Okay, I know this is a fan forum but even so, the reactions are ridiculous. In the US, someone is innocent until proven guilty. This is even true when a person or the organisation the person works for virtually admits being guilty.
The facts.
The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
Chen was a journalist.
He worked out of his home.
Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
The fact that Apple has a directorship guiding the same task force that raided Chen's house might be relevant if that taskforce is prepared to bend the law just a little bit to help Apple out. It helps having friends in the right places. However, the law is supposed to work equally for everyone, not just for big corporations. I wonder if the police would have been so willing to raid the home of someone who alledgedly "stole" a phone made by a competitor.
The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
Yes they did.
Chen was a journalist.
For this sake of this post let's assume that a blogger is really a journalist
He worked out of his home.
This is what has been stated, so ok
Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
He was not subpoenaed, he was served a search warrant and he is not protected by the
California Shield laws which do not apply when the Journalist is suspected of being involved in the crime himself. They are not necessarily searching only for the source they are checking to see if Chen was involved in a crime, for example purchasing stolen property with the knowledge of such.
[*]Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
If section 1524 does not apply then neither does this
While I agree with the laws that protect Journalists from having to reveal their sources, I do not condone them breaking the law to get a story.
i just love how you people get so mad about the stupidest stuff. maybe this will teach apple not to let their employees take prototypes out in public. duh....
Hey dude, I just found your car, it was lying around on the side of the street so yeah I got in to find the owners name and waited to see if you'd come back for a bit but you didn't so I drove off with it. Hung onto it for a while, called your employer's reception (maybe) and then sold it to someone else.
Get a grip on reality man
Oh, good....the car theft analogy again. OK so since you stole his car we will raid your house and confiscate your computer, camera, photo albums, mail, music, business cards, recipes, pron, and any other media we think "might" be remotely related to the theft. Because we can.
Apple cut off developer support for writing native programs with non-apple programming languages.
Ok.
Apple creates deals with publishers to increase the cost of buying e-books.
Ok.
Apple charges lots of additional money for every new software update for the iPod Touch.
Ok.
Apple locking in the batteries of its portable devices so that users don't have the ability to buy new batteries or replace the batteries if they die.
Ok.
There's the benefit of the doubt.
But now, being complicit in raiding the house of a JOURNALIST to get information?
I don't know how much longer this can go on.
Apple reserves the right to to run their business as they choose. They have a lot of shareholders who like their strategies, which obviously work and many people do indeed buy their products. None of the above statements about Apple are against any laws that I know of. I pesonally like their products and choose to pay extra for the quality and service I receive.
About raiding the Journalist house maybe it wasn,t right if in fact it was done for the wrong reasons (revealing sources) but if it is done to determine if Mr. Chen himself committed a crime then it is perfectly legal and should be IMHO. There seems to be plenty of already published evidence that GIZ or an employee(s) may have committed a crime.
You reserve the right not to buy Apple products.
What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders.
well this story put one opinion to bed that this was done for publicity stunt by Apple, I think not.
This comments from RKRick "What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders"
I very much doubt it will have any impact to Apple and its shareholders, unless the new specifications were sold to competing mobile company. The free PR and buzz generated by this story has got many people drooling for the new iPhone.
Maybe short term iPhone my drop, since people know the new phone is coming (doubt it), but long time, I can not see any negative impact.
Taking Apple out of the equation-has anyone thought about the cost of this task force and how well they are doing convicting people?
1) 2.3 billon in 2009 to fund Task Force, yielded-102 investigations, 28 arrests and 12 convictions.
2) That is 17.9 million per investigation, 82 million/arrest, and 192 million/conviction. This is how CA spends its money? You have got to be kidding me.
The percentages don't add up to have this task force operating at all, unless companies are funding the task force and are using them as they're personal police force. Which I suspect Apple, Google, and Adobe is. Pretty hard to get a search warrant on the public when you are a private company isn't it?
3) Percentages- 27% of the investigations led to an arrest and only 42% of the arrests led to a conviction. If that happened in a business it would be bankrupt in months.
After this stunt by Apple I will be thinking twice about ever purchasing another Apple product in my lifetime. This also goes for using Google and Adobe.
