Gizmodo took possession of the phone, knowing that it did not belong to Hogan. That's a clear cut felony, not just gaining access to the phone.
I wonder why the Gizmodo defenders have to outright lie about the facts in order to try to defend Gizmodo. Oh, wait - it's because their position is so untenable if you stick to reality.
Then where are the charges? Giz is gonna say the phone was newsworthy and of interest to the general public. Unfortunately in this instance they went about it the wrong way but very few judges will punish them for it. They'll probably just get fined. Btw I'm not defending Giz, I'm just not willing to crucify them.
Then where are the charges? Giz is gonna say the phone was newsworthy and of interest to the general public. Unfortunately in this instance they went about it the wrong way but very few judges will punish them for it. They'll probably just get fined. Btw I'm not defending Giz, I'm just not willing to crucify them.
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
The facts are pretty clear - even Gizmodo's own admissions indicate that they committed a crime. There may be a number of reasons that charges are not filed (if they're not), but that doesn't change any of the facts.
More likely, the police are handling this one very carefully due to the media attention and want to have all the details in place before making an arrest. Read the affidavit used to get the search warrant. The police didn't hesitate to accuse Chen of committing a crime.
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
Technically speaking, until those charges are filed, Gizmodo hasn't done anything wrong in the view of the court. At most, they're suspected of wrong-doing. It's the trial that will determine whether or not they've actually done something wrong.
The fact that it's still taken this long to even draft up the charges proves that this case isn't as completely black and white as you make it out to be.
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
The facts are pretty clear - even Gizmodo's own admissions indicate that they committed a crime. There may be a number of reasons that charges are not filed (if they're not), but that doesn't change any of the facts.
More likely, the police are handling this one very carefully due to the media attention and want to have all the details in place before making an arrest. Read the affidavit used to get the search warrant. The police didn't hesitate to accuse Chen of committing a crime.
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not here defending Giz, I'm just stating the facts. If I were to purchase a stolen TV, it would be for personal use, I'd stick it on wall and not tell a soul. Giz, a media outlet, purchased a lost iPhone (which was a VERY STUPID thing to do), but with the intent to report on it, to write a story about it, because its newsworthy and at the very least of interest to its readers. That fact was proven by all the other media outlets that reported on it as well, including AI. Now protection of the media is vital in this country, and unfortunately in some cases they'll protect a wrongdoing, and I'm guessing will protect Giz in this one.
Technically speaking, until those charges are filed, Gizmodo hasn't done anything wrong in the view of the court. At most, they're suspected of wrong-doing. It's the trial that will determine whether or not they've actually done something wrong.
The fact that it's still taken this long to even draft up the charges proves that this case isn't as completely black and white as you make it out to be.
Wrong. It indicates no such thing.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not here defending Giz, I'm just stating the facts. If I were to purchase a stolen TV, it would be for personal use, I'd stick it on wall and not tell a soul. Giz, a media outlet, purchased a lost iPhone (which was a VERY STUPID thing to do), but with the intent to report on it, to write a story about it, because its newsworthy and at the very least of interest to its readers. That fact was proven by all the other media outlets that reported on it as well, including AI. Now protection of the media is vital in this country, and unfortunately in some cases they'll protect a wrongdoing, and I'm guessing will protect Giz in this one.
Just how do you expect that the media is going to protect Gizmodo? Do you think the court is going to ask the NY Times to testify?
You have a strange way of 'not defending Gizmodo'. The facts are very clear-Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Just how do you expect that the media is going to protect Gizmodo? Do you think the court is going to ask the NY Times to testify?
You have a strange way of 'not defending Gizmodo'. The facts are very clear-Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
No, there are laws that protect the media. They were written to keep politicians, corporations, and special interest groups from swaying or scaring the media into reporting what the want or don't want. The DA is an elected official and it could be very bad for him if he's viewed as attacking the freedom of the press because Apple wants him to. Answer me this, would yop feel so strongly had it been a phone made by Moto, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc... that Giz had gotten and reported on?
