DON'T RAID MY HOME BRO

[Kyogissun]

So, I posted this on my twitter, facebook and now saw it worthwhile to post it here.

Let's make one thing clear people, this is not about journalism or the integrity of Gawker Media...

This is just about the unpleasant and for the most part, assholish practices of some staffers at Gizmodo.

That being said, here's the link to the article in question:

http://tinyurl.com/387s2e2

I guess I just want to know people's thoughts on it, if only because I think as a whole, people need to stand in disapproval of this kind of behavior.

There's journalism and then there's just being a total douche. Between this, the whole 'exposure' of the apple employee in which the iPhone BELONGED to and the camera incident at CES 2008, I think someone needs to point the above out to them. It's like, when did internet blogging become so serious? I mean, even the worst it's ever been was like, breaking a preview or review embargo or something... Or at best, getting company insider info like the stuff going on with Infinity Ward.

And for the hell of it, because I stumbled upon it today, here's a good roosterteeth comic to add for the tone of the thread. I'm not looking for in depth argument, just people's general views on the whole thing.

http://roosterteeth.com/comics/strip.php?id=1633

[Machalllewis]

Those guys are jackholes. Well done for buying stolen property and then getting involved in corporate crime. Now you're getting prosecuted.

Do illegal things then don't be suprised when you get somehow involved in the courts. I love how nicely they painted him in that post. Like he was the fucking victim here. Buy stolen products and then advertise how you have done so then why are you so fucking suprised! Its like advertising that you are an internet pirater and then wondering why your website gets shut down.

[teeb]

Oh, and for comparison, Nokia and the lost prototype.

"However, whilst we are determined to protect our intellectual property and maintain the surprise when a shiny new gadget is introduced, we are not going to do so at the expense of the working conditions we enjoy here at Nokia. We are not the Secret Police, and we want to maintain our culture of openness. We won’t let days like yesterday alter that."

[Agloriouscuppa]

Those guys are jackholes. Well done for buying stolen property and then getting involved in corporate crime. Now you're getting prosecuted.

Do illegal things then don't be suprised when you get somehow involved in the courts. I love how nicely they painted him in that post. Like he was the fucking victim here. Buy stolen products and then advertise how you have done so then why are you so fucking suprised! Its like advertising that you are an internet pirater and then wondering why your website gets shut down.

Well now, what he did was quite dodgy and probably shouldnt've been done but! Their are statutes and precedent in place which protects him as a member of the journalism community, whether those protections should be afforded to him or not is another matter but at the moment, the warrant is from a legal standpoint completely invalid and I think he's right to demand his property be returned. All this is over a mobile telephone which was returned to apple at apple's request thereby putting any stolen materials back into the original owners hands.

He's probably an idiot for doing it but legally the States say its okay in their laws and law enforcement should probably be aware of that.

[Machalllewis]

Didn't the company take apart a product which they knew hadn't been released and they knew had been acquired illegally and thus try to release corporate secrets knowingly? Thats fairly illegal any way you try to cut it.

[Agloriouscuppa]

Didn't the company take apart a product which they knew hadn't been released and they knew had been acquired illegally and thus try to release corporate secrets knowingly? Thats fairly illegal any way you try to cut it.

The warrant didn't pertain to corporate secrets though it only dealt with the receiving of stolen property. And even still he returned the items so surely the need to confiscate just about anything that can run on electricity and connect to the internet, is just a little bit extreme. The law gawker cites protects him from having things seized in relation to who gave him the aforementioned item. He has to be issued a Subpoena, if he refused that then hell yea take his shit and get what you need.

Yea he received stolen goods but he also returned it at apples request. Seems to me the situation is resolved, if he had withheld some of the product then maybe I'd buy into the corporate theft thing. But Apples got their prototype back and gizmodo was merely reporting on technology like they do.

[Machalllewis]

Yeah but they wern't just reporting on tech were they? They were reporting illegally on tech they had acquired illegally.

Yeah its resolved. Legally. Doesn't stop the company from being dickholes. Total jackarses. I'm 100% sure nothing will come about it other than public opinion lowering of this group of wankers.

[epocalypse]

All that said, the new iphone does look sexy.

