No, actually, pretty much every thread you get involved with starts with you making broad claims about your own powers of insight and definitive statements of the truth that no one else seems to be able to fathom, along with a lot of disparaging (albeit confusing) subsidiary flak about the generally dim-witted state of the average poster, people in general, and our debased civilization, followed by the inevitable irritable push-back from the people you have such contempt for, followed by increasingly florid declarations of righteousness and injury to your person inflicted by these same fools and knaves, leading to ever more abstracted and irrelevant parsing of the particulars of your blamelessness and the general perfidy of everyone else, leading to another thread wandering into exceptionally tedious weeds.
Pretty much every thread you get involved with. Funny how that works.
Wow! Not about the accurate portrayal, but 128 words in the sentence!
No, actually, pretty much every thread you get involved with starts with you making broad claims about your own powers of insight and definitive statements of the truth that no one else seems to be able to fathom, along with a lot of disparaging (albeit confusing) subsidiary flak about the generally dim-witted state of the average poster, people in general, and our debased civilization, followed by the inevitable irritable push-back from the people you have such contempt for, followed by increasingly florid declarations of righteousness and injury to your person inflicted by these same fools and knaves, leading to ever more abstracted and irrelevant parsing of the particulars of your blamelessness and the general perfidy of everyone else, leading to another thread wandering into exceptionally tedious weeds.
Pretty much every thread you get involved with. Funny how that works.
I really have no desire to win this race. You can have it. See a previous comment.
Why were there a bunch of posts (including all of mine in response to Harleigh Quinn) deleted? I understand the need to keep the forum focused and on topic and the whole conversation became very weedy and it makes the forum a mess and a pain to look at and read, but still. I don't quite understand why my posts (and others in response to me) were deleted. I was trying to respond civilly and personally to Harleigh Quinn and I get deleted. I don't get it.
The thing was lost, was then leaked, and life will (and should) go on.
You're leaving out the stealing part, and the receiving stolen goods part. Both, when you have the cash value of a prototype, is well into the felony area.
The California shield law was put into place to protect a journalist's sources. For instance, someone in the mayor's office has taken bribes, but he goes to the paper to show that what he did was part of a pattern of bribe-taking, even by the mayor himself. The mayor sees the first story you publish and raids the journalist's office to find the identity of the leaker. The L.A. Times, under those conditions, will not allow the police on the premises.
Now, switch that. The Times reporter does a burglary to get some papers to back up a story on bribes. They splash it all over the front pages. It's a worthwhile story, at least in the sense of selling a lot of newspapers. But wait a minute. The cops come with a warrant, and then the Times screams "Freedom of the press?" Uh-uh. The issue is, the Times reporter appears to have committed a felony to get some documents.
Life will indeed go on, but someone might not find their next few months very fun at all.
Don't know. Maybe the law. Could be the US constitution. Who knows.
The court can make an exception and seal the information, if certain requirements are met. The media argued that those requirements for sealing had not been met and further the sealing order itself was sealed so no public review of if the sealing was appropriate is even possible.
Maybe the sealing was valid. You don't know, I don't know. The decision of no decision puts the responsibility of determining if you should know (or when) back on the judge that made the decision in the first place. No conflict there, at all.
Your question could be restated: what gives you the right to question what the media does? What gives you the right to do anything? Hopefully, you will see the answer is the same.
I think what it simply tells us is that there are two "persons of interest" whose rights need protecting, because the warrant mentions them, therefore the warrant is still sealed -- because the investigation still isn't finished. Once it's finished, the evidence that will be public. We'll see what the accuseds' lawyers say about that.
Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.
Receiving stolen property does not require a financial transaction, just knowledge that the property was stolen.
I think what it simply tells us is that there are two "persons of interest" whose rights need protecting, because the warrant mentions them, therefore the warrant is still sealed -- because the investigation still isn't finished. Once it's finished, the evidence that will be public. We'll see what the accuseds' lawyers say about that.
Maybe. The articles don't say that. They said the police don't want to alert those two individuals, but nothing about protecting their rights. I guess they might both be in comas and so, unaware of the current investigation.