No, there are laws that protect the media. They were written to keep politicians, corporations, and special interest groups from swaying or scaring the media into reporting what the want or don't want. The DA is an elected official and it could be very bad for him if he's viewed as attacking the freedom of the press because Apple wants him to. Answer me this, would yop feel so strongly had it been a phone made by Moto, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc... that Giz had gotten and reported on?
The laws protect the media from harrassment, but not from prosecution for committing a felony. It's really amazing how many people seem to think it's OK for the press to operate completely outside the law.
I don't care if it's a phone from HTC, LG, or anything else. It's stolen property and the press needs to learn that 'freedom of the press' doesn't mean you can break laws.
The laws protect the media from harrassment, but not from prosecution for committing a felony. It's really amazing how many people seem to think it's OK for the press to operate completely outside the law.
I don't care if it's a phone from HTC, LG, or anything else. It's stolen property and the press needs to learn that 'freedom of the press' doesn't mean you can break laws.
First of all its not a felony regardless of what Giz paid. That's what they put the value at but not the true value that the courts will consider. It'll be a misdemeanor charge at best and a lot of trouble to pursue because it is a media outlet. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested and charged a long time ago. I do not think what Giz did was ok, all I'm saying is that they'll get special consideration because they are the media whereas you or I wouldn't.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Good. So we're in agreement that the only thing the court knows so far is that they only have enough to suspect wrongdoing, but are not able to definitively prove wrongdoing until the case is presented.
Again, the case isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
First of all its not a felony regardless of what Giz paid. That's what they put the value at but not the true value that the courts will consider. It'll be a misdemeanor charge at best and a lot of trouble to pursue because it is a media outlet. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested and charged a long time ago. I do not think what Giz did was ok, all I'm saying is that they'll get special consideration because they are the media whereas you or I wouldn't.
That's the problem in my opinion, we were trained to expect the press to get special consideration at the courts even though there is nowhere in the US Constitution especially in the First Amendment that gave the media the license to be above the law even the Constitution. You see, unlike you, I view the press as everybody who has the capability to spread the news and opinion to a relatively large amount of people whether it comes through traditional means like newspapers, radio or television or by the new media such Websites and blogs. The First Amendment gave us all the rights about speech and all that stuff , but the vast majority of Americans and especially by the media and the courts ignored the unwritten part of the First Amendment that comes with those right, the responsibilities and the consequences if anyone abused the First Amendment
I will have more respect for the media if they stand in front defending the First Amendment and accepting the unwritten responsibilities and consequences attached to it rather than cowering behind it with the help of their lawyers and sympathetic courts.
That's the problem in my opinion, we were trained to expect the press to get special consideration at the courts even though there is nowhere in the US Constitution especially in the First Amendment that gave the media the license to be above the law even the Constitution. You see, unlike you, I view the press as everybody who has the capability to spread the news and opinion to a relatively large amount of people whether it comes through traditional means like newspapers, radio or television or by the new media such Websites and blogs. The First Amendment gave us all the rights about speech and all that stuff , but the vast majority of Americans and especially by the media and the courts ignored the unwritten part of the First Amendment that comes with those right, the responsibilities and the consequences if anyone abused the First Amendment
I will have more respect for the media if they stand in front defending the First Amendment and accepting the unwritten responsibilities and consequences attached to it rather than cowering behind it with the help of their lawyers and sympathetic courts.
I totally agree but we can't pick and choose who should be protected and who shouldn't be. Its blanket protection, remember it rains on the just and on the unjust.
Good. So we're in agreement that the only thing the court knows so far is that they only have enough to suspect wrongdoing, but are not able to definitively prove wrongdoing until the case is presented.
Again, the case isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
Baloney. Read the Affidavit. The COURT obviously isn't certain because they haven't seen all the evidence, but the police are quite certain.
