Meet on the ledge
|
|
|
Apple and coppers broke the law in Iphone raids
IT LOOKS LIKE the Gizmodo Iphone raids broke the US and California Constitutions as well as federal and state press shield laws, highlighting the too cosy relationship between Apple and law enforcement.
Last week an elite California computer crime strike team broke down the doors of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house with a warrant to search for an Iphone 4G prototype that had been lost in a Redwood City bar by an Apple employee and that the online news website had acquired and covered in a news story it published on the web. However, by the time the cops broke in and confiscated Chen's personal computer, two servers, phone and other materials, they must have known that the particular Iphone 4G prototype that they were ostensibly searching for had already been returned to Apple by Gawker Media, the news organisation that publishes Gizmodo and employs Chen as an online journalist covering IT.
The complainant, namely Apple, had its lost Iphone 4G prototype back in its possession, but apparently it was desperate to know who had handed the phone in to Gizmodo, find out all it could about Gizmodo's confidential news sources, and harrass it as much as possible by using its friends in law enforcement.
It seems that Apple approached the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office with a formal complaint, and used its corporate influence to have an investigation referred immediately to the California Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT). This computer crime fighting squad, which is actually a computer crime SWAT team, is advised by a corporate panel made up of representatives from several major IT companies, including Apple.
The coppers broke in and removed private possessions from the Gizmodo editor's residence when he was not present, including all his computers and presumably his confidential files that included names of journalistic sources and background materials. The information that they had obtained was then used to track down the guy who sold the Iphone 4G prototype to Gizmodo so it could report on the new device.
Apparently the still unnamed bloke who found the Iphone was not visited initially by law enforcement, but by Apple employees who wanted to search his room. He was out at the time and his roommate told them to go forth and multiply.
Coppers turned up later with a search warrant.
Legal and civil liberties groups are amazed that this happened. If Gizmodo was a traditional newspaper the raid on the Gizmodo editor's home would have been plainly illegal under the First Amendment to the US Constitution as well as US federal and California state press shield laws.
The search at the second house was based on information gathered from the first illegal home invasion so that search was also null and void. With no arrests likely to stick or any charges in the matter based on the illegal searches likely to be filed, the question becomes what were the police doing there? Why was the state's computer crime SWAT unit deployed to "search" for an Iphone that had been returned?
It can only be because Apple wanted to know what was on the Gizmodo editor's hard drives in relation to the lost Iphone 4G prototype. As part of the seizure Apple would gain access to information about all of the editor's contacts, including any sources at Apple.
Ordinary plods who would normally have been assigned to any normal Iphone theft case would not know how to deal with any passwords or other materials on the Gizmodo editor's personal computer or servers. But the REACT task force likely would be capable of accessing all of the editor's computer files.
What this looks like is a taxpayer funded elite police agency being used as an intelligence gathering resouce for a private corporation. It appears that Apple filed the theft complaint and "assisted" the coppers in the two raids because it wanted to confirm that the loss of the Iphone 4G prototype was just a cock-up and not the result of some nefarious corporate spying operation. And of course it also had the added bonus of sending a clear message to other news organisations that they could have their houses broken into by police if they publish any leaks about Apple's unannounced products or, for that matter, potentially anything else that Apple doesn't like.
Yesterday the tame Apple press were referring to Gizmodo as a blog. This is because Apple appears to have put the word out that Gizmodo's editor is not a tame traditional journalist and therefore was not protected by the journalism shield laws. This would have meant that all the coppers' actions would be legal.
Professor Lorna Woods, a media expert at City University, London, told us that the underlying question is about whether bloggers are journalists or not, a question that is signifigant in the US because of the strength of its federal and state shield laws that protect the confidentiality of press sources.
She said that even in Europe there is a question because it is recognised that in the course of normal events journalists would not, for example, have to reveal their sources, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Woods told us that the European courts are being tougher on bloggers than they would be on traditional journalists. This question is waiting to be resolved in the EU, as this is a matter for the European Court.
San Mateo County prosecutors claimed that the searches were perfectly legal because it was a criminal investigation into an Iphone 4G prototype that had been lost by an Apple employee.
Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney, said that County prosecutors had considered whether reporter shield laws applied to the searches and seizures aimed at what he called "the gadget blog" and that they had decided to proceed after carefully reviewing the applicable rules. In other words, Chen is not a reporter and Gizmodo is not a newspaper because it is online. We wonder if the New York Times would be happy to recognise that distinction for its online blog writers, or whether the Seattle PI, which is now an online only newspaper, would be well pleased with that.
Matt Zimmerman, a spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the raid on Chen's house was unlawful. He said that the police appear to have gone too far in putting the interests of Apple ahead of citizens' rights, particularly the rights of journalists.
It is good news as far as the likes of Steve Jobs are concerned. If this flies then online journalists and bloggers will no longer be protected by the press shield laws and all IT companies can use taxpayer funded goon squads to confiscate online reporters' computers and files and jail all those who find and publish stories that they do not want reported.
Meanwhile reporters and editors at the New York Times, which prints nothing but pro-Apple stories, will remain protected by the press shield laws - well, except for its bloggers, perhaps - and can safely think that they are the only real journalists.
For what it is worth there is sod all difference between a blogger and a journalist. Anyone who gathers and writes news these days is a journalist. Some are formally trained, some are self taught, some hacks are not very good, and some are excellent reporters, but if they gather and publish information that is of interest to the general public at large then they should all be covered under the First Amendment to the US Constitution as well as the US federal and state press shield laws.
Apple and the state police task force must have known this when they galloped roughshod, hell for leather, over the US and California Constitutions and the laws of the land, all over a stupid phone. µ
Share this:
Share
when Intel's maintain the law. Intel will make sure and guarantee that people will respect to the law if nations the world have applied Intel's implanted chip in their citizens.
I'm both amused and worried by the fact that my last post was called out by someone with the classy name of Bing Hitler. My post was of course meant to be over the top, just to piss off all those Apple fanbois littering this article, but yeah I have lost all respect for anyone who are willing to stand up for this bullying.
To be honest, I don't think this is Steve Jobs being crazy, He's a wierdo, sure, but I think they use that as a cover to do outrageous things, everytime it happens no one gets too outraged because, well it's Steve Jobs you know *wink wink*, even my favorite political news anchor Keith Olbermann was implying well we all know how Steve Jobs are, instead of thinking, well doesn't this just look like an excuse that they will use for being assholes?
Jobsius: "What is the AppleMatrix? CONTROL. The AppleMatrix turns THIS (points at Neorapum) into THIS (holds up a $20 bill).
Neorapum: "No, I don't believe it...I (pukes on Jobsius's new Nikeys).
Jobsius: "Now Mr. Neorapum, look what you've done. My Loyal Agent Lawyer Smith will be facilitating the lawsuit against you over these chunks you have blown on my shoes. My AppleAgents are at this moment kicking in the door of your apartment, searching for any evidence of nasty things you might have been eating lately. Yes, I am part of the AppleMatrix, as you soon will be...
Neorapum: "Screw you, Apple".
I like Apple products and I like how they do business, but this is going waaaaaay too far. First they said it wasn't lost, then Gizmodo decides to review it, then Apple admits it was lost and please give it back which they do... and then the guy's door gets broken down? No. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. This guy is not a crook, he's not mafia or a drug dealer where the guy might be armed and dangerous. He's a tech guy who reviews products.
You know what the worst thing is? I don't see one person who caused the world-wide recession arrested. Millions of people are affected and not one door is broken down. We know who caused this and they're still free.
To me the moral of the story is if you do the right thing you'll get arrested. But if you lie, cheat and steal you can go free as long as you stick to your story of ignorance and good intentions.
Apple has a small window to do the right thing and correct this mistake. If they don't it'll prove they're losing their way again.
It's no wonder that the world thinks of Americans as rich idiots!!! Your Constitutional Rights were violated and people STILL side with the companies. You people are the biggest hypocrites in the world!!!!! Apple customers care more about a product than their own rights?? You narcissistic As*holes should move to China, see how much you really care about a stupid stupid phone!!
The issue here, is it permissable for the police to search and confiscate property because someone already returned a lost item but he didn't return it fast enough?
