Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property
Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.
I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. You're also free to checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo
Where is there a charge filed and by whom?
Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?
See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:
1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.
I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
You are right, it doesn't, but it does allow them certain protections to report things that are in the public interest, even if something illegal has happened in order to bring that into the public domain.
As an example, if a journalist got hold of some company confidential documents which showed the company in question was involved in embezzlement, even if those documents were stolen, then the journalist should be protected from using that stolen information because what they reported is in the public interest.
That being the case, it comes down to how you define public interest. I don't think it's in the public's interest to see Apples phone ahead of when they wanted to, so that argument falls down here and for the record, I think Gizmodo were wrong to do what they did.
All told there is more complexity to this than just "I love Apple so Gizmodo deserve everything they get", or "I hate Apple so Gizmodo are absolutely right".
Depending on how it is handled, this relatively trivial story could have dangerous ramifications for the journalism world.
I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.
Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.
The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Free media my butt. The media has ALWAYS been controlled by the rich and until you get that into your skull you'll forever be deluded into thinking anyone in this world has any form of freedom.
Gizmodo clearly committed a crime and so they have no rights because they CHOSE to not obey the law. This is what sluts me off about the law because supposedly criminals have human rights but if they don't want to abide by the laws set by humans then how can they claim to have the same rights as those who do abide by the laws? If you choose not to obey the law then you should not legally have any rights plain and simple. Once people realise this then victims of crime can start to get better service than the criminals but something tells me this will never happen because of the political correctness freaks that are ruining society for everyone.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
um, that's true UNTIL you sell ("appropriate") the car. you are supposed to turn it over to the police instead as "found" to be held for the true owner to claim. same as if you find $5000 in cash in a brown paper bag on the sidewalk ...
sorry, but taking cash for someone else's property = committing crime.
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Aren't you going a bit over the top here? I'm a leftie, and a Canadian leftie at that, so I would be a leftist socialist commie by USA standards and this kind of police action doesn't bother me at all.
Also, the police didn't "raid the homes of (Steve's) enemies," they acted on a complaint from a citizen. They also weren't "legally notified their warrant is invalid," they were presented with a printout of an email from Jason Chen's boss. A totally different story than the one you're pushing.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
-Clive
Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft?. Hence stolen.
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.
Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.
Quote:
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.
Quote:
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Good thing you are not a lawyer. First, the relevant time is when the police showed up, not when Chen came home. The warrant doesn't require the police to wait for Chen to show up.
Second, the Chen guy came home around 9:45 PM. The police showed up about two hours earlier. So the warrant was exercised at about 7:45PM. In California, Night Service is anything after 10PM and before 7 AM. So, based on both the time Chen came home and when the police exercised the warrant, the police complied with the terms of the warrant.
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.
Apple getting to the guy who sold the prototype isn't going to happen. Apple's already lost against Jason O'Grady back in the mid 2000's (O'Grady vs Superior Court) when they tried to sue Jason and find out his source. The courts said O'Grady's Powerpage had shield protection. Game over ..done that's the precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmedia1
The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!
Yes that's for the guy that found and sold the prototype. You'll never know who he/she is because they're protected.
Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?
See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:
1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.
I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
I am not an attorney, so let us stop the BS about who knows what law or fact better. Apple did not file an actual police report, that I agree. But Gizmodo did several things that can be considered idiotic and moronic such as, offering and buying the the prototype iPhone for x amount of dollars, dismantling it and posting the pictures of device all over the web and third, is stupid enough or arrogant enough to admit that the finder knew who the owner was prior to erasure of the prototype's files from his facebook account. As I said, I am not an attorney and neither am I from law enforcement, but in my opinion, Gizmodo set themselves up for this and they no one else to blame but themselves.
There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.
The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.
If they're going to reveal names and all, why spill the name of the guy who flubbed up and not the notorious opportunist who fenced it.
That's the name I want to see in print.
journalism doesn't drop names of their sources. but the guy probably had a deal to not expose him to ensure his privacy which could be up in the air now. if he stole it, and gizmodo knew this, then his name should be exposed as well, but if not, then i dont see why they should...protect your sources..
on the hand, if you're gary powell, would you want your name not exposed and very likely lose your job... or do you want your name exposed hoping the media and public will help save your job? its a no win situation. i just think gizmodo dropped his name to save his job, but do you agree his name would have been exposed anyways?
I would like a poll about what would most likely to happen to Gary P. if he did lose the iphoen and was not stolen:
a) Gizmodo does not drop his name, and GP get's fired, goes down quietly..
b) GP's name was going to be exposed eventually by someone else, but gets fired first with no public/media to help him.
c) Gizmodo, saved his job for the mean time, by dropping his name and hoping the public will put the pressure on Apple to not fire him.
d) GP's name does not get exposed and keeps his job.
Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft?. Hence stolen.
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.
Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.
Comments
How about when they turned off presentations I was watching at the 2008 CES ?
Exactly. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Gizmodo have always been amoral assholes who will screw anyone over for page hits.
Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property
Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.
I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. You're also free to checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo
Where is there a charge filed and by whom?
Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?
See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:
1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.
I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".
The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
You are right, it doesn't, but it does allow them certain protections to report things that are in the public interest, even if something illegal has happened in order to bring that into the public domain.
As an example, if a journalist got hold of some company confidential documents which showed the company in question was involved in embezzlement, even if those documents were stolen, then the journalist should be protected from using that stolen information because what they reported is in the public interest.