There is little, if any, gray area in this case. The relevant facts are almost undisputed:
- Apple lost a prototype phone
- Hogan 'found' it.
- Hogan made little or no effort to return it to Apple, even though he knew the name and facebook page of the phone's owner.
- Hogan tried to find other companies to buy it, but settled on Gizmodo
- Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for the phone
- Gizmodo disassembled and damaged the phone and posted pictures on their web site without permission from Apple
There's more, but that's enough. Where are all the gray areas in those facts?
The cops arrest on suspicion. Guilt is determined at court. In this case the prosecution is not sure how to proceed. Why did they confiscate the computers but not look through them? Because the DA put a stop to it when the legality of the search warrant came into play.
The cops arrest on suspicion. Guilt is determined at court. In this case the prosecution is not sure how to proceed. Why did they confiscate the computers but not look through them? Because the DA put a stop to it when the legality of the search warrant came into play.
As I said, the police affidavit is quite convincing. The court hasn't ruled one way or another, so we can only go on published reports. So far, there is NOTHING in the published reports that points to any gray area. What Gizmodo did was illegal.
ROTFLMAO. EFF is a parody. "As expected, the affidavit confirmed that there was no legal basis for the search." WTF? Did they even READ the affidavit? I could see them quibbling over details, but to say that there was no legal basis for the search makes them a joke.
EFF's position seems to be that journalists can do anything they wish and the police have no right to investigate. That position is so absurd that no rational person could possibly believe it. The fact that you're relying on EFF's absurdities to defend your position ought to make you think twice about your position.
EFF reminds me of PETA. They started out with reasonable goals and objectives, but then the loonies took over and they're picketing Punxatawny, PA over 'abuse' of the groundhog.
As I said, the police affidavit is quite convincing. The court hasn't ruled one way or another, so we can only go on published reports. So far, there is NOTHING in the published reports that points to any gray area. What Gizmodo did was illegal.
ROTFLMAO. EFF is a parody. "As expected, the affidavit confirmed that there was no legal basis for the search." WTF? Did they even READ the affidavit? I could see them quibbling over details, but to say that there was no legal basis for the search makes them a joke.
EFF's position seems to be that journalists can do anything they wish and the police have no right to investigate. That position is so absurd that no rational person could possibly believe it. The fact that you're relying on EFF's absurdities to defend your position ought to make you think twice about your position.
EFF reminds me of PETA. They started out with reasonable goals and objectives, but then the loonies took over and they're picketing Punxatawny, PA over 'abuse' of the groundhog.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
This device was a trade secret, as it was not yet released. However, there are stipulations for these protections not apply to trade secrets that have been brought into public. Apple, through an authorized employee, took the prototype out into the public and lost it. Do trade secret protections still apply? Some are going to say they know for sure they do. Others with say with certainty that they do not..
The ones who claim that Apple loses trade secret information because they took the phone out in public don't know what they're talking about.
As long as a company makes a reasonable effort to protect their trade secret information, someone who steals it can be punished. Note that when Apple took the phone out in public, it was disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS. No one would have been able to tell it was anything different without dissecting it.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
Actually police have a VERY profound part in the judgement of guilt or innocence. If the police believe you are innocent, you don't get charged and by definition you will remain innocent in the strict legal sense. You only get charged when the police decide you are guilty, then they turn it over to the DA and the courts to prove that you actually ARE guilty.
The system wraps itself in a layer of implausible denial by saying innocent until proven guilty, but in reality a police officer determines who they think is guilty and passes their evidence on. The police officers don't think of an abstract perpetrator and then assume everything they think doesn't connote guilt, only some need to send a particular alleged perpetrator to trial. They are people who make judgement calls on the evidence they have -- and they think the one they identify is guilty of the crime and often will continue to think that even when the court disagrees.
As to the illegality of the search of Chen's residence. I think it will probably end up as a legal search as the reason wasn't to gain a source, it was to preserve evidence. The problem is how to extract relevant evidence from an accused journalists tools of the trade, without technically crossing a boundary protecting future writings and stories the journalist is working on. That's why the DA stopped the examination of the computers.