But, even if that was they case, why seal both the affidavit and the order to seal the affidavit. The order itself wouldn't identify them. Like I said, the sealing might be valid. This is likely. Then why shouldn't the court consider the argument that it was valid? The laws says the information must be released after 10 days. If a court is going to make a exception to the law, they should explain why. Otherwise, why have laws?
In other creepiness, anyone notice that the story titled " Apple's brand 'buzz' loses steam among young adults in survey" which was posted this morning has since been pulled from the front page?
In other creepiness, anyone notice that the story titled " Apple's brand 'buzz' loses steam among young adults in survey" which was posted this morning has since been pulled from the front page?
What has legal procedure got to do with your opinion of Apple's business practice?
What was stolen? Free marketing and Press? Seriously, what was leaked?
An NDA is a NDA and you can get into trouble.
If you ever attend a wedding and they have a DJ, by law the accused could be fined up to $100k per infraction if he/she does not pay ASCAP/BMI dues. But knowone ever bothers. They do have inspectors for clubs and restaraunts though.
What was stolen? Free marketing and Press? Seriously, what was leaked?
An NDA is a NDA and you can get into trouble.
They stole a phone and broadcast its composition to the world. That causes immense damage to Apple. People could hold off on buying iPhones. Competitors get a head start on their next generation to phones. The damages are undoubtedly in the millions of dollars.
You are treating the phone market like a corner lemonade stand. Yes, if someone in Dallas steals your lemonade recipe, your stand in Detroit isn't going to be harmed much (although it could still be illegal). That's NOT true in the mobile market.
Not to mention that it's illegal and the police have a responsibility to investigate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
If you ever attend a wedding and they have a DJ, by law the accused could be fined up to $100k per infraction if he/she does not pay ASCAP/BMI dues. But knowone ever bothers. They do have inspectors for clubs and restaraunts though.
Any clue why that has any relevance at all to the discussion here? People also smoke marijuana which is illegal and few of them get caught. What does that have to do with the case at hand?
They stole a phone and broadcast its composition to the world. That causes immense damage to Apple. People could hold off on buying iPhones. Competitors get a head start on their next generation to phones. The damages are undoubtedly in the millions of dollars.
You are treating the phone market like a corner lemonade stand. Yes, if someone in Dallas steals your lemonade recipe, your stand in Detroit isn't going to be harmed much (although it could still be illegal). That's NOT true in the mobile market.
Not to mention that it's illegal and the police have a responsibility to investigate.
Any clue why that has any relevance at all to the discussion here? People also smoke marijuana which is illegal and few of them get caught. What does that have to do with the case at hand?
Ah. So it is about the phone. Some believe this could be an Apple Marketing tatic. Knowone can really catch up to the iPhone "as-is", so why do you think Apple could lose millions? With regard to buying phones, everyone knows you wait until June/July around April plus stories like this are mainly on websites, not your typical mainstream news.
“There’s a prohibition that says the government may not seize work product or documentary materials that are possessed in connection with news reporting and then it says that protection does not apply if there’s probable cause to believe the reporter is committing a crime, but then it says that exception to the exception doesn’t apply if the crime that the reporter is being investigated for is receipt of the information,” she said. “Whether or not receiving the iPhone was a criminal matter, the Privacy Protection Act says that you can’t do a search for receipt of that information. I think the idea that looking at the iPhone was unlawful is a real stretch. We don’t know what the claim is for that. I don’t know that that’s what they’re claiming. We don’t know what the situation is. But even if they are saying it was unlawful, the statute appears to say it doesn’t matter. The crime that you’re investigating cannot be receipt of that information or materials.”
Granick said that a gadget like an iPhone fits the definition of “information or materials” and falls under the law’s protection.
The Privacy Protection Act states that ”a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein.”
Ah. So it is about the phone. Some believe this could be an Apple Marketing tatic. Knowone can really catch up to the iPhone "as-is", so why do you think Apple could lose millions? With regard to buying phones, everyone knows you wait until June/July around April plus stories like this are mainly on websites, not your typical mainstream news. .
Care to explain that in sentences that make sense?
The fact is that the competition now knows what Apple's NEXT generation phone will look like rather than having to wait for the release in June. That gives them a couple of months' head start.
