Authorities waiting to analyze data seized in iPhone prototype case
California authorities are waiting to determine whether a Gizmodo editor who dished photos and details of Apple's fourth-generation iPhone prototype is protected as a journalist under state laws before searching the data present on equipment that was seized from his home.
According to the San Jose Business Journal, investigators have identified and interviewed the person who took the phone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt on March 18 after it was left by an Apple engineer who was at the local watering hole to celebrate his birthday.
However, state officials were unable to confirm to the publication whether that person was the same individual who eventually sold the device to gadget blog Gizmodo for $5,000. Although no one has been charged with a crime in matter as of yet, a search warrant was issued late last week authorizing California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team to search the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen.
?We?re still not saying it?s a crime,? San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal ?The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.?
During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.
In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen?s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
?I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,? he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney?s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.
According to the San Jose Business Journal, investigators have identified and interviewed the person who took the phone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt on March 18 after it was left by an Apple engineer who was at the local watering hole to celebrate his birthday.
However, state officials were unable to confirm to the publication whether that person was the same individual who eventually sold the device to gadget blog Gizmodo for $5,000. Although no one has been charged with a crime in matter as of yet, a search warrant was issued late last week authorizing California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team to search the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen.
?We?re still not saying it?s a crime,? San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal ?The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.?
During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.
In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen?s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
?I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,? he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney?s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.
Comments
PS At least a month in jail would also be in order to deter future attempts to do the same.
Gizmodo's only defense is that they were acting as a journalist and are now protecting their source. Since the police already know who took the phone and have interviewed him, Gizmodo is no longer protecting anyone. Not that it mattered - they publicly admitted to having committed a couple of felonies. There's plenty of evidence to convict them of that alone.
I'll go on record as saying that the story Gizmodo told was not true. Gizmodo and the guy who took the phone had some kind of formal or informal arrangement for the phone to be taken and Gizmodo would use their 'journalism veil' to cover it up. That's really the only thing that fits all the facts.
2. He knew this information and also provided the information to Gizmodo.
3. Gizmodo published his name, age, title and company he worked for.
4. The "seller" obviously knew who the owner was and did not return the property.
5. Under california law this is considered a theft because the "seller" profited from the property.
6. Gizmodo ALSO knew the owner of the phone and profited from it (web site traffic) without contacting the owner for it to be returned. This is also against CA law.
7. Both the "seller" and Gizmodo are responsible for theft under CA law. Gizmodo probably as an accessory.
This is about as open and shut as you can get. Even if Gizmodo is protected, the cops know the "seller" already and they will go after him for sure. Apple will see to it that Gawker spends millions of dollars fighting this (drop in the bucket for Apple) which will no doubt hurt them.
I'll go on record as saying that the story Gizmodo told was not true. Gizmodo and the guy who took the phone had some kind of formal or informal arrangement for the phone to be taken and Gizmodo would use their 'journalism veil' to cover it up. That's really the only thing that fits all the facts.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
It's only fair if the face book profile of the guy who took the phone, is revealed. If he just gets a silent slap on the wrist the story is incomplete.
PS At least a month in jail would also be in order to deter future attempts to do the same.
This will come out soon enough. Do his one month in jail and then make millions in interviews, book deals and movie rights.
But anyways, I'm currently thinking that the Gizmodo story about the provenance of the device is probably a cover.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
Wired also claimed they received an email offer to buy it on March 28th. This guy was definitely shopping around. He spent more effort looking for the highest bidder than trying to return it to Apple.
?I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,? he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.
"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
WTF?
If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Shouldn't they have worked out this journalist issue before doing the seizure? Seems fishy to seize equipment to risk finding they cannot do anything with it but return it. A bungled investigation would feed right into Gawker's M.O.
But anyways, I'm currently thinking that the Gizmodo story about the provenance of the device is probably a cover.
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
That would be a smart move, but I think that the guys in Gizmodo think that they have the law on their side, and may have even kept the evidence to try to prove they acted as proper journalists.
That would be a smart move, but I think that the guys in Gizmodo think that they have the law on their side, and may have even kept the evidence to try to prove they acted as proper journalists.
Yes, Psystaresque hubris on their part.
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
Clearly the training they received from the steering committee was inadequate.
Clearly the training they received from the steering committee was inadequate.
They also took his electric toothbrush, his CD collection, some jewelry, his dog, a rug, art, and his girlfriend...
The police are clearly doing things by the book - to prepare for an appeal. But it's too late - Gizmodo's in big trouble.
Wagstaffe said Chen?s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
Huh!?!?! By what book??! The book that says go ahead and execute a search warrant FIRST and THEN figure out if it was LEGAL for them to actually do it?!?!
If I were to 'perform a questionably legal act' FIRST and THEN tried to determine if it was actually legal I would not be able to talk my way out of the situation like the Wagstaffe seems to have no problem getting away with.
And in other news San Mateo County police have shot and killed 5 suspected murders... We are now in the process of determining if they actually murdered people. We will keep the media posted as we learn more...
By the book... that's a good one!
Shouldn't they have worked out this journalist issue before doing the seizure? Seems fishy to seize equipment to risk finding they cannot do anything with it but return it. A bungled investigation would feed right into Gawker's M.O.
But anyways, I'm currently thinking that the Gizmodo story about the provenance of the device is probably a cover.
Remember when the law in Florida seized Rush Limbaugh's medical records? I don't think they ever got to actually use them and had to return them after a lengthy legal fight. It happens, but it is in a way better then waiting and letting evidence get concealed or destroyed. Truly the only thing harmed for sure is Jason's door.
To clarify, I mean that if the prosecutor that asked for and judge that issued the warrant thought that shield law would not apply but Gizmodo plans to argue it does then holding off on examining the evidence is a good idea. But that does not mean that the warrant was not issued and executed in good faith.
Clearly the training they received from the steering committee was inadequate.
They also took his electric toothbrush, his CD collection, some jewelry, his dog, a rug, art, and his girlfriend...
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
Forensic evidense? History of websites visited perhaps?
They also took his electric toothbrush, his CD collection, some jewelry, his dog, a rug, art, and his girlfriend...
After seeing pictures of him I suspect it was more that the time he paid for was cut short when she saw cops in his house.
Just kidding.