Crossing that line would probably invalidate everything, even the relevant stuff. So somebody has to figure out a court approved protocol for looking at the relevant content and ensuring some definition of "future journalistic work" is used to set aside non-relevant journalistic data. That's my guess as to why this is taking so long for what would otherwise appear to be a garden variety stolen property case.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
You're wrong. Flat out wrong. The Journalist shield law applies only to protection of information. It does not protect a journalist from theft charges. The court specifically granted a search warrant, so the search was legal. The evidence obtained might be excluded from admission into trial if by some bizarre chance the court rules that Chen's actions are covered by Journalist shield, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
Let's go back to the identical situation, but with cars rather than a phone.
I set up a blog about driving hot cars. I offer a big reward for anyone who brings me a car to drive (and then later say I was just joking, wink wink).
Now, someone steals a Ferrari and brings it to me. I give them $5 K for the Ferrari and say that I didn't know it was stolen. My neighbor says he'll call the local mechanic to see if the car is stolen. Then I drive the car around for a few weeks, publish pictures on the Internet, disassemble the car, break a few things, and put it in my garage. Now, I publish my blog. When the police show up to seize evidence, I tell them to go away because I'm an authorized journalist. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to take the car back or charge me with a crime.
Or let's say I decide to start a blog on murder of political officials. Same thing - I give people $5 K for pictures of the murder of political officials and then I store the weapons in my garage - and refuse to give them up. Is that reasonable? By your logic, it should be.
Journalist shield law specifically excludes evidence involved with a crime - like the crime Gizmodo committed.
As long as a company makes a reasonable effort to protect their trade secret information, someone who steals it can be punished. Note that when Apple took the phone out in public, it was disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS. No one would have been able to tell it was anything different without dissecting it.
Well, let's at least include the rest of that paragraph you 'quoted'.
Quote:
This device was a trade secret, as it was not yet released. However, there are stipulations for these protections not apply to trade secrets that have been brought into public. Apple, through an authorized employee, took the prototype out into the public and lost it. Do trade secret protections still apply? Some are going to say they know for sure they do. Others with say with certainty that they do not. But, this will have to be determined by a court. Regardless of where people stand on the issue, they cannot definitively state which way a court would rule. There are, however, cases where the courts have stated that the protection is lost in some where the company did not take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure it's secrecy. That alone is enough to remove the protections. Taking to it a bar, getting drunk and losing might not be considered reasonable efforts to ensure it's secrecy.
If it is found to have still had TS protection in place, then Giz is screwed.
(Good thing I didn't claim to know for sure).
Now, before it was stolen, when it was simply lost in a public place, would that qualify as being diligent? From your link:
"If the owner has not diligently tried to keep the information secret, courts will usually refuse to extend any help to the trade secret owner if others learn of the information."
Comments
That's absurd.
Gizmodo took possession of the phone, knowing that it did not belong to Hogan. That's a clear cut felony, not just gaining access to the phone.
I wonder why the Gizmodo defenders have to outright lie about the facts in order to try to defend Gizmodo. Oh, wait - it's because their position is so untenable if you stick to reality.
Then where are the charges? Giz is gonna say the phone was newsworthy and of interest to the general public. Unfortunately in this instance they went about it the wrong way but very few judges will punish them for it. They'll probably just get fined. Btw I'm not defending Giz, I'm just not willing to crucify them.
Then where are the charges? Giz is gonna say the phone was newsworthy and of interest to the general public. Unfortunately in this instance they went about it the wrong way but very few judges will punish them for it. They'll probably just get fined. Btw I'm not defending Giz, I'm just not willing to crucify them.
Beat me to it.
Then where are the charges?
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
The facts are pretty clear - even Gizmodo's own admissions indicate that they committed a crime. There may be a number of reasons that charges are not filed (if they're not), but that doesn't change any of the facts.
