Gizmodo May Sue Police for Raiding Editor's Home

21

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Glycerin

I don't think the police should be able to take his stuff.. but when it really comes down to it, who cares about some piece of crap Apple product? :D

avatar

dmonkyking

I think their only crime was their stupidity in paying $5000 for an Apple product.  No bias there from Gizmodo.

avatar

naxself

And Steve Jobs's dream of an Apple-dominated police state comes closer to fruition!

avatar

ajax344

Sue the bastards, if apple claimed ownership and they didn't give it up THEN its stolen property. If i lose somthing, and  dont claim to have lost anything and someone finds it, and I dont claim its mine, its not their fault.

avatar

punditguy

I think the more interesting question is whether or not this incident will inhibit Gizmodo's reflexive fellating of Apple at every opportunity. Since I only visit the site with the "not:Apple" tag, I may never find out.

___________________________________________

Preferred boot, but will give this Maximum PC thing a try.

avatar

optionboy16

So, initially I was on the "You KNOWINGLY bought stolen property boat" but after reading this arcticle from Wired, I changed my mind....

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-raid/

avatar

bart3385

Gizmodo should sue the police. The police should be made to pay the highest possible penalty/damages possible allowed by law. And publish a public apology on all broadsheets.

 

Also, Jobs should be investigated. He's going nuts doing all this. He may need professional help.

avatar

yammerpickle2

I work with prototypes.  To be brief there are several security protocols for staff and equipment that would make it basically impossible to remove a prototype from secured areas.  This can be waived, but not without several high level people signing off in person to authorize the release.  Apple as an organization had to know the prototype was in the wild.  If you work with prototypes you know anytime they are let loose into the wild there are risks.  Where I work we have protocols for managing these risks during the rare times prototypes do leave secured areas, and they do not involve hanging out in a crowed bar to grab a drink.  I suspect Apple is upset that their publicity stunt was too transparent and may hurt current iPhone sales and needs to save face and blame somebody outside of the organization to make it look unintentional.  . 

avatar

Reede

but I have a doubt they will win. The fact of the matter is they broke the law. It is illegal to buy stolen property. If you ask my opinion on what this will do to online journalism I would probably say, not much. This is a case where Gizmodo is severely in the wrong. I mean, I don't like Apple, but that doesn't give someone the right to steal their hardware. As for Gizmodo, I have to doubt they didn't willingly buy it knowing it shouldn't have been going to them. I mean this is a company where employee's have committed suicide for similar problems. Sorry Gizmodo, but you guys really should have seen this coming. 

avatar

Peanut Fox

Gizmodo is in the wrong for buying found property that may or may not have belonged to someone at Apple.  However, because the journalist was an employee of Gizmodo, he has rights that were violated when a search was conducted on his personal house hold.  

I think both parties will agree to settle out of court.  With Apple black listing Gizmodo from review products.

avatar

quickone

I'm not into law but it seems that it wouldn't apply here because the
reason for the search was to determine if they broke the law, not to
get information that the journalist acquired about a crime which is what
I
believe the shield law is about.  

Seems like Gizmogo is going
to have to prove the person who found the phone didn't steal it and he
and them made a legit effort to return it.  

 

~~The difference between insanity and genius is merely succes~~

avatar

quickone

Well, my comment make it through the spam filter but got all sorts of jacked u. Small victories I guess 

 

~~The difference between insanity and genius is merely succes~~

avatar

Thursday

Freedom of the press is important, in not only the US and Canada, but in any truly transparent democracy. Even if Gizmodo did cross the line for buying "stolen" property, the case still needs to be vigorously defended. When corporations and governments can selectively use the law to silence or penalize the press it is just another form of censorship.

And let’s be honest here…how are they going to prove anything? You cannot make a journalist give up their sources for something as petty as stolen property. To top it off, the only way shield law doesn’t apply is if the person being prosecuted was involved in the crime. All this particular editor did was craft the story. Some dude from his parent company paid for the phone. And as soon as Apply requested it back they returned it. This wasn’t corporate espionage. This isn’t Mission Impossible style, rappelling down a rope into a secure building to steal the prototype. Grey Powell (the Apple software engineer) goes to a bar to show off the new phone (probably trying to impress the ladies…or dudes, whatever) and he lost it. The guy who found it didn’t reach into his pocket to steal it. He even said he inadvertently left it at the bar. The fact that the police and the DA are involved in this is amazing. The fact that a journalist’s office was raided and his personal records confiscated is outrageous. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope they are reprimanded to avoid this becoming a bad precedent.

avatar

quickone

I'd imagine Apple is pushing for the investigation

 

~~The difference between insanity and genius is merely succes~~

avatar

Havok

 Yeah, they 'stole' a prototype 'iPhone' for 5000 bucks. On a more humorous note, Rooster Teeth has made a couple of awesome gags about this. Worth looking into. And as for online journalism, Walt Mosspuppet put it nicely, "Hey, I sent you a link, oh good! I'll send you a link also. Hey!, look-it that! We're online journalists!"

 

 

YES! This post made it through the Spam Filter!

avatar

JohnP

 The phone was bought knowing that it belonged to a particular person. No contact with the owner or his permission was made before the purchase. That is called buying stolen goods.

avatar

lhted

According the published story, the guy who sold it to Gizmodo told them that he had made multiple attempts to hand the phone over to Apple but no one at Apple would talk to him or return his calls.  And no one was asking for the phone back at the bar.  So, according to that story, since no one was claiming ownership and he found it on a barstool, he didn't consider it stolen goods.  He then sold it to Gizmodo (with that backstory).  So, Gizmodo did not knowingly purchase stolen goods.  And the were more than happy to hand the phone over to Apple when they finally asked for it back.

avatar

JohnP

 The phone was bricked by Apple (cannot turn it on) a couple of days after the phone was lost. Yet Gizmodo KNEW who the OWNER was, and it wasn't "Apple". I never heard of the guy who turned it on and found the person's name calling the OWNER to see if HE wanted it back. It's like calling Ford if the police found your car with your registration in it.

avatar

mesiah

Your rationalization would make complete sense if the engineer was the one demanding their phone back. In your little example, ford would be the one calling the police to report your car was stolen from THEM. The engineer who lost the phone was by no means the owner of the phone. It was apples place to claim ownership and they clearly didn't. They probably figured the phone was bricked and no longer a threat to them, they weren't anticipating that it would fall into the hands of gizmodo.

avatar

roninnder

I could have sworn that the guy who found the phone in the bar called apple about it and they told him it was a fake?

avatar

jcollins

My understanding is they had no clue what he was talking about.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.