Conjecture of course but what if... Supported by the major players of Silicon Valley, who lose that much due to piracy and theft of intellectual property each perhaps per year - so a drop in the bucket for each of the 25 to kick in to help fund the task force. Assuming that just one of those convictions resulted in staunching a bleeder of several millions of lost revenue per year - would it be worth it then? You aren't thinking corporate scale now are you. Of course not. Context is everything. So let's extend the logic a bit further in this conjecture. Operating costs are off-set by revenues. Stockholder are paid dividends based on profitability. The price of product is determined by profitability and what the market will bear. Losses have to be off-set by profits. Are you getting any of this? Piracy and theft result, directly or indirectly, in higher product prices.
SO I guess you are completely justified in being morally outraged by simple economics. Unfortunately anywhere you turn the same scenario plays out for ANY supplier of goods in the open market. You are trapped in the marketplace, with no where to go but dig a hole and pull it in behind you.
Apple cut off developer support for writing native programs with non-apple programming languages.
Ok.
Apple creates deals with publishers to increase the cost of buying e-books.
Ok.
Apple charges lots of additional money for every new software update for the iPod Touch.
Ok.
Apple locking in the batteries of its portable devices so that users don't have the ability to buy new batteries or replace the batteries if they die.
Ok.
There's the benefit of the doubt.
But now, being complicit in raiding the house of a JOURNALIST to get information?
I don't know how much longer this can go on.
You're a lists person - I can tell! Let me help you out a bit:
Apple requires use of native programming languages to ensure that applications developed can scale with the maturation of the platform code, not spin, crash and burn at every update.
Apple creates deals with publishers to get their content into the Apple marketplace to allow consumer-driven pricing once the publishers are committed to delivering into the marketplace
Ten dollars is a lot of money to charge of OS updates on an unsubsidized platform. Yep. But you have a choice of updating or not. That's just wrong.
There are only several reliable internet and local sources that will either supply batteries or replace them for you for a small cost in iPods, and iPhones.
How are they complicit in the house raid? Any proof at all would be nice. Oh wait - Apple pays property taxes in Cupertino, so they are complicit in major road repair efforts that kept a local journalist up late and thus failed to get an article in on time. They contribute directly into Open Source efforts and thus are complicit in Open Source being unable to establish a decent marketshare on the consumer desktop. As long as you are going for smoking guns let's get all the complicits out there. Unbelievable.
well this story put one opinion to bed that this was done for publicity stunt by Apple, I think not.
This comments from RKRick "What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders"
I very much doubt it will have any impact to Apple and its shareholders, unless the new specifications were sold to competing mobile company. The free PR and buzz generated by this story has got many people drooling for the new iPhone.
Maybe short term iPhone my drop, since people know the new phone is coming (doubt it), but long time, I can not see any negative impact.
No real way to quantify either way... remember, I said "could" and IMHO it will, but that is only my opinion...
The conversation between the task force head and Jason Chen probably went a little like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Task Force Chief
Mr. Jobs draws a lot of water in this town. You don't draw jack, Chen. Now we got a nice, quiet little valley community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around, bothering our citizens, Chen. I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off face. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Oh, good....the car theft analogy again. OK so since you stole his car we will raid your house and confiscate your computer, camera, photo albums, mail, music, business cards, recipes, pron, and any other media we think "might" be remotely related to the theft. Because we can.
Whose reality is in danger now?
Yours. Crime is crime is crime. What about that don't you get? If there is reasonable cause to suspect that evidence may be contained in one or more of those items, and the judge is convinced you have potentially committed a crime, and there is a strong enough case, a search and seizure warrant is granted.
I would understand if the device was stolen as a result of someone breaking into their laboratories. If you take the device out into the real world for testing you have to abode by the rules of the real world (including protection laws for journalists). It's not some fantasy stormtrooper land where they can send out the Gestapo to do their bidding.
Gizmodo should not have dismantled the device though. And they shouldn't have gloated about it excessively.
But overall I'm glad the device was leaked proper. Now apple can't shortchange us on any features at the last minute (eg iPod touch circa 2009). In fact I would happily accept a four month delay if they need the extra time to make sure everything is working and polish things properly.
Okay, I know this is a fan forum but even so, the reactions are ridiculous. In the US, someone is innocent until proven guilty. This is even true when a person or the organisation the person works for virtually admits being guilty.