More likely, the police are handling this one very carefully due to the media attention and want to have all the details in place before making an arrest. Read the affidavit used to get the search warrant. The police didn't hesitate to accuse Chen of committing a crime.
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
Technically speaking, until those charges are filed, Gizmodo hasn't done anything wrong in the view of the court. At most, they're suspected of wrong-doing. It's the trial that will determine whether or not they've actually done something wrong.
The fact that it's still taken this long to even draft up the charges proves that this case isn't as completely black and white as you make it out to be.
So your only defense is that since charges haven't been filed YET that Gizmodo must not have done anything wrong?
The facts are pretty clear - even Gizmodo's own admissions indicate that they committed a crime. There may be a number of reasons that charges are not filed (if they're not), but that doesn't change any of the facts.
More likely, the police are handling this one very carefully due to the media attention and want to have all the details in place before making an arrest. Read the affidavit used to get the search warrant. The police didn't hesitate to accuse Chen of committing a crime.
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not here defending Giz, I'm just stating the facts. If I were to purchase a stolen TV, it would be for personal use, I'd stick it on wall and not tell a soul. Giz, a media outlet, purchased a lost iPhone (which was a VERY STUPID thing to do), but with the intent to report on it, to write a story about it, because its newsworthy and at the very least of interest to its readers. That fact was proven by all the other media outlets that reported on it as well, including AI. Now protection of the media is vital in this country, and unfortunately in some cases they'll protect a wrongdoing, and I'm guessing will protect Giz in this one.
Technically speaking, until those charges are filed, Gizmodo hasn't done anything wrong in the view of the court. At most, they're suspected of wrong-doing. It's the trial that will determine whether or not they've actually done something wrong.
The fact that it's still taken this long to even draft up the charges proves that this case isn't as completely black and white as you make it out to be.
Wrong. It indicates no such thing.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Have you not read my previous posts? I'm not here defending Giz, I'm just stating the facts. If I were to purchase a stolen TV, it would be for personal use, I'd stick it on wall and not tell a soul. Giz, a media outlet, purchased a lost iPhone (which was a VERY STUPID thing to do), but with the intent to report on it, to write a story about it, because its newsworthy and at the very least of interest to its readers. That fact was proven by all the other media outlets that reported on it as well, including AI. Now protection of the media is vital in this country, and unfortunately in some cases they'll protect a wrongdoing, and I'm guessing will protect Giz in this one.
Just how do you expect that the media is going to protect Gizmodo? Do you think the court is going to ask the NY Times to testify?
You have a strange way of 'not defending Gizmodo'. The facts are very clear-Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
Wrong. It indicates no such thing.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Just how do you expect that the media is going to protect Gizmodo? Do you think the court is going to ask the NY Times to testify?
You have a strange way of 'not defending Gizmodo'. The facts are very clear-Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
No, there are laws that protect the media. They were written to keep politicians, corporations, and special interest groups from swaying or scaring the media into reporting what the want or don't want. The DA is an elected official and it could be very bad for him if he's viewed as attacking the freedom of the press because Apple wants him to. Answer me this, would yop feel so strongly had it been a phone made by Moto, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc... that Giz had gotten and reported on?
No, there are laws that protect the media. They were written to keep politicians, corporations, and special interest groups from swaying or scaring the media into reporting what the want or don't want. The DA is an elected official and it could be very bad for him if he's viewed as attacking the freedom of the press because Apple wants him to. Answer me this, would yop feel so strongly had it been a phone made by Moto, HTC, LG, Samsung, etc... that Giz had gotten and reported on?
The laws protect the media from harrassment, but not from prosecution for committing a felony. It's really amazing how many people seem to think it's OK for the press to operate completely outside the law.
I don't care if it's a phone from HTC, LG, or anything else. It's stolen property and the press needs to learn that 'freedom of the press' doesn't mean you can break laws.