In addition, millions of people have seen the new phone - and may decide not to buy the existing phone.
The state law Granick referred to is California Penal Code section 1524G which states “No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.” And section 1070 of the evidence code states that:
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Granick also said that, rather than issuing a search warrant, the court should have issued a subpoena. “The subpoena gives the reporter an opportunity to ask the court to review the request and it also gives the reporter an opportunity to segregate potentially responsive information from private information,” she said. “The search warrant process doesn’t allow for either of those.” Under a subpoena, Chen would be able to not only challenge the government’s request, but also make sure that authorities do not get to look at other information on his hard drive such as his banking records or e-mails about other stories.
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
Perhaps the law is on the side of Apple and that of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, California’s high-tech crimes task force, which served the search warrant (Apple is represented on the public agency’s board).
Perhaps Gizmodo was involved in the felony theft of property when it paid $5,000 and published photos and videos of the device.
Perhaps Jason Chen, the Gizmodo blogger who lost four computers and two servers to the police last week, is not protected by the California shield law intended to prevent the authorities from seizing journalists’ reporting materials without a subpoena (that matter is currently under consideration so the police and county attorneys have held off combing through the computers).
But those are a lot of assumptions, and regardless of how the law shakes out, the optics are horrible for Apple. Anybody with a kilobyte of common sense could have told Steve Jobs that the five minutes of pleasure that came from making a criminal complaint against journalists would be followed by much misery.
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
Gizmodo gave back the phone, and that might have been the end of the story, but Apple just wouldn't let it drop. Four days later, police raided the Fremont, Calif., home of the reporter who had written the piece—and that sent the story spiraling out of control, with everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Keith Olbermann commenting on it. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show lashed into Apple, saying Steve Jobs and his team were behaving like "appholes."
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.
“Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,” the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn’t let them in.
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
Comments
No, actually, pretty much every thread you get involved with starts with you making broad claims about your own powers of insight and definitive statements of the truth that no one else seems to be able to fathom, along with a lot of disparaging (albeit confusing) subsidiary flak about the generally dim-witted state of the average poster, people in general, and our debased civilization, followed by the inevitable irritable push-back from the people you have such contempt for, followed by increasingly florid declarations of righteousness and injury to your person inflicted by these same fools and knaves, leading to ever more abstracted and irrelevant parsing of the particulars of your blamelessness and the general perfidy of everyone else, leading to another thread wandering into exceptionally tedious weeds.
Pretty much every thread you get involved with. Funny how that works.
Wow! Not about the accurate portrayal, but 128 words in the sentence!
No, actually, pretty much every thread you get involved with starts with you making broad claims about your own powers of insight and definitive statements of the truth that no one else seems to be able to fathom, along with a lot of disparaging (albeit confusing) subsidiary flak about the generally dim-witted state of the average poster, people in general, and our debased civilization, followed by the inevitable irritable push-back from the people you have such contempt for, followed by increasingly florid declarations of righteousness and injury to your person inflicted by these same fools and knaves, leading to ever more abstracted and irrelevant parsing of the particulars of your blamelessness and the general perfidy of everyone else, leading to another thread wandering into exceptionally tedious weeds.
Pretty much every thread you get involved with. Funny how that works.
I really have no desire to win this race. You can have it. See a previous comment.
Wow! Not about the accurate portrayal, but 128 words in the sentence!
Classic run on. Much like himself. He named himself aptly.
Waaa Waaa Waaa...
The thing was lost, was then leaked, and life will (and should) go on.
You're leaving out the stealing part, and the receiving stolen goods part. Both, when you have the cash value of a prototype, is well into the felony area.
The California shield law was put into place to protect a journalist's sources. For instance, someone in the mayor's office has taken bribes, but he goes to the paper to show that what he did was part of a pattern of bribe-taking, even by the mayor himself. The mayor sees the first story you publish and raids the journalist's office to find the identity of the leaker. The L.A. Times, under those conditions, will not allow the police on the premises.
