is keeping a journal in the strictest sense of the word. If you keep a journal, you are a journalist.

HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics. Being a journalist does not mean you can commit felonies whenever you feel like it. Jason Chen committed felonies when he paid for stolen property (stolen as defined by California law), when he divulged trade secrets online, and when he disassembled and damaged valuable equipment.

I'm not sure the discussion on whether or not he is a journalist even matters. If you commit a crime, you should be punished.

btw, there was the abject stupidity of it all as well, by assidously logging their activity in Gizmodo as well, and then retro-editing their entries to try and reduce their culpability.

post #27 of 93
Jason Chen will soon find himself sharing a jail cell with Ben Dover.
post #28 of 93
Oh my god people, this whole journalism tangent people are clinging to is ridiculous. It is theft pure and simple and being a journalist doesn't abstain you from it. No jury is going to buy it. The California law that protects journalists I'm sure doesn't apply when theft is involved. The spirit of the law at least. Gizmodo will be reamed.
post #29 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

try. Look how quickly your knuckles drag on the floor, and you descend into trolldom. A transformation that would challenge Industrial Light and Magic in it's swiftness and completeness.

We need a new sitcom on the order of upcoming "$%&* my Dad says" Let's call it, oh I don't know, how about "$%^& trolls say". They think they're making a cute, sarcastic, biting comment when it is, in fact, just $%^&.
post #30 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Yes they can!!!!

They can use the taser!!!! the taser!!!!!

Don't tase me bro!!!
post #31 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksmith22 View Post

Oh my god people, this whole journalism tangent people are clinging to is ridiculous. It is theft pure and simple and being a journalist doesn't abstain you from it. No jury is going to buy it. The California law that protects journalists I'm sure doesn't apply when theft is involved. The spirit of the law at least. Gizmodo will be reamed.

And when the criminal proceedings are underway the next hit for Gizmodo will be the multi-million dollar civil damage suit Apple will surely pursue.
post #32 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Jason Chen will soon find himself sharing a jail cell with Ben Dover.

It's doubtful that Jason Chen will spend any time behind bars. If the D.A.'s office presses charges, it will likely be settled out of court resulting in fines (trust me, San Mateo County likes money) and a sojourn with the Sheriff's work program.

Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.
post #33 of 93
Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....

EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?
and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc
If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw62 View Post

I think what may end up coming into play is Gizmodo's offer of basiclly a bounty for anyone that got the a new iPhone. If the DA can prove a link between the person that "found" it and the person that bought it, it may make there case a little stronger. What we don't know is if the guy in the bar knew it was a new phone. If he did, and that is a big if, and they can prove he knew it was valuable, it could be bad news for all involved. Apple has taken the stance that it was stolen under the law, and the "finder" did not have a right to sell it, and Gizmodo did not have a right to buy it / tear it apart. Asking Apple to prove it was theirs and then posting that fact maybe crossed the line also. This is going into a gray area with people blogging online. I don't think the protection applies here since we have evidence (his own posts) that he was in fact in possesion of a lost / stolen product. Claiming he did not know if it was "real" will be a hard sell, since it had that real nice Apple on the back.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #34 of 93
Steve Jobs summed it more succinctly:
Quote:
When this whole thing with Gizmodo happened, I got a lot of advice from people that said youve got to just let it slide. You shouldnt go after a journalist because they bought stolen property and tried to extort you. And I thought deeply about this, and I concluded the worst thing that could happen is if we change our core values and let it slide. I cant do that. Id rather quit.

No one must hide under the mantle of "Freedom of the Press" only to break the spirit and essence of the law. As he said, let the court system take its course and decide what is to be the verdict.

However we view Steve Jobs, it is difficult not to see that he pretty much followed what his code dictates.

CGC
post #35 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Steve Jobs summed it more succinctly:


No one must hide under the mantle of "Freedom of the Press" only to break the spirit and essence of the law. As he said, let the court system take its course and decide what is to be the verdict.

However we view Steve Jobs, it is difficult not to see that he pretty much followed what his code dictates.

CGC

I do agree with your assessment of Job's answer to the Gizmodo/Chen question -- he is clearly what he is in terms of his code, and does not waver. That is truly admirable and deserves great respect. I say this as someone who has been (and still firmly is), since this story broke, on the side of "Apple should let it go."
post #36 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post


HOWEVER in my training I also took courses in ethics.


Not to go off on a tangent or sound pedantic, but I'll bet Jayson Blair also took courses in ethics. I am not sure what that amounts to, one way or another.
post #37 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.

This I doubt. Since they started blogging in a garage, it will be easy enough for them to get re-established and because of this experience they will have no problem finding an audience.

Let us not forget that Gizmodo has gotten an explosion of publicity and page hits as a result of this situation. They've profited. It will be interesting to see how a significant money award in a court case (or settlement) would cause things to play out.
post #38 of 93
How is he a journalist?? Does that mean everyone who creates/writes on a blog is now a journalist??
And even journalists aren't allowed to steal.. the guy new exactly what he had and sold it to Gizmodo instead of returning it. It doesn't matter if he was Anderson Cooper, he's still not allowed to steal.
post #39 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....

EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?
and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc
If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....

reducing a point to an absurd level. Yep. Can you be any more obtuse about this - did you not even follow a miniscule amount of what happpened in this case at all???

The guy - according to his own comments - took the phone accidentally left behind by the engineer, took it home checked it out enough to get the engineers name, claims he called Apple support to find out who it belongs to, and then sold it to the highest bidder. He did not take it back to the bar, which would be the logical first place for the engineer to look for it (and where he called several times to find out if anyone had turned it in).

I mean geez dude. Try to keep up with the batting lineup here. We are way downstream from anywhere your comments would make any logical sense whatsoever.
post #40 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

All this Gizmodo/Chen stuff is pretty irrelevant, anyway. The reporting of has already moved on to places like Vietnam and Portugal. Short of bringing the entire value chain back home -- which cannot happen -- there's nothing that Apple or California or its police/judges can do going forward.

It isn't irrelevant. They possibly broke the law in California and they'll be investigated, charged if warranted and tried. We'll see what justice, if any, is meted out.

I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case