The laws protect the media from harrassment, but not from prosecution for committing a felony. It's really amazing how many people seem to think it's OK for the press to operate completely outside the law.
I don't care if it's a phone from HTC, LG, or anything else. It's stolen property and the press needs to learn that 'freedom of the press' doesn't mean you can break laws.
First of all its not a felony regardless of what Giz paid. That's what they put the value at but not the true value that the courts will consider. It'll be a misdemeanor charge at best and a lot of trouble to pursue because it is a media outlet. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested and charged a long time ago. I do not think what Giz did was ok, all I'm saying is that they'll get special consideration because they are the media whereas you or I wouldn't.
Wrong. It indicates no such thing.
The only thing we know about the court's view is that they accepted the police affidavit as probable cause to issue a search warrant. They don't do that if there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Good. So we're in agreement that the only thing the court knows so far is that they only have enough to suspect wrongdoing, but are not able to definitively prove wrongdoing until the case is presented.
Again, the case isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
First of all its not a felony regardless of what Giz paid. That's what they put the value at but not the true value that the courts will consider. It'll be a misdemeanor charge at best and a lot of trouble to pursue because it is a media outlet. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested and charged a long time ago. I do not think what Giz did was ok, all I'm saying is that they'll get special consideration because they are the media whereas you or I wouldn't.
That's the problem in my opinion, we were trained to expect the press to get special consideration at the courts even though there is nowhere in the US Constitution especially in the First Amendment that gave the media the license to be above the law even the Constitution. You see, unlike you, I view the press as everybody who has the capability to spread the news and opinion to a relatively large amount of people whether it comes through traditional means like newspapers, radio or television or by the new media such Websites and blogs. The First Amendment gave us all the rights about speech and all that stuff , but the vast majority of Americans and especially by the media and the courts ignored the unwritten part of the First Amendment that comes with those right, the responsibilities and the consequences if anyone abused the First Amendment
I will have more respect for the media if they stand in front defending the First Amendment and accepting the unwritten responsibilities and consequences attached to it rather than cowering behind it with the help of their lawyers and sympathetic courts.
That's the problem in my opinion, we were trained to expect the press to get special consideration at the courts even though there is nowhere in the US Constitution especially in the First Amendment that gave the media the license to be above the law even the Constitution. You see, unlike you, I view the press as everybody who has the capability to spread the news and opinion to a relatively large amount of people whether it comes through traditional means like newspapers, radio or television or by the new media such Websites and blogs. The First Amendment gave us all the rights about speech and all that stuff , but the vast majority of Americans and especially by the media and the courts ignored the unwritten part of the First Amendment that comes with those right, the responsibilities and the consequences if anyone abused the First Amendment
I will have more respect for the media if they stand in front defending the First Amendment and accepting the unwritten responsibilities and consequences attached to it rather than cowering behind it with the help of their lawyers and sympathetic courts.
I totally agree but we can't pick and choose who should be protected and who shouldn't be. Its blanket protection, remember it rains on the just and on the unjust.
Good. So we're in agreement that the only thing the court knows so far is that they only have enough to suspect wrongdoing, but are not able to definitively prove wrongdoing until the case is presented.
Again, the case isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
Baloney. Read the Affidavit. The COURT obviously isn't certain because they haven't seen all the evidence, but the police are quite certain.
There is little, if any, gray area in this case. The relevant facts are almost undisputed:
- Apple lost a prototype phone
- Hogan 'found' it.
- Hogan made little or no effort to return it to Apple, even though he knew the name and facebook page of the phone's owner.
- Hogan tried to find other companies to buy it, but settled on Gizmodo
- Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for the phone
- Gizmodo disassembled and damaged the phone and posted pictures on their web site without permission from Apple
There's more, but that's enough. Where are all the gray areas in those facts?
Gizmodo's future:
http://scoopertino.com/gizmodo-edito...rom-jail-cell/
Baloney. Read the Affidavit. The COURT obviously isn't certain because they haven't seen all the evidence, but the police are quite certain.