I have an iPhone. It's okay. Screen not great. Battery life pretty poor. Most irritatingly software glitches mean I am not allowed to answer a call every so often. The 4G looks distinctly uninspiring. I had hoped screen would be full face of unit etc. HTC (Supersonic) / Android gonna take over with Apple left to hype up tech that is already last years spec level. I for one plan to ditch the iPhone for the above.
I feel little loyalty to fascist corps with overpriced under functioning products. Although judging by the rest of the comments I may be in the minority here! LOL.
Apple Fanbois have too much money to waste on form over substance. I find them a particularly deluded lot. Who else would pay £630 for a 4GB very slow DDR2 667MHz ECC memory upgrade? LOL.
http://store.apple.com/uk/memorymodel/ME_8CORE_MACPRO
Gotta love them Apple fan-boys. They're all out in farce today.
YOUR FAVORITE SITE? ISN'T THAT WWW.APPLE.COM?
WHO CARES WHAT YOU OWN, DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOUR VIEWS
FANBOI AT HEART KEEP IT UP
I read somewhere that he tried to return it to them, but they didn't acknowledge it existed (the typical Apple deny existence of any future product mentality)?
"stolen" generally means taken from someone w/ their knowledge. This was a found lost item and you have an ethical, if not legal, duty to try returning it. AFAIK, he did this and Gizmodo returned it when asked as well. Apple "thanked" them by sending their legal department and the cops after them. This is pretty ugly either way...
Contributory negligence by presumably authorized employee.
But anyhoo, I'm tired of all who accept "statutory" as the whole of the law when statute is designed by corrupt politicians for the further enrichment and empowerment of The Rich, NOT to protect YOU. Get acquainted with common law, which supersedes statute.
And by common law, lost property is basically "FINDERS KEEPERS"; it's too burdensome on the finder to locate the loser. -- Did Apple run ads promising a reward? No? Well, that means they didn't value it. -- That Apple got the phone back at all shows good will on part of Gizmodo / Chen, when it's now clear that he should have chucked the phone into the ocean and printed only the images without any leads to the source. -- Probably the first thing "journalists" at major media learn is secrecy.
In sum, I'm not at all supporting Apple's position AFTER they used the police as they did. Totally invalidates an arguable position prior. More and more "laws" are for use only by The Rich and corporations, and it's evident that Apple used political influence here. So to hell with Apple. Anytime an ordinary citizen tangles with a powerful corporation, I'm almost certainly for the citizen. If Apple gets handed an injustice here, well, they're still WAY ahead overall and should take their lumps as "natural" citizens must.
I hope the next raid Apple orchestrates is at YOUR house, Nick.
And then you get silenced......permanently.
'you have yourself a mouth foaming, conforming, penis compensating, child molesting, fascist, metro-sexual, Apple Fanboi, Or as Steve Jobs would call it; Mini-me'
Lol, and you think OTHERS have problems...
PEWTER, turn off your Caps key, you, you CAPS fanboi!
Everyone who criticises something isn't necessarily a 'fanboi'. (Such a childish term). As I've said before I'm a through and through Windows user, have been for many years. I own an i& Win 7 Desktop, a Toshiba Tablet PC, an HTC Smartphone, a Macbook Pro and an iPhone. I love all tech but hate trolling bloggers ruining what used to be a fav site of mine.
All the 'anti-fanboi' rants on here are just the same old reactionary crap, adding even less to thread than those they are supposedly criticising.
'Get a life'. The comment made by those unable to express a reasonable argument.
Do you see?
musta been a facist liver that was put in sj... cloudin up his mind
on September 6, 1976 Viktor Belenko defected to the West, flying his Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 "Foxbat" jet fighter to Hakodate, Japan. He was granted asylum for his actions by the US president Gerald Ford, rather than consider the "foxbat" as 'stolen goods' the US military disassembled the jet in what was termed a "customs inspection" and sent it back to the Soviets in 30 odd crates. A bit different but ostensibly the same principle, perhaps the soviets should have barged down the doors looking for information ;)
Giz screwed up, not in what they did, but in not predicting the end result. Jobs Mob, yes the keystroke kops are onboard wanted to make sure that chen did not posses IP that he could sell and profit on hurting Jobs' future wealth. Was a crime committed, personally I don't think it was a crime scene. Job's has his phone back. The damage is that he can not stand up in front of the enthralled at WWDC and flash his johnson, they've already seen it!