[Lisra]

Didn't the company take apart a product which they knew hadn't been released and they knew had been acquired illegally and thus try to release corporate secrets knowingly? Thats fairly illegal any way you try to cut it.

I don't know anything about US law but.. I don't see why it is that illegal. Its just another form of journalism. Not very nice, but when has that ever been the case. When someone sells you pics of a secret project, of course you release them?

Apple are pretty big douches in their own right so I dunno who's side to be on.

[Heathen]

You can't seize material relating to journalism from journalists, I'm fairly sure it's covered in California state law but even if it isn't, I know it's enshrined in federal law. Even if it isn't in the California Code, the seizure is still locally invalid due to the incorporation doctrine.

As adorable as I find it when laypeople respond to legal situations with their opinion on the defendant rather than the legality of the situation, you do yourselves no credit by simply declaring this young man to be a douche, and therefore, apparently, deserving of unconstitutional violation.

EDIT: Ah, hardly unbiased, but apparently counsel for Gawker agree with my assessment.

[Graham]

1) Apple is not the one pursuing criminal investigation, that is the District Attorney of California.
2) It is against the US constitution to force a journalist to reveal their source.
3) This, however, is not about journalism, this is about Gizmodo paying $5000 for property they knew was stolen, which is highly illegal under California (and US) law.

This has nothing to do with being a journalist; if journalists break the law, they still get charged.

[Heathen]

Absolutely, Graham, and given the highly limited and incredibly slanted information any of us has I'm fairly sure he'll end up in the dock sooner or later, ostensibly deservedly. However, as you say (albeit in a roundabout fashion), the point here is that the warrant used to gain the evidence that will likely be used against him was completely invalid.

[Arius]

I just read a site where the comments are suggesting this is a conspiracy run by Apple. They're claiming it wasn't stolen property because it was found, not taken.

I feel stupider for having read that.

[Lisra]

I just read a site where the comments are suggesting this is a conspiracy run by Apple. They're claiming it wasn't stolen property because it was found, not taken.

I feel stupider for having read that.

There are judges in my home country who'd agree with that logic.

[Graham]

@Heathen
How is the warrant invalid?

[Arius]

The thing is, though, it was taken.

Even if it's in a public place, it is stealing if you take something that does not belong to you. If you're in a bar and you see a woman has left her purse behind, does that mean it's free for you to take home and keep everything?

[Heathen]

@Heathen
How is the warrant invalid?

CPC s. 1524(g):

Code: Select all

No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in
Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.

CEC s. 1070(a):

Code: Select all

A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected
with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of
any information procured while so connected or employed for
publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication,
or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or
prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for
communication to the public.
   (b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
   (c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.


Just to address any confusion that might arise from the phrasing used there, put simply, you can't issue a warrant for anything used or unused for a journalistic story and as the evidence code then clarifies, you can't be held in contempt for failing to accede to such a warrant.

[Arius]

This leads to a question:
Are bloggers journalists? Where does the line get drawn?

Depending on how the warrant is viewed, it could lead to some implications in the future. We're at an interesting point where the dissemination of information can come from anyone with some time. The source of news is changing.

The thing is, anyone can make a news site if they can remember a password and a username. The lines are becoming blurry. Gizmodo is, in essence, a collection of tech bloggers. But then, by that same merit, Time is a collection of boring bloggers.

Where does journalism start?

If I make a site and begin blogging about current events, at what point am I considered a journalist? When I get a large base? When I start making money?

Then, what if I steal a PS3, but then write up an article talking about how I stole it. Can they issue a warrant to search my house for it to verify that it is there and I indeed stole it? Or can I basically take anything I want and get away with it as long as I make it a part of my news site?

A new law might be written by the end of this, because there is a vague line between journalism and blogging.

[Heathen]

Arius, while I agree that one of the best avenues of attack for this protection is the legitimacy of the journalism involved, obviously it would be against public policy to extend protection to anyone who claimed to have made opening movements in felonious conduct under the cover of a journalistic endeavour, the fact that Gizmodo is 'just' a blog and that Jason Chen is 'just' a blogger is not sufficient.

The SCOC has already ruled that online 'weblogs' are covered by the penal code exemptions, and did so with regard to a much more minor publication than Gizmodo or the Gawker Media brand.

[epocalypse]

1) Apple is not the one pursuing criminal investigation, that is the District Attorney of California.
2) It is against the US constitution to force a journalist to reveal their source.
3) This, however, is not about journalism, this is about Gizmodo paying $5000 for property they knew was stolen, which is highly illegal under California (and US) law.

This has nothing to do with being a journalist; if journalists break the law, they still get charged.

I'm with Graham all the way. If they had obtained it for free, found it, or even from a regular source, that'd be different, but the purchase of it for $5000 does seem to amount to corporate espionage.

I'll add again, though, that the new iphone looks SEXY and I can't wait to see apps designed to use both cameras.

[Dubious_wolf]

Well Blog was specifically used to distinguish the line between journalists and online... bloggers. We don't call them online journals we call them blogs... just my two cents, I don't pay any attention to gizmodo so I don't really care much.

[Machalllewis]

Also the fact that corporate law prohibites the releasing of secrets.

[Heathen]

Also the fact that corporate law prohibites the releasing of secrets.

I assume you're referring to the CUTS Act, in which case yes, disclosure of protected trade secrets is tortious under s. 3426 of the California Civil Code, Title V. Even if it weren't, the EEA would likely apply at a federal level and I wouldn't like to be Gawker Media if it did, as the cap on fines for economic disclosure is $5,000,000.

And that isn't corporate law, it's intellectual property law.

EDIT: It bears clarifying that in the first instance above I was stating that disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime under California state law (outwith its inclusion in the greater crime of theft under CPC 499(c)(a)), but is more generally civilly injucted. The EEA, however, creates a more traditional criminal offence.

Since Chen is being pursued by the State itself and not Apple, it's unlikely that he's being pursued immediately under CUTSA, and instead simply for felony reset (no, not the red button on your remote) or a similarly appropriate offence.

[TomBrend]

Just to address any confusion that might arise from the phrasing used there, put simply, you can't issue a warrant for anything used or unused for a journalistic story and as the evidence code then clarifies, you can't be held in contempt for failing to accede to such a warrant.

You're not interpreting that correctly. That article means they can't take journalist's notes/files relating to a story. If they are in possession of stolen property, that law in no way protects them.

[Heathen]

Just to address any confusion that might arise from the phrasing used there, put simply, you can't issue a warrant for anything used or unused for a journalistic story and as the evidence code then clarifies, you can't be held in contempt for failing to accede to such a warrant.

You're not interpreting that correctly. That article means they can't take journalist's notes/files relating to a story. If they are in possession of stolen property, that law in no way protects them.

If you had read the entirety of my posts, or perhaps just the thread itself, you would have seen that I neither said the provision protected Mr. Chen from prosecution nor acted as a bar to more general pursuance. If you misapprehend my meaning then I apologise, and shall attempt to clarify.

Regardless of the circumstance, even where it might incriminate the individual in question, where material related to a journalistic story, published or unpublished, exists, a warrant may not be issued with regard to it by any body which otherwise possesses the power to do so. Should a Court order either the release of said materials or direct testimony with regard to their content, the journalist in question may refuse either order without fear of being found in contempt of Court.

The provision does not make journalists immune from prosecution.

The warrant in this case wasn't for the stolen property, it was for nearly every item in the house which contained information of any kind and, though the most we can do is speculate as to the scope of their inquiry, it is likely that the information was sought to more clearly tie Mr. Chen to the original misappropriation of the Apple property and his own handling of it thereafter. This provision simply prevents that warrant from being valid.

That is the furthest extent of that provision, there is no greater usage as protection for potential felons and, as Arius has noted, it would most certainly not be in the public interest for the Court to allow it to extend to just any individual seeking to hinder the gathering of evidence against them, hence a great deal of case law with ratio decidendi so narrow as to cover this singular point.

Jason Chen appears to have received stolen goods, and depending on the statute applied he may well be guilty of a greater crime of theft inchoate, the Police are perfectly entitled to investigate him for it and the State is perfectly entitled to prosecute him. Regardless of