There is little, if any, gray area in this case. The relevant facts are almost undisputed:
- Apple lost a prototype phone
- Hogan 'found' it.
- Hogan made little or no effort to return it to Apple, even though he knew the name and facebook page of the phone's owner.
- Hogan tried to find other companies to buy it, but settled on Gizmodo
- Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for the phone
- Gizmodo disassembled and damaged the phone and posted pictures on their web site without permission from Apple
There's more, but that's enough. Where are all the gray areas in those facts?
Gizmodo's future:
http://scoopertino.com/gizmodo-edito...rom-jail-cell/
The cops arrest on suspicion. Guilt is determined at court. In this case the prosecution is not sure how to proceed. Why did they confiscate the computers but not look through them? Because the DA put a stop to it when the legality of the search warrant came into play.
Btw that link was hilarious. Here's one for u.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05...ms-impropriety
The cops arrest on suspicion. Guilt is determined at court. In this case the prosecution is not sure how to proceed. Why did they confiscate the computers but not look through them? Because the DA put a stop to it when the legality of the search warrant came into play.
As I said, the police affidavit is quite convincing. The court hasn't ruled one way or another, so we can only go on published reports. So far, there is NOTHING in the published reports that points to any gray area. What Gizmodo did was illegal.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05...ms-impropriety
ROTFLMAO. EFF is a parody. "As expected, the affidavit confirmed that there was no legal basis for the search." WTF? Did they even READ the affidavit? I could see them quibbling over details, but to say that there was no legal basis for the search makes them a joke.
EFF's position seems to be that journalists can do anything they wish and the police have no right to investigate. That position is so absurd that no rational person could possibly believe it. The fact that you're relying on EFF's absurdities to defend your position ought to make you think twice about your position.
EFF reminds me of PETA. They started out with reasonable goals and objectives, but then the loonies took over and they're picketing Punxatawny, PA over 'abuse' of the groundhog.
As I said, the police affidavit is quite convincing. The court hasn't ruled one way or another, so we can only go on published reports. So far, there is NOTHING in the published reports that points to any gray area. What Gizmodo did was illegal.
ROTFLMAO. EFF is a parody. "As expected, the affidavit confirmed that there was no legal basis for the search." WTF? Did they even READ the affidavit? I could see them quibbling over details, but to say that there was no legal basis for the search makes them a joke.
EFF's position seems to be that journalists can do anything they wish and the police have no right to investigate. That position is so absurd that no rational person could possibly believe it. The fact that you're relying on EFF's absurdities to defend your position ought to make you think twice about your position.
EFF reminds me of PETA. They started out with reasonable goals and objectives, but then the loonies took over and they're picketing Punxatawny, PA over 'abuse' of the groundhog.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
This device was a trade secret, as it was not yet released. However, there are stipulations for these protections not apply to trade secrets that have been brought into public. Apple, through an authorized employee, took the prototype out into the public and lost it. Do trade secret protections still apply? Some are going to say they know for sure they do. Others with say with certainty that they do not..
The ones who claim that Apple loses trade secret information because they took the phone out in public don't know what they're talking about.
For example:
http://www.marketingtoday.com/legal/tradesec.htm
As long as a company makes a reasonable effort to protect their trade secret information, someone who steals it can be punished. Note that when Apple took the phone out in public, it was disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS. No one would have been able to tell it was anything different without dissecting it.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
Actually police have a VERY profound part in the judgement of guilt or innocence. If the police believe you are innocent, you don't get charged and by definition you will remain innocent in the strict legal sense. You only get charged when the police decide you are guilty, then they turn it over to the DA and the courts to prove that you actually ARE guilty.
The system wraps itself in a layer of implausible denial by saying innocent until proven guilty, but in reality a police officer determines who they think is guilty and passes their evidence on. The police officers don't think of an abstract perpetrator and then assume everything they think doesn't connote guilt, only some need to send a particular alleged perpetrator to trial. They are people who make judgement calls on the evidence they have -- and they think the one they identify is guilty of the crime and often will continue to think that even when the court disagrees.