Now, switch that. The Times reporter does a burglary to get some papers to back up a story on bribes. They splash it all over the front pages. It's a worthwhile story, at least in the sense of selling a lot of newspapers. But wait a minute. The cops come with a warrant, and then the Times screams "Freedom of the press?" Uh-uh. The issue is, the Times reporter appears to have committed a felony to get some documents.
Life will indeed go on, but someone might not find their next few months very fun at all.
Don't know. Maybe the law. Could be the US constitution. Who knows.
The court can make an exception and seal the information, if certain requirements are met. The media argued that those requirements for sealing had not been met and further the sealing order itself was sealed so no public review of if the sealing was appropriate is even possible.
Maybe the sealing was valid. You don't know, I don't know. The decision of no decision puts the responsibility of determining if you should know (or when) back on the judge that made the decision in the first place. No conflict there, at all.
Your question could be restated: what gives you the right to question what the media does? What gives you the right to do anything? Hopefully, you will see the answer is the same.
I think what it simply tells us is that there are two "persons of interest" whose rights need protecting, because the warrant mentions them, therefore the warrant is still sealed -- because the investigation still isn't finished. Once it's finished, the evidence that will be public. We'll see what the accuseds' lawyers say about that.
Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.
Receiving stolen property does not require a financial transaction, just knowledge that the property was stolen.
I think what it simply tells us is that there are two "persons of interest" whose rights need protecting, because the warrant mentions them, therefore the warrant is still sealed -- because the investigation still isn't finished. Once it's finished, the evidence that will be public. We'll see what the accuseds' lawyers say about that.
Maybe. The articles don't say that. They said the police don't want to alert those two individuals, but nothing about protecting their rights. I guess they might both be in comas and so, unaware of the current investigation.
But, even if that was they case, why seal both the affidavit and the order to seal the affidavit. The order itself wouldn't identify them. Like I said, the sealing might be valid. This is likely. Then why shouldn't the court consider the argument that it was valid? The laws says the information must be released after 10 days. If a court is going to make a exception to the law, they should explain why. Otherwise, why have laws?
The discussion still shows up in Google:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=109349
In other creepiness, anyone notice that the story titled " Apple's brand 'buzz' loses steam among young adults in survey" which was posted this morning has since been pulled from the front page?
The discussion still shows up in Google:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=109349
That's another bad title.
The article actually says that the surveyed individuals are hearing more bad things about Apple than in the past - but still far more good things.
What has legal procedure got to do with your opinion of Apple's business practice?
What was stolen? Free marketing and Press? Seriously, what was leaked?
An NDA is a NDA and you can get into trouble.
If you ever attend a wedding and they have a DJ, by law the accused could be fined up to $100k per infraction if he/she does not pay ASCAP/BMI dues. But knowone ever bothers. They do have inspectors for clubs and restaraunts though.
What was stolen? Free marketing and Press? Seriously, what was leaked?
An NDA is a NDA and you can get into trouble.
They stole a phone and broadcast its composition to the world. That causes immense damage to Apple. People could hold off on buying iPhones. Competitors get a head start on their next generation to phones. The damages are undoubtedly in the millions of dollars.
You are treating the phone market like a corner lemonade stand. Yes, if someone in Dallas steals your lemonade recipe, your stand in Detroit isn't going to be harmed much (although it could still be illegal). That's NOT true in the mobile market.
Not to mention that it's illegal and the police have a responsibility to investigate.
If you ever attend a wedding and they have a DJ, by law the accused could be fined up to $100k per infraction if he/she does not pay ASCAP/BMI dues. But knowone ever bothers. They do have inspectors for clubs and restaraunts though.
Any clue why that has any relevance at all to the discussion here? People also smoke marijuana which is illegal and few of them get caught. What does that have to do with the case at hand?
They stole a phone and broadcast its composition to the world. That causes immense damage to Apple. People could hold off on buying iPhones. Competitors get a head start on their next generation to phones. The damages are undoubtedly in the millions of dollars.
You are treating the phone market like a corner lemonade stand. Yes, if someone in Dallas steals your lemonade recipe, your stand in Detroit isn't going to be harmed much (although it could still be illegal). That's NOT true in the mobile market.
Not to mention that it's illegal and the police have a responsibility to investigate.