Theyre all pants-up-bumcrack about this unconstitutionality just because they hate Steve Jobs so much.
Now if it were *Microsoft* who had done this, they would have been perfectly OK with it. Obviously.
I think that seems to be the consensus of the comments here.
lol I've always thought that the Apple Fanbois were just waiting, I mean when some of the earlier articles came about the Ipad and Apples behavior, again and again we would see fanbois talk about how they would never read news here again and bla bla bla. And for a while there were relatively few fanbois raving on the latest news, that is until this one, it's pretty easy to spot though, if they call it theft, and Gizmodo a blog, yeah you have yourself a mouth foaming, conforming, penis compensating, child molesting, fascist, metro-sexual, Apple Fanboi, Or as Steve Jobs would call it; Mini-me
Failure to praise Apple is a crime, that's abundantly clear from reading comments on any Apple-related issue.
Has anyone looked into possible connections between Apple and Scientology? The ardent defenders of both seem to use remarkably similar tactics...
What crime exactly was committed here?
Theft?
Don't be ridiculous. Fascists.
Don't know about US law, but in the UK I'm pretty sure the definition of theft is "an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods". Since they returned the phone to Apple (and presumably intended to all along) then it's not stolen at all - it was merely inspected while in the temporary keeping of Gizmondo. Peeking at the internals may have violated some arcane intellectual property law, but that's much less clear-cut than "posessing stolen property".
I love all the Fanbois commenting on this, especially those who attack the inquirer author for pointing out the truth.
Lost does not equal stolen.
Apple, I hope gets the pants sued off of them for using the Keystone Kops to raid the Editor of Gizmodo's home.
Bottom Line...My next phone will be Android based, probably the HTC Desire. Screw Jobs, Apple and their NAZI-like business model.
that all you blubbering idiots without common sense and link to reality live in US where a fly can sue you for waving at it.
Please sue yourselves 100 times over and die in despair for all we care, everybody looks at your country as a bad version of Alice in wonderland.
There are no freedoms in US, only perceived freedom, the whole world knows that for ages, and everybody does business with you just because you can sell anything to americans, not because of quality, security or reputation.
What a bunch of bozos flew here like flies to ...
Come on, make us laugh some more or STFU.
The blogger admitted he got it from a person who found it 'lost' in bar. And he returned it after screwing with it.
* How come the million dollar worth Iphone was lost in a bar?
* Of all people interested why did it find Gizmodo (a blog, not a newspaper)?
* Was the raid necessary after the Iphone was returned?
After all, and as usual Apple still manage to get free press to market it Iphone.
I think it's great that Gizmodo spilled the beans on the new iPhone. My contract is up this summer and I was waiting on some iPhone news to decide if I stay with the iPhone and AT&T or switch to an Android unit. Now after seeing what Apple is bringing to market I can say that the new HTC EVO 4G will be my new phone of choice. Thanks again Chen, you saved me from Apple and AT&T.
Its so cute that the inquirer thinks its such as expert on US and California law and due process.
[pats little inquirer on its head]
run along little inquirer. big people talking.
"Professor Lorna Woods, a media expert at City University, London, told us that the underlying question is about whether bloggers are journalists or not, a question that is signifigant in the US because of the strength of its federal and state shield laws that protect the confidentiality of press sources."
There is no Federal shield law protecting journalists in the US. Some states have attempted to protect reporters from being forced to reveal sources. It's a very iffy portion of the law.
Prof. Woods should stick to her particular area of expertise. She does not understand our Constitution and our First Amendment. Everyone has free speech. There is no protected or privileged class called "professional journalist." That would be tantamount to licensing of the press.
Freedom of the press is not freedom to engage in child pornography, traffic in stolen goods, reprint copyrighted material, use someone's image commercially without permission, engage in slander and libel and many other restrictions that balance free speech with other rights.