As to the illegality of the search of Chen's residence. I think it will probably end up as a legal search as the reason wasn't to gain a source, it was to preserve evidence. The problem is how to extract relevant evidence from an accused journalists tools of the trade, without technically crossing a boundary protecting future writings and stories the journalist is working on. That's why the DA stopped the examination of the computers.
Crossing that line would probably invalidate everything, even the relevant stuff. So somebody has to figure out a court approved protocol for looking at the relevant content and ensuring some definition of "future journalistic work" is used to set aside non-relevant journalistic data. That's my guess as to why this is taking so long for what would otherwise appear to be a garden variety stolen property case.
You act like the police are infallible and just because they wrote something on a piece of paper means its right. They enforce the law not interpret it, nor do they get to decide guilt or innocence. In this case there are additional laws because Chen is a journalist that would not pertain to you and I but they never took that into consideration. Its not a simple clear cut case of someone buying stolen property. They jump the gun and the search might turn out to be illegal. That's proven when the DA prevented any search of Chen's seized computers. Just like Giz shouldn't be allowed to break the law for a story the police shouldn't be able to break the law to enforce it.
You're wrong. Flat out wrong. The Journalist shield law applies only to protection of information. It does not protect a journalist from theft charges. The court specifically granted a search warrant, so the search was legal. The evidence obtained might be excluded from admission into trial if by some bizarre chance the court rules that Chen's actions are covered by Journalist shield, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
Let's go back to the identical situation, but with cars rather than a phone.
I set up a blog about driving hot cars. I offer a big reward for anyone who brings me a car to drive (and then later say I was just joking, wink wink).
Now, someone steals a Ferrari and brings it to me. I give them $5 K for the Ferrari and say that I didn't know it was stolen. My neighbor says he'll call the local mechanic to see if the car is stolen. Then I drive the car around for a few weeks, publish pictures on the Internet, disassemble the car, break a few things, and put it in my garage. Now, I publish my blog. When the police show up to seize evidence, I tell them to go away because I'm an authorized journalist. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to take the car back or charge me with a crime.
Or let's say I decide to start a blog on murder of political officials. Same thing - I give people $5 K for pictures of the murder of political officials and then I store the weapons in my garage - and refuse to give them up. Is that reasonable? By your logic, it should be.
Journalist shield law specifically excludes evidence involved with a crime - like the crime Gizmodo committed.
The ones who claim that Apple loses trade secret information because they took the phone out in public don't know what they're talking about.
For example:
http://www.marketingtoday.com/legal/tradesec.htm
As long as a company makes a reasonable effort to protect their trade secret information, someone who steals it can be punished. Note that when Apple took the phone out in public, it was disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS. No one would have been able to tell it was anything different without dissecting it.
Well, let's at least include the rest of that paragraph you 'quoted'.
This device was a trade secret, as it was not yet released. However, there are stipulations for these protections not apply to trade secrets that have been brought into public. Apple, through an authorized employee, took the prototype out into the public and lost it. Do trade secret protections still apply? Some are going to say they know for sure they do. Others with say with certainty that they do not. But, this will have to be determined by a court. Regardless of where people stand on the issue, they cannot definitively state which way a court would rule. There are, however, cases where the courts have stated that the protection is lost in some where the company did not take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure it's secrecy. That alone is enough to remove the protections. Taking to it a bar, getting drunk and losing might not be considered reasonable efforts to ensure it's secrecy.
If it is found to have still had TS protection in place, then Giz is screwed.
(Good thing I didn't claim to know for sure).
Now, before it was stolen, when it was simply lost in a public place, would that qualify as being diligent? From your link:
"If the owner has not diligently tried to keep the information secret, courts will usually refuse to extend any help to the trade secret owner if others learn of the information."