Any clue why that has any relevance at all to the discussion here? People also smoke marijuana which is illegal and few of them get caught. What does that have to do with the case at hand?
Ah. So it is about the phone. Some believe this could be an Apple Marketing tatic. Knowone can really catch up to the iPhone "as-is", so why do you think Apple could lose millions? With regard to buying phones, everyone knows you wait until June/July around April plus stories like this are mainly on websites, not your typical mainstream news.
Godspeed...
“There’s a prohibition that says the government may not seize work product or documentary materials that are possessed in connection with news reporting and then it says that protection does not apply if there’s probable cause to believe the reporter is committing a crime, but then it says that exception to the exception doesn’t apply if the crime that the reporter is being investigated for is receipt of the information,” she said. “Whether or not receiving the iPhone was a criminal matter, the Privacy Protection Act says that you can’t do a search for receipt of that information. I think the idea that looking at the iPhone was unlawful is a real stretch. We don’t know what the claim is for that. I don’t know that that’s what they’re claiming. We don’t know what the situation is. But even if they are saying it was unlawful, the statute appears to say it doesn’t matter. The crime that you’re investigating cannot be receipt of that information or materials.”
Granick said that a gadget like an iPhone fits the definition of “information or materials” and falls under the law’s protection.
The Privacy Protection Act states that ”a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein.”
Ah. So it is about the phone. Some believe this could be an Apple Marketing tatic. Knowone can really catch up to the iPhone "as-is", so why do you think Apple could lose millions? With regard to buying phones, everyone knows you wait until June/July around April plus stories like this are mainly on websites, not your typical mainstream news. .
Care to explain that in sentences that make sense?
The fact is that the competition now knows what Apple's NEXT generation phone will look like rather than having to wait for the release in June. That gives them a couple of months' head start.
In addition, millions of people have seen the new phone - and may decide not to buy the existing phone.
Both of those things cost Apple a LOT of money.
The state law Granick referred to is California Penal Code section 1524G which states “No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.” And section 1070 of the evidence code states that:
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Granick also said that, rather than issuing a search warrant, the court should have issued a subpoena. “The subpoena gives the reporter an opportunity to ask the court to review the request and it also gives the reporter an opportunity to segregate potentially responsive information from private information,” she said. “The search warrant process doesn’t allow for either of those.” Under a subpoena, Chen would be able to not only challenge the government’s request, but also make sure that authorities do not get to look at other information on his hard drive such as his banking records or e-mails about other stories.
http://blog.laptopmag.com/eff-lawyer...nd-federal-law
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
http://blog.laptopmag.com/eff-lawyer...nd-federal-law
Perhaps the law is on the side of Apple and that of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, California’s high-tech crimes task force, which served the search warrant (Apple is represented on the public agency’s board).
Perhaps Gizmodo was involved in the felony theft of property when it paid $5,000 and published photos and videos of the device.
Perhaps Jason Chen, the Gizmodo blogger who lost four computers and two servers to the police last week, is not protected by the California shield law intended to prevent the authorities from seizing journalists’ reporting materials without a subpoena (that matter is currently under consideration so the police and county attorneys have held off combing through the computers).
But those are a lot of assumptions, and regardless of how the law shakes out, the optics are horrible for Apple. Anybody with a kilobyte of common sense could have told Steve Jobs that the five minutes of pleasure that came from making a criminal complaint against journalists would be followed by much misery.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/bu...ia/03carr.html
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
Gizmodo gave back the phone, and that might have been the end of the story, but Apple just wouldn't let it drop. Four days later, police raided the Fremont, Calif., home of the reporter who had written the piece—and that sent the story spiraling out of control, with everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Keith Olbermann commenting on it. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show lashed into Apple, saying Steve Jobs and his team were behaving like "appholes."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237186
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"
People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.
“Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,” the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn’t let them in.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...#ixzz0nPPo1Few
Except that the police are investigating a crime i.e. receiving stolen property, due to Chen publishing what amounts to a full confession it seems that the Police have a rather strong case, which no doubt the judge when issuing and sealing the warrant took into consideration when interpreting and ruling on the legalities involved.
"...cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose"