True but does a SWAT team show up to deal when there is "probable cause" in a stolen ring?! No one disputes police investigations, the point is "unreasonable search and seizure" which is in the Constitution. Now I don't know the details; this article is not comprehensive and intellectual property is a little different than real property, like a ring. But maybe there needs to be a reality check and adequate court oversight when someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar.
Two things: I don't think there's any reason to characterize the people who showed up at Chen's house as a "SWAT team." They were sheriff's deputies serving a judicially approved warrant pursuant to a stolen property investigation. If Chen had been home and the door hadn't been forced, I don't think people would be quite so focused on some kind of unseemly display of force-- this kind of thing happens every day, all over the country. It's not like a bunch of yahoos came tearing up with guns drawn and kicked down the door screaming. They were operating under a search and seizure a warrant and forcing entry in that case when the resident isn't responsive is pretty commonplace.
Secondly, characterizing the situation as " someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar" is willfully disingenuous. If the finder had simply kept it, or gave it to the bartender, or dropped it off at an Apple Store, or even sold it to someone who wasn't looking to score page hits, none of this would have happened. It's what happened after the phone was found that has led to the possibility of criminal charges.
Two things: I don't think there's any reason to characterize the people who showed up at Chen's house as a "SWAT team." They were sheriff's deputies serving a judicially approved warrant pursuant to a stolen property investigation. If Chen had been home and the door hadn't been forced, I don't think people would be quite so focused on some kind of unseemly display of force-- this kind of thing happens every day, all over the country. It's not like a bunch of yahoos came tearing up with guns drawn and kicked down the door screaming. They were operating under a search and seizure a warrant and forcing entry in that case when the resident isn't responsive is pretty commonplace.
Secondly, characterizing the situation as " someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar" is willfully disingenuous. If the finder had simply kept it, or gave it to the bartender, or dropped it off at an Apple Store, or even sold it to someone who wasn't looking to score page hits, none of this would have happened. It's what happened after the phone was found that has led to the possibility of criminal charges.
Two things:
1. I didn't characterize the officers who showed up to Chen's house were a SWAT team. I characterized "unreasonable search and seizure" as a SWAT team going after a stolen ring. I certainly assumed the search warrant was legal, but neither you nor I know what happened in that house. BTW, SWAT teams are not "a bunch of yahoos."
2. I assume that Chen or Gizmodo could be guilty of some intellectual property rights violations, but does it rise to a sufficiently high level of urgency regarding the investigation. The phone was recovered; it was not sold to Nokia; it MAY have been used in a crime (stolen), but it appears to have been accidently lost. Going after a few extra hits on a website with a few photos is not a high level of industrial espionage. This isn't about guilt or innocence, this is about "appropriate" response to an investigation.
I don't consider the investigation to be an abridgment of his "journalistic" rights, but Chen didn't try to hide his own part in this, his own monetary gains are probably modest and could be challenged in civil court. Let's just have reasonable procedures used in any investigation, especially when violence or fraud are not the issue.
And to say this would look better if Chen had been home is fine, but it isn't reality.
Comments
It's a typo on AI's part. Their source is Marketwatch (linked in the article) who states $2.3M, not billion.
Hey, don't throw reality on a good rant! Can't wait for Glenn Beck to ignorantly use it on his radio show and then apologize later on O'Reily.
True but does a SWAT team show up to deal when there is "probable cause" in a stolen ring?! No one disputes police investigations, the point is "unreasonable search and seizure" which is in the Constitution. Now I don't know the details; this article is not comprehensive and intellectual property is a little different than real property, like a ring. But maybe there needs to be a reality check and adequate court oversight when someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar.
Two things: I don't think there's any reason to characterize the people who showed up at Chen's house as a "SWAT team." They were sheriff's deputies serving a judicially approved warrant pursuant to a stolen property investigation. If Chen had been home and the door hadn't been forced, I don't think people would be quite so focused on some kind of unseemly display of force-- this kind of thing happens every day, all over the country. It's not like a bunch of yahoos came tearing up with guns drawn and kicked down the door screaming. They were operating under a search and seizure a warrant and forcing entry in that case when the resident isn't responsive is pretty commonplace.
Secondly, characterizing the situation as " someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar" is willfully disingenuous. If the finder had simply kept it, or gave it to the bartender, or dropped it off at an Apple Store, or even sold it to someone who wasn't looking to score page hits, none of this would have happened. It's what happened after the phone was found that has led to the possibility of criminal charges.
Two things: I don't think there's any reason to characterize the people who showed up at Chen's house as a "SWAT team." They were sheriff's deputies serving a judicially approved warrant pursuant to a stolen property investigation. If Chen had been home and the door hadn't been forced, I don't think people would be quite so focused on some kind of unseemly display of force-- this kind of thing happens every day, all over the country. It's not like a bunch of yahoos came tearing up with guns drawn and kicked down the door screaming. They were operating under a search and seizure a warrant and forcing entry in that case when the resident isn't responsive is pretty commonplace.
Secondly, characterizing the situation as " someone finds a lost cell phone in a bar" is willfully disingenuous. If the finder had simply kept it, or gave it to the bartender, or dropped it off at an Apple Store, or even sold it to someone who wasn't looking to score page hits, none of this would have happened. It's what happened after the phone was found that has led to the possibility of criminal charges.
Two things:
1. I didn't characterize the officers who showed up to Chen's house were a SWAT team. I characterized "unreasonable search and seizure" as a SWAT team going after a stolen ring. I certainly assumed the search warrant was legal, but neither you nor I know what happened in that house. BTW, SWAT teams are not "a bunch of yahoos."
2. I assume that Chen or Gizmodo could be guilty of some intellectual property rights violations, but does it rise to a sufficiently high level of urgency regarding the investigation. The phone was recovered; it was not sold to Nokia; it MAY have been used in a crime (stolen), but it appears to have been accidently lost. Going after a few extra hits on a website with a few photos is not a high level of industrial espionage. This isn't about guilt or innocence, this is about "appropriate" response to an investigation.
I don't consider the investigation to be an abridgment of his "journalistic" rights, but Chen didn't try to hide his own part in this, his own monetary gains are probably modest and could be challenged in civil court. Let's just have reasonable procedures used in any investigation, especially when violence or fraud are not the issue.
And to say this would look better if Chen had been home is fine, but it isn't reality.