The facts.
The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
Chen was a journalist.
He worked out of his home.
Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
The fact that Apple has a directorship guiding the same task force that raided Chen's house might be relevant if that taskforce is prepared to bend the law just a little bit to help Apple out. It helps having friends in the right places. However, the law is supposed to work equally for everyone, not just for big corporations. I wonder if the police would have been so willing to raid the home of someone who alledgedly "stole" a phone made by a competitor.
The courts have ruled:
A California appeals court has ruled that the state's shield law does not prevent reporters from being forced, under penalty of contempt, to testify about criminal activity, if they're believed to be involved in it. Gizmodo was explicit in their blog entries about their offer to pay the informant to receive the device and what they did once they had it. In fact the case that brought this determination was Rosato v. Superior Court which found that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."
In fact, relating to the federal version of the law, no less that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated "It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws. Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news."
From the possession side of the law California has laws in place that state rather clearly that any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be - but appropriates such property to their own use - is in fact guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. The California appeals court has ruled in such cases that possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or under suspicious circumstances, justifies inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.
These are the laws governing the action of the deputy DA running the investigation, where clearly, by Gizmodo's own blog entries, Gizmodo self-implicates as being in violation of those laws. Apple didn't have to do anything - Gizmodo did it to themselves.
Never attribute to malice what can be best explained by stupidity or ignorance.
I would understand if the device was stolen as a result of someone breaking into their laboratories. If you take the device out into the real world for testing you have to abode by the rules of the real world (including protection laws for journalists). It's not some fantasy stormtrooper land where they can send out the Gestapo to do their bidding.
Gizmodo should not have dismantled the device though. And they shouldn't have gloated about it excessively.
But overall I'm glad the device was leaked proper. Now apple can't shortchange us on any features at the last minute (eg iPod touch circa 2009). In fact I would happily accept a four month delay if they need the extra time to make sure everything is working and polish things properly.
The DA's office with the support of the REACT task force are pursuing a criminal investigation. Apple filed a theft report apparently once it became evident that the protptype could not initially be recovered. Everything else is pure and unsubstantiated conjecture unsupported by evidence at hand. Seriously, stop swallowing every conspiracy theory that pops up out of the febrile minds of bloggers trying to generate hits off the Gizmodo foolishness.
Apple is very chill on this - they are doing nothing. The DA's office with the support of the REACT task force are pursuing a criminal investigation. There is no public record of Apple filing a theft report or complaint against Chen, Giz or Gawker Media. At all. Everything else is pure and unsubstantiated conjecture unsupported by evidence at hand. Seriously, stop swallowing every conspiracy theory that pops up out of the febrile minds of bloggers trying to generate hits off the Gizmodo foolishness.
I wonder how many times this needs to be said? People keep posting as if Apple were in charge of the police and can just send them forth to do their bidding. And then they start foaming at the mouth about "Gestapo" and "storm troopers" and "fascism." Really, it's just...... stupid.
Also, where is AI getting its R.E.A.C.T funding figures?
I downloaded a PDF of the 2008 annual report of the California high tech crimes task force, the umbrella organization for R.E.A.C.T and a bunch of other state cyber-crime task forces. The relevant passage:
Quote:
REACT - HIGH TECHNOLOGY CRIMES
During fiscal year 2007-08, REACT received $ 1,947,661 in State funds for high
technology crimes. REACT provided a 25 percent match of $ 486,915. Total
grant award funds to further the investigations of high technology crimes was
$2,434,576.
During the grant period, REACT budgeted approximately 36 percent of its high
technology grant budget on personnel costs and 64 percent on operational costs.
Grant funds of $ 8,376 were spent on equipment.
And from what I've seen, even that 2.5 million in 2008 has been subsequently cut, owing to the state's ongoing budget crisis. 2.3 billion in funding is ludicrous, and is either a typo or confusing some other figure with the budget.
Comments
Okay, I know this is a fan forum but even so, the reactions are ridiculous. In the US, someone is innocent until proven guilty. This is even true when a person or the organisation the person works for virtually admits being guilty.
The facts.
- The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
- Chen was a journalist.
- He worked out of his home.
- Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
- Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
The fact that Apple has a directorship guiding the same task force that raided Chen's house might be relevant if that taskforce is prepared to bend the law just a little bit to help Apple out. It helps having friends in the right places. However, the law is supposed to work equally for everyone, not just for big corporations. I wonder if the police would have been so willing to raid the home of someone who alledgedly "stole" a phone made by a competitor.The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
Yes they did.
Chen was a journalist.
For this sake of this post let's assume that a blogger is really a journalist
He worked out of his home.
This is what has been stated, so ok
Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
He was not subpoenaed, he was served a search warrant and he is not protected by the
California Shield laws which do not apply when the Journalist is suspected of being involved in the crime himself. They are not necessarily searching only for the source they are checking to see if Chen was involved in a crime, for example purchasing stolen property with the knowledge of such.
[*]Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
If section 1524 does not apply then neither does this
While I agree with the laws that protect Journalists from having to reveal their sources, I do not condone them breaking the law to get a story.
Ok.
Apple creates deals with publishers to increase the cost of buying e-books.
Ok.
Apple charges lots of additional money for every new software update for the iPod Touch.
Ok.
Apple locking in the batteries of its portable devices so that users don't have the ability to buy new batteries or replace the batteries if they die.
Ok.
There's the benefit of the doubt.
But now, being complicit in raiding the house of a JOURNALIST to get information?
I don't know how much longer this can go on.
Hey dude, I just found your car, it was lying around on the side of the street so yeah I got in to find the owners name and waited to see if you'd come back for a bit but you didn't so I drove off with it. Hung onto it for a while, called your employer's reception (maybe) and then sold it to someone else.
Get a grip on reality man
Oh, good....the car theft analogy again. OK so since you stole his car we will raid your house and confiscate your computer, camera, photo albums, mail, music, business cards, recipes, pron, and any other media we think "might" be remotely related to the theft. Because we can.
Whose reality is in danger now?
Apple cut off developer support for writing native programs with non-apple programming languages.
Ok.
Apple creates deals with publishers to increase the cost of buying e-books.
Ok.
Apple charges lots of additional money for every new software update for the iPod Touch.
Ok.
Apple locking in the batteries of its portable devices so that users don't have the ability to buy new batteries or replace the batteries if they die.
Ok.
There's the benefit of the doubt.
But now, being complicit in raiding the house of a JOURNALIST to get information?
I don't know how much longer this can go on.
Apple reserves the right to to run their business as they choose. They have a lot of shareholders who like their strategies, which obviously work and many people do indeed buy their products. None of the above statements about Apple are against any laws that I know of. I pesonally like their products and choose to pay extra for the quality and service I receive.
About raiding the Journalist house maybe it wasn,t right if in fact it was done for the wrong reasons (revealing sources) but if it is done to determine if Mr. Chen himself committed a crime then it is perfectly legal and should be IMHO. There seems to be plenty of already published evidence that GIZ or an employee(s) may have committed a crime.
You reserve the right not to buy Apple products.
What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders.
This comments from RKRick "What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders"
I very much doubt it will have any impact to Apple and its shareholders, unless the new specifications were sold to competing mobile company. The free PR and buzz generated by this story has got many people drooling for the new iPhone.
Maybe short term iPhone my drop, since people know the new phone is coming (doubt it), but long time, I can not see any negative impact.
Taking Apple out of the equation-has anyone thought about the cost of this task force and how well they are doing convicting people?
1) 2.3 billon in 2009 to fund Task Force, yielded-102 investigations, 28 arrests and 12 convictions.
2) That is 17.9 million per investigation, 82 million/arrest, and 192 million/conviction. This is how CA spends its money? You have got to be kidding me.
The percentages don't add up to have this task force operating at all, unless companies are funding the task force and are using them as they're personal police force. Which I suspect Apple, Google, and Adobe is. Pretty hard to get a search warrant on the public when you are a private company isn't it?
3) Percentages- 27% of the investigations led to an arrest and only 42% of the arrests led to a conviction. If that happened in a business it would be bankrupt in months.
After this stunt by Apple I will be thinking twice about ever purchasing another Apple product in my lifetime. This also goes for using Google and Adobe.
Conjecture of course but what if... Supported by the major players of Silicon Valley, who lose that much due to piracy and theft of intellectual property each perhaps per year - so a drop in the bucket for each of the 25 to kick in to help fund the task force. Assuming that just one of those convictions resulted in staunching a bleeder of several millions of lost revenue per year - would it be worth it then? You aren't thinking corporate scale now are you. Of course not. Context is everything. So let's extend the logic a bit further in this conjecture. Operating costs are off-set by revenues. Stockholder are paid dividends based on profitability. The price of product is determined by profitability and what the market will bear. Losses have to be off-set by profits. Are you getting any of this? Piracy and theft result, directly or indirectly, in higher product prices.
SO I guess you are completely justified in being morally outraged by simple economics. Unfortunately anywhere you turn the same scenario plays out for ANY supplier of goods in the open market. You are trapped in the marketplace, with no where to go but dig a hole and pull it in behind you.
Apple cut off developer support for writing native programs with non-apple programming languages.
Ok.
Apple creates deals with publishers to increase the cost of buying e-books.
Ok.
Apple charges lots of additional money for every new software update for the iPod Touch.
Ok.
Apple locking in the batteries of its portable devices so that users don't have the ability to buy new batteries or replace the batteries if they die.
Ok.
There's the benefit of the doubt.
But now, being complicit in raiding the house of a JOURNALIST to get information?
I don't know how much longer this can go on.
You're a lists person - I can tell! Let me help you out a bit:
Apple requires use of native programming languages to ensure that applications developed can scale with the maturation of the platform code, not spin, crash and burn at every update.
Apple creates deals with publishers to get their content into the Apple marketplace to allow consumer-driven pricing once the publishers are committed to delivering into the marketplace
Ten dollars is a lot of money to charge of OS updates on an unsubsidized platform. Yep. But you have a choice of updating or not. That's just wrong.
There are only several reliable internet and local sources that will either supply batteries or replace them for you for a small cost in iPods, and iPhones.
How are they complicit in the house raid? Any proof at all would be nice. Oh wait - Apple pays property taxes in Cupertino, so they are complicit in major road repair efforts that kept a local journalist up late and thus failed to get an article in on time. They contribute directly into Open Source efforts and thus are complicit in Open Source being unable to establish a decent marketshare on the consumer desktop. As long as you are going for smoking guns let's get all the complicits out there. Unbelievable.
well this story put one opinion to bed that this was done for publicity stunt by Apple, I think not.
This comments from RKRick "What was suspected to have been done could and probably will have a significant negative impact to Apple and it's shareholders"
I very much doubt it will have any impact to Apple and its shareholders, unless the new specifications were sold to competing mobile company. The free PR and buzz generated by this story has got many people drooling for the new iPhone.
Maybe short term iPhone my drop, since people know the new phone is coming (doubt it), but long time, I can not see any negative impact.
No real way to quantify either way... remember, I said "could" and IMHO it will, but that is only my opinion...
No real way to quantify either way... remember, I said "could" and IMHO it will, but that is only my opinion...
I agree and I know it was your opinion, just giving another angle
Mr. Jobs draws a lot of water in this town. You don't draw jack, Chen. Now we got a nice, quiet little valley community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around, bothering our citizens, Chen. I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off face. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Oh, good....the car theft analogy again. OK so since you stole his car we will raid your house and confiscate your computer, camera, photo albums, mail, music, business cards, recipes, pron, and any other media we think "might" be remotely related to the theft. Because we can.
Whose reality is in danger now?
Yours. Crime is crime is crime. What about that don't you get? If there is reasonable cause to suspect that evidence may be contained in one or more of those items, and the judge is convinced you have potentially committed a crime, and there is a strong enough case, a search and seizure warrant is granted.
I would understand if the device was stolen as a result of someone breaking into their laboratories. If you take the device out into the real world for testing you have to abode by the rules of the real world (including protection laws for journalists). It's not some fantasy stormtrooper land where they can send out the Gestapo to do their bidding.
Gizmodo should not have dismantled the device though. And they shouldn't have gloated about it excessively.
But overall I'm glad the device was leaked proper. Now apple can't shortchange us on any features at the last minute (eg iPod touch circa 2009). In fact I would happily accept a four month delay if they need the extra time to make sure everything is working and polish things properly.
