None of us know how this will ultimately play out. But I don't think it's wise for any group to be told that it's above the law. Once that happens, then unethical people will try and don the mask of that group and believe they can do anything they want, indulge in any malice that comes to mind, with the smug knowledge that no one can stop them.
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
I suppose that makes sense, I suppose a ruling from the AG might not be available as quickly as it would need to get everything first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp
Forensic evidense? History of websites visited perhaps?
It might have a DNS look-up table, other than that, I don't know what it could store. Consumer routers generally aren't that smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
None of us know how this will ultimately play out. But I don't think it's wise for any group to be told that it's above the law. Once that happens, then unethical people will try and don the mask of that group and believe they can do anything they want, indulge in any malice that comes to mind, with the smug knowledge that no one can stop them.
For the most part, I don't think shield laws are that lax.
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.
Hmmmm, I'm thinking that denying Chen the ability to wipe up after himself isn't such a bad idea before weighing the journalist issue. If anyone at Gizmodo had gotten wind of the investigation before the property was seized, how would the Police even know what property was present at Chen's house before the investigation started.
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.
Good points. Moreover, it seems somewhat silly, and a tad unfair -- if ultimately shown that Chen is a 'journalist' -- that the wares that make his livelihood (not just what he types on, but his files, past data, references, sources, notes of work-in-progress, etc) are being sequestered until this is all legally sorted out.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
It might have a DNS look-up table, other than that, I don't know what it could store. Consumer routers generally aren't that smart.
I wouldn't claim to know what is stored in the router and god help me if the wife figured out how to look that up.
They probably take anything remotely related to what would have been used to or may have evidence of the crime that was within the scope of the warrant. Instead of kill em all and let god sort it out, in this case, it's more along the lines of seize it all and let the techs sort it out.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
He's probably had to identify the seller of the phone to authorities. Poor guy will probably end up in court to testify when the case goes to trial. At least he was wise enough to not buy the phone though.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
I predict that the courts will throw this out.
I think we are looking at this with a narrow view. The police probably have proceedures that they follow. I suspect that it is only logical that if there is potential evidence in a suspect's custody, it must be seized as soon as possible. If their are legal questions*, they can be sorted out after the evidence is secure. To look at this one case and say "well, they should have waited because he (Chen) can be trusted not to destroy or hide evidence" is just naïve.
If there are tricky legal issues to settle, waiting weeks, months or even years for lawyers to hash it out would be stupid
*by "legal questions" I don't mean questions about the seizing itself, but questions about the admissability of the evidence gained from the seizure
I still think that if they had not taken the phone apart and published pictures of the phones internals and not required the letter from Apple and simply returned it when asked then this may have been avoided. I do not have any legal training or experience in law but logically it seems to me that those pictures of the inside of the phone was the precise moment the shot themselves in the foot. And smugly posting on the web every little detail certainly provided direction for the police to investigate. \
I realize that this has been and will continue to talked about endlessly but wanted to share my own worthless legal opinion.
Comments
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
I suppose that makes sense, I suppose a ruling from the AG might not be available as quickly as it would need to get everything first.
Forensic evidense? History of websites visited perhaps?
It might have a DNS look-up table, other than that, I don't know what it could store. Consumer routers generally aren't that smart.
None of us know how this will ultimately play out. But I don't think it's wise for any group to be told that it's above the law. Once that happens, then unethical people will try and don the mask of that group and believe they can do anything they want, indulge in any malice that comes to mind, with the smug knowledge that no one can stop them.
For the most part, I don't think shield laws are that lax.
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.
Hmmmm, I'm thinking that denying Chen the ability to wipe up after himself isn't such a bad idea before weighing the journalist issue. If anyone at Gizmodo had gotten wind of the investigation before the property was seized, how would the Police even know what property was present at Chen's house before the investigation started.
"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?
With lawyers, everything is debatable until a judge rules, finally.
They also took his electric toothbrush, his CD collection, some jewelry, his dog, a rug, art, and his girlfriend...
And taking the girlfriend was a GOOD THING since he came home from dinner with his WIFE!
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.
Good points. Moreover, it seems somewhat silly, and a tad unfair -- if ultimately shown that Chen is a 'journalist' -- that the wares that make his livelihood (not just what he types on, but his files, past data, references, sources, notes of work-in-progress, etc) are being sequestered until this is all legally sorted out.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
I predict that the courts will throw this out.
It might have a DNS look-up table, other than that, I don't know what it could store. Consumer routers generally aren't that smart.
I wouldn't claim to know what is stored in the router and god help me if the wife figured out how to look that up.
They probably take anything remotely related to what would have been used to or may have evidence of the crime that was within the scope of the warrant. Instead of kill em all and let god sort it out, in this case, it's more along the lines of seize it all and let the techs sort it out.
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.
No, you're not. People that say that are rarely kidding.
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
Probably the cops didn't know what it was or thought it was a time capsule.
No, you're not. People that say that are rarely kidding.
I honestly do not believe that he bought or paid for a girlfriend. As it has already been noted that he came home with his wife.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
He's probably had to identify the seller of the phone to authorities. Poor guy will probably end up in court to testify when the case goes to trial. At least he was wise enough to not buy the phone though.
No, you're not. People that say that are rarely kidding.
I honestly do not believe that he bought or paid for a girlfriend. As it has already been noted that he came home with his wife.
Rarely != Never
(clinically proven by the two statements above)
regardless of what the investigation and the law say, jason chen is no journalist.
Well I'm glad that you are here to give us the final word on what does and does not constitute journalism.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
I predict that the courts will throw this out.
I think we are looking at this with a narrow view. The police probably have proceedures that they follow. I suspect that it is only logical that if there is potential evidence in a suspect's custody, it must be seized as soon as possible. If their are legal questions*, they can be sorted out after the evidence is secure. To look at this one case and say "well, they should have waited because he (Chen) can be trusted not to destroy or hide evidence" is just naïve.
If there are tricky legal issues to settle, waiting weeks, months or even years for lawyers to hash it out would be stupid
*by "legal questions" I don't mean questions about the seizing itself, but questions about the admissability of the evidence gained from the seizure
Well I'm glad that you are here to give us the final word on what does and does not constitute journalism.
you are welcome.
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
... it was connected to the big, silver, shiny cheese-grater is my guess
Jason "Pongo" Chen can always fall back to his previous gig.
His new gig will be Bubba's new b**ch down at the Fed Pen...
I realize that this has been and will continue to talked about endlessly but wanted to share my own worthless legal opinion.