Let's just say you were the editor and they broke into your house and seized your computers??? Let's say if it were not a phone but a covered up piece of gov't legislation...? The Digital Millennium Copy Right Act does not supercede the US Constitution even when those living in the digital age seems to think it does...
i normally don't comment but, gosh, this is the worst representation of the facts I've read so far.
I'm not pro-Apple. I like mobile stuff in general. and I do think some bloggers should be afforded the protection of a journalists.
but the matter is that no one knows what charges are being brought and against who. The fact that the Gimzodo blogger's home was raided points (the likelihood) that the authorities believe he committed a crime.
the police already knows the identity of the guy who stole the iPhone. They are looking at what roles Gawker folks have played in trafficking of the stolen iPhone.
And yes, under CA law, the iPhone was considered stolen.
just an awful, awful post. stick with tech news, dude...you're the worst I've seen.
It's obvious that the writer of this article dislikes Apple.
Here's a little tidbit for you: No matter what you see on CSI:Bullcrap, a police officer had to justify to a JUDGE what they were looking for at Chen's house. And Chen, is a dirtbag...not for writing the article...for encouraging someone to steal. Gawker media rests their butt on "the peoples right to know" but frankly, the people don't have a right to be stolen from either.
Lets replace "APPLE" with "your grandma's name" and "PHONE" with "purse".
So, do you think the journalist is covered now for paying for your grandmothers stolen purse then taunting her on the internet about it?
BING HITLER ARRIVES WHEN ANYTHING ANTI APPLE COMES UP
GET A LIFE MAN UNDERSTAND THIS YOU ARE A FANBOI NOT SOMEONE QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING MEANINGFUL
KTHXBI
Erdan:
"They say the employee lost its IPhone by his own, so basicly does that mean that if you find 20$ on the street, start talking about it on the web and someone recognise it, they can send the cop to recover it?
Is it illegal to pickup something that's laying on the street? Better not touch that garbage that's ends up on your lawn."
I'm constantly shocked at how many people use this argument or feel this way about other people's property.
1. I've read UK law and US law and both support similar aspect to "lost/found" items. If the property has been lost by one party, that does not mean that the finder just gets to keep it. In the US, whether you report the item lost or stolen, it belongs to you for a period of 3 years (in California - might be different in other states). In the UK the law states you take found items to the police.
2. Your comparison with a prototype, of which there maybe only a dozen, representing millions of dollars in R&D...is akin to $20 on the street? Really? That's what you got? Apparently Gizmodo felt the value of said device was enough to pay $5k for it...and the device even at market price...stolen becomes a felony.
3. When Gizmodo bought the phone they turned a lost device into a stolen device...and we now know the finder approached several media outlets who all turned down the offer because they knew it would violate the law. Gizmodo even states on their site they BOUGHT the phone...and it is clear they knew it was Apple's.
4. Giz didn't just report on the phone...they cracked it open...and displayed the components to the world, violating trade secrecy laws in the US. It is likely that components in the phone, more photos, more details could have been stored on Chen's computers...I think Apple would like and deserves to have them back.
5. If Gawker cut the check then they also violated Federal laws by crossing state lines.
6. So if you lose your phone in a bar then by your standards not only is it okay for the finder to go through your personal information, but to keep said phone and sell it to someone else. And if your personal info ends up on the web...including your emails or contacts and phone numbers...that's cool with you because you lost the phone?
At what point is it not okay for what happened to happen? They (including this writer) make it sound like a SWAT team of elite commandoes came in from the sky from helicopters and knocked his whole door down. I'm sure it was a small group of detectives that did break his lock...but that's far from jackbooted thugs. According to accounts I've read...including those from Chen...they were polite and professional...they could have taken more than they did...and they even offered him the information on getting his door repair reimbursed by the department.
If you are party to a crime you are not protected by shield laws and, you moron, they were not looking for the phone. They were looking for evidence in a felony.
The rest of your assertions are also completely baseless.
@gronger
Yes this amendment is perfectly applicable and by the clear language of the amendment this search was completely constitutional because there was a warrant and there was probable cause--by Gizmodo's own published words on the matter, no less.