That being the case, it comes down to how you define public interest. I don't think it's in the public's interest to see Apples phone ahead of when they wanted to, so that argument falls down here and for the record, I think Gizmodo were wrong to do what they did.
All told there is more complexity to this than just "I love Apple so Gizmodo deserve everything they get", or "I hate Apple so Gizmodo are absolutely right".
Depending on how it is handled, this relatively trivial story could have dangerous ramifications for the journalism world.
Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out? ..
.. and then proceed to do the very same thing yourself.
On top of that, most of your "quarterbacking" seems like gibberish to me. I'm not sure what you're even suggesting.
I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.
Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.
You start off with this ... .. and then proceed to do the very same thing yourself.
On top of that, most of your "quarterbacking" seems like gibberish to me. I'm not sure what you're even suggesting.
Wow. Really? Wow......
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Free media my butt. The media has ALWAYS been controlled by the rich and until you get that into your skull you'll forever be deluded into thinking anyone in this world has any form of freedom.
Gizmodo clearly committed a crime and so they have no rights because they CHOSE to not obey the law. This is what sluts me off about the law because supposedly criminals have human rights but if they don't want to abide by the laws set by humans then how can they claim to have the same rights as those who do abide by the laws? If you choose not to obey the law then you should not legally have any rights plain and simple. Once people realise this then victims of crime can start to get better service than the criminals but something tells me this will never happen because of the political correctness freaks that are ruining society for everyone.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
um, that's true UNTIL you sell ("appropriate") the car. you are supposed to turn it over to the police instead as "found" to be held for the true owner to claim. same as if you find $5000 in cash in a brown paper bag on the sidewalk ...
sorry, but taking cash for someone else's property = committing crime.
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Aren't you going a bit over the top here? I'm a leftie, and a Canadian leftie at that, so I would be a leftist socialist commie by USA standards and this kind of police action doesn't bother me at all.
Also, the police didn't "raid the homes of (Steve's) enemies," they acted on a complaint from a citizen. They also weren't "legally notified their warrant is invalid," they were presented with a printout of an email from Jason Chen's boss. A totally different story than the one you're pushing.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
-Clive
Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft?. Hence stolen.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.
Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.
.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
What are you suggesting?
Where is there a charge filed and by whom?
Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?
See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:
1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.
I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
It is not required that Apple file charges to proceed with a criminal investigation.
Second, the Chen guy came home around 9:45 PM. The police showed up about two hours earlier. So the warrant was exercised at about 7:45PM. In California, Night Service is anything after 10PM and before 7 AM. So, based on both the time Chen came home and when the police exercised the warrant, the police complied with the terms of the warrant.
See here.
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.
Apple getting to the guy who sold the prototype isn't going to happen. Apple's already lost against Jason O'Grady back in the mid 2000's (O'Grady vs Superior Court) when they tried to sue Jason and find out his source. The courts said O'Grady's Powerpage had shield protection. Game over ..done that's the precedent.
The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!
Yes that's for the guy that found and sold the prototype. You'll never know who he/she is because they're protected.
Where is there a charge filed and by whom?
Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?
See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:
1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.
I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
I am not an attorney, so let us stop the BS about who knows what law or fact better. Apple did not file an actual police report, that I agree. But Gizmodo did several things that can be considered idiotic and moronic such as, offering and buying the the prototype iPhone for x amount of dollars, dismantling it and posting the pictures of device all over the web and third, is stupid enough or arrogant enough to admit that the finder knew who the owner was prior to erasure of the prototype's files from his facebook account. As I said, I am not an attorney and neither am I from law enforcement, but in my opinion, Gizmodo set themselves up for this and they no one else to blame but themselves.
Wow. Really? Wow......
Sorry if that sounded harsh, I read it a few times and couldn't see what you were saying. Maybe you were a victim of iPhone autocorrect?
There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.
The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.
What are you suggesting?
I will say this slowly:
IT
WAS
NEVER
REPORTED
STOLEN,
as in
NO
POLICE
REPORT
HAS
BEEN
FILED
STATING
PROPERTY
WAS
STOLEN.
No back up from Apple Computer Corporation.
If they're going to reveal names and all, why spill the name of the guy who flubbed up and not the notorious opportunist who fenced it.
That's the name I want to see in print.
journalism doesn't drop names of their sources. but the guy probably had a deal to not expose him to ensure his privacy which could be up in the air now. if he stole it, and gizmodo knew this, then his name should be exposed as well, but if not, then i dont see why they should...protect your sources..
on the hand, if you're gary powell, would you want your name not exposed and very likely lose your job... or do you want your name exposed hoping the media and public will help save your job? its a no win situation. i just think gizmodo dropped his name to save his job, but do you agree his name would have been exposed anyways?
I would like a poll about what would most likely to happen to Gary P. if he did lose the iphoen and was not stolen:
a) Gizmodo does not drop his name, and GP get's fired, goes down quietly..
b) GP's name was going to be exposed eventually by someone else, but gets fired first with no public/media to help him.
c) Gizmodo, saved his job for the mean time, by dropping his name and hoping the public will put the pressure on Apple to not fire him.
d) GP's name does not get exposed and keeps his job.
I will say this slowly:
IT
WAS
NEVER
REPORTED
STOLEN,
as in
NO
POLICE
REPORT
HAS
BEEN
FILED
STATING
PROPERTY
WAS
STOLEN.
No back up from Apple Computer Corporation.
Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft?. Hence stolen.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.
Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.