Quote: Original post by rian carnarvon
I took issue with it, pointed out it was ...
As a result, Chen decided to ban me. This also banned my star commenter account on i09 & Kotaku.

What exactly did you say? And what makes you sure some particular staff member made that decision?

After Gizmodo revealed so much information publicly about the Apple employee who lost the phone I don't think I'll be reading any of their articles again. That's not journalism.

Chen may be a jerk and Gizmodo may lack integrity but they should both be given the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis the first amendment. In practical terms, that means the police should have gathered irrefutable evidence supporting allegations that the phone was stolen as well as evidence pointing to the identity of the person who transferred it to Gizmodo before they searched Chen's house. If they searched Chen's house first in order to discover the identity of the person who transferred it to Gizmodo, and they don't get in trouble for it, you can kiss freedom of the press goodbye.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by rian carnarvon
I took issue with it, pointed out it was ...
As a result, Chen decided to ban me. This also banned my star commenter account on i09 & Kotaku.

What exactly did you say? And what makes you sure some particular staff member made that decision?

Almost word for word what I said here. I know who it was because it tells you who you were banned by, as a little parting gift. After looking into the comment rules, it seems that they are of the opinion that as they are a blog, they can ban whomever they wish if they do not want to hear them or simply dislike what that person has said.

As such, Gawker media employees are not journalists. They are opinion bloggers, running a closed forum with tight censorship.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Chen may be a jerk and Gizmodo may lack integrity but they should both be given the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis the first amendment. In practical terms, that means the police should have gathered irrefutable evidence supporting allegations that the phone was stolen as well as evidence pointing to the identity of the person who transferred it to Gizmodo before they searched Chen's house. If they searched Chen's house first in order to discover the identity of the person who transferred it to Gizmodo, and they don't get in trouble for it, you can kiss freedom of the press goodbye.

If Gizmodo had paid for pictures and info that an anonymous person had sold to them, then I could see how this would apply. But instead, Gizmodo themselves say they paid for a phone they knew didn't belong to the guy they bought it from, which means from a legal perspective they knowingly bought stolen goods. If that's what the warrant was for freedom of the press laws shouldn't apply here. It's not as if being a journalist is a free pass to break the law.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
which means from a legal perspective they knowingly bought stolen goods

None of us are lawyers AFAIK, and I'm pretty sure it's debatable. Here in Melb for something to be stolen, it has to be taken with the "intention to permanently deprive".
According to the story, the phone was left in the possession of "bar guy", he could have left it at the bar, but perhaps he believed the owner would have consented to him holding onto it he could locate the owner. That (hypothetical) *belief* alone is enough to step outside the strict definition of theft (under our state laws, anyway) and put "bar guy" in the right. Bar guy then failed to locate the owner, and passed it onto someone who could (and did).

If you buy "lost property" (not "stolen goods") and then locate their owner and give them back, that just seems like a good Samaritan with too much cash (ignoring the fact they apparently disassembled it and otherwise damaged the object, and used the possession of this object for their own gains, of course).

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
None of us are lawyers AFAIK, and I'm pretty sure it's debatable.

True, and I'm certainly no expert on Californian law. [smile] But from what I've gathered reading articles on the story, they say that's the case:

Lost iPhone prototype spurs police probe

Quote: Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

Any prosecution would be complicated because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that confidential information leaked to a news organization could be legally broadcast, although that case did not deal with physical property and the radio station did not pay its source.

I guess the debatable part is whether the First Amendment right to freedom of the press trumps the acquisition of appropriated property for their own use.

Edit: I'm pretty sure under our state laws that "bar guy" crossed the line when he sold the phone on to a third party. It all depends on whether he made a reasonable attempt to locate the owner of the property. I don't think he did if he only contacted Apple Customer Support, but it's up to a court to decide on what is "a reasonable attempt". But then again, I'm no expert on our own property laws either.

what bothers me the most about the situation is that if it were anybody else besides Apple, this would be a non-issue for the media or the police. See Nokia's recent jab at apple over a similar situation.

Its the the seemingly blatant two tier justice system between corporations and citizens that is obvious and so worrisome to me. If some random guy walked into a bar and got completely blitzed and lost a phone and contacted the police that night. The conversation would probably quickly turn from your lost phone to the means of transportation from the drinking establishment and you might find yourself sitting in jail for admitting to DUI. Or if they do file a report for your lost phone, it would go to the bottom of the huge stack of lost items... And into the abyss...

I don't know if anyone has ever had your car stolen, but its almost amusing the reaction of the officer when you inquire about the odds of actually catching the person who stole your vehicle. If you are LUCKY, you might find a stripped out husk in the industrial district and the a call from the police saying "tough", and having to deal with your own insurance while they look for negligence on your part as to why your car got stolen in the first place.

In the case of Apple, they lost a phone, they got it back in reasonably decent condition, and yet they still have enough legal push to get somebody's house raided to try to either find our or confirm the identity of the person who picked up the phone in the first place. Supposedly, Apple representatives, sans police, have also been said to arrive at the "finders" residence and requested to search the premises. Seriously?

Trade Secret protection laws vary from state to state but usually cover a variety of things, up to and including accidental receipt of the information. However, one thing that is usually not covered is blatant negligence. And as far as I'm concerned, giving a phone to an employee who gets blitzed and loses the phone in a bar with apparently super-top-secret company secrets is negligence. But I'm sure the lawyers will figure it out, based on who has the most money.

Quote: Original post by kryat
In the case of Apple, they lost a phone, they got it back in reasonably decent condition, and yet they still have enough legal push to get somebody's house raided to try to either find our or confirm the identity of the person who picked up the phone in the first place. Supposedly, Apple representatives, sans police, have also been said to arrive at the "finders" residence and requested to search the premises. Seriously?

Yeah, I've had my house robbed before, there were eye-witnesses that saw a known criminal from the area carrying bags of stuff from my house. They could have come and printed the door he forced open (his prints are on file) to back up the witnesses, and then get a search warrant, but it wasn't important enough for them. Another time I was mugged/beaten by a group of thugs, again there were witnesses to confirm their identities, but again the police were too lazy and just told me it's a life lesson ("don't go out at night") and to get over it.

Someone else loses a phone and gets their own special police dept out searching homes in a snap...

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by kryat
In the case of Apple, they lost a phone, they got it back in reasonably decent condition, and yet they still have enough legal push to get somebody's house raided to try to either find our or confirm the identity of the person who picked up the phone in the first place. Supposedly, Apple representatives, sans police, have also been said to arrive at the "finders" residence and requested to search the premises. Seriously?

Yeah, I've had my house robbed before, there were eye-witnesses that saw a known criminal from the area carrying bags of stuff from my house. They could have come and printed the door he forced open (his prints are on file) to back up the witnesses, and then get a search warrant, but it wasn't important enough for them. Another time I was mugged/beaten by a group of thugs, again there were witnesses to confirm their identities, but again the police were too lazy and just told me it's a life lesson ("don't go out at night") and to get over it.

Someone else loses a phone and gets their own special police dept out searching homes in a snap...

Yes this is the most disturbing part IMO. I guess being a billionare buys you direct access to the police department not to mention head of the line priviledges. Then again I guess I shouldn't be suprised since everyone knows that in America money buys you power.
Anyways, we all know how this story is going to end from from a legal perspective since Apple has enough money to hire the best lawyers for a very long time.

p.s.
Who ever guessed something like the REACT task force even existed?

[Edited by - daviangel on April 28, 2010 10:59:17 PM]