This is not about journalism, it's about criminal activity. Shame for them that they did not seek legal advice _before_ knowingly buying stolen property.
They say the employee lost its IPhone by his own, so basicly does that mean that if you find 20$ on the street, start talking about it on the web and someone recognise it, they can send the cop to recover it?
Is it illegal to pickup something that's laying on the street? Better not touch that garbage that's ends up on your lawn.
Or was there a note attached to it that said if you pick up this item you agree to get raid?
The shield laws do not permit a journalist to engage in a crime. Purchasing stolen property is a crime. Hence investigation of what Gizmodo admitted, in essence, was a criminal act, does not set off alarm bells. Once you have this foot in the door, using the evidence to identify his "accomplice" is also fair game.
I presume as well the search and seizure was intended to ascertain if the editor had retained any property (i.e., intellectual property, such as copyrighted software, patented inventions, or trade secrets), as this would be retaining stolen property. Much has been said about the return of the iPhone to Apple, but it has not been made clear if any copies of intellectual property had been retained.
I should note I am not a big fan of Apple - I do not like Steve Jobs or his control obsession. This may very well be another example of that (I don't know enough facts to judge), but that does not make the actions unconstitutional or unlawful.
'For what it is worth there is sod all difference between a blogger and a journalist'.
What utter crap. Do not ever, ever consider yourself as a Journalist Nick. A journalist will research, cross reference and fact check a story before going into print. When the feck do you EVER do that?
This has to be one of the worst accounts/pieces I've read about this case, and I've read a lot of them. As you are no doubt an expert legal mind when it comes to the US Constitution, then you might also know that the laws extended to journalists do not apply when a crime has been committed...a crime that Gizmodo actually confessed to on their blogs…er sorry…journalistic publications...including phrases that confirm they knew who owned the phone...their gloating over possessing it and taking it apart, and then disseminating the trade secrets within the phone to the world...which is another crime.
Giz was also dumb enough to actually tell the world who had the actual phone AND his address...that person being Chen. They actually led the police right to his door.
You said:
"Yesterday the tame Apple press were referring to Gizmodo as a blog. This is because Apple appears to have put the word out that Gizmodo's editor is not a tame traditional journalist and therefore was not protected by the journalism shield laws. This would mean that all the coppers' actions would be legal."
Actually Giz and Gawker have referred to themselves as blogs and Nick Denton has made no secret of his distaste for journalism...until now of course when it might protect his ass.
You said:
"Professor Lorna Woods, a media expert at City University, London, told us that the underlying question is about whether bloggers are journalists or not, a question that is signifigant in the US because of the strength of its federal and state shield laws that protect the confidentiality of press sources."
Hold on a sec...are you actually referring to a media expert in London on US issues of law and journalism. Couldn't find someone who might actually know something about the law here in the US? You know with email you can actually write to one.
As a writer and blogger who's been doing it for almost 10 years, I appreciate your fervent support for our freedom of speech over here and freedom of the US press, but you picked the wrong case to hitch your little red wagon of freedom to. A crime was committed...you don't get to participate in illegalities and then use your journalist "get out of jail free" card.
A couple things I'll just point out include this quote I saw on your banner that you display with pride:
"Never let it be said that facts will get in the way of a fun story - Mike Magee"
ahem
and from your own corporate page:
"We aim to deliver the highest standards of integrity, fair-dealing and quality in the services we provide. Quality, Integrity, Teamwork, Innovation and Trust"
Fair dealing huh...perhaps fair dealing in the future might include both sides or multiple sides to a complex story...including how Gawker took the identity of the person who lost the phone and plastered it all over the world...when they could have protected his identity. Or how they paid for a prototype they knew was Apple’s property. Or how before this happened they had posted a bounty on any top secret info anyone could deliver on Apple…telling the world they’d happily break the law with a check if you have something juicy.
"Buying that iPhone 4.0 prototype was "the most incredibly cheap marketing that you can ever do,"* Gizmodo owner *Nick Denton* said on a panel yesterday."
Classy. Yep...protect the Gawker free press...they are just in it for the public good…checkbook at hand.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And why doesn't this fit?