Okay, I know this is a fan forum but even so, the reactions are ridiculous. In the US, someone is innocent until proven guilty. This is even true when a person or the organisation the person works for virtually admits being guilty.
The facts.
- The police raided the house of Jason Chen.
- Chen was a journalist.
- He worked out of his home.
- Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
- Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
The fact that Apple has a directorship guiding the same task force that raided Chen's house might be relevant if that taskforce is prepared to bend the law just a little bit to help Apple out. It helps having friends in the right places. However, the law is supposed to work equally for everyone, not just for big corporations. I wonder if the police would have been so willing to raid the home of someone who alledgedly "stole" a phone made by a competitor.The courts have ruled:
A California appeals court has ruled that the state's shield law does not prevent reporters from being forced, under penalty of contempt, to testify about criminal activity, if they're believed to be involved in it. Gizmodo was explicit in their blog entries about their offer to pay the informant to receive the device and what they did once they had it. In fact the case that brought this determination was Rosato v. Superior Court which found that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."
In fact, relating to the federal version of the law, no less that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated "It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws. Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news."
From the possession side of the law California has laws in place that state rather clearly that any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be - but appropriates such property to their own use - is in fact guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. The California appeals court has ruled in such cases that possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or under suspicious circumstances, justifies inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.
These are the laws governing the action of the deputy DA running the investigation, where clearly, by Gizmodo's own blog entries, Gizmodo self-implicates as being in violation of those laws. Apple didn't have to do anything - Gizmodo did it to themselves.
Never attribute to malice what can be best explained by stupidity or ignorance.
Apple needs to chill the fuck out.
I would understand if the device was stolen as a result of someone breaking into their laboratories. If you take the device out into the real world for testing you have to abode by the rules of the real world (including protection laws for journalists). It's not some fantasy stormtrooper land where they can send out the Gestapo to do their bidding.
Gizmodo should not have dismantled the device though. And they shouldn't have gloated about it excessively.
But overall I'm glad the device was leaked proper. Now apple can't shortchange us on any features at the last minute (eg iPod touch circa 2009). In fact I would happily accept a four month delay if they need the extra time to make sure everything is working and polish things properly.
The DA's office with the support of the REACT task force are pursuing a criminal investigation. Apple filed a theft report apparently once it became evident that the protptype could not initially be recovered. Everything else is pure and unsubstantiated conjecture unsupported by evidence at hand. Seriously, stop swallowing every conspiracy theory that pops up out of the febrile minds of bloggers trying to generate hits off the Gizmodo foolishness.
GIZMODO going to pay the price??? YES Even if it's only being cut out of the APPLE LOOP.
Apple is very chill on this - they are doing nothing. The DA's office with the support of the REACT task force are pursuing a criminal investigation. There is no public record of Apple filing a theft report or complaint against Chen, Giz or Gawker Media. At all. Everything else is pure and unsubstantiated conjecture unsupported by evidence at hand. Seriously, stop swallowing every conspiracy theory that pops up out of the febrile minds of bloggers trying to generate hits off the Gizmodo foolishness.
I wonder how many times this needs to be said? People keep posting as if Apple were in charge of the police and can just send them forth to do their bidding. And then they start foaming at the mouth about "Gestapo" and "storm troopers" and "fascism." Really, it's just...... stupid.
I downloaded a PDF of the 2008 annual report of the California high tech crimes task force, the umbrella organization for R.E.A.C.T and a bunch of other state cyber-crime task forces. The relevant passage:
REACT - HIGH TECHNOLOGY CRIMES
During fiscal year 2007-08, REACT received $ 1,947,661 in State funds for high
technology crimes. REACT provided a 25 percent match of $ 486,915. Total
grant award funds to further the investigations of high technology crimes was
$2,434,576.
During the grant period, REACT budgeted approximately 36 percent of its high
technology grant budget on personnel costs and 64 percent on operational costs.
Grant funds of $ 8,376 were spent on equipment.
And from what I've seen, even that 2.5 million in 2008 has been subsequently cut, owing to the state's ongoing budget crisis. 2.3 billion in funding is ludicrous, and is either a typo or confusing some other figure with the budget.
I wonder if a taskforce would have done this for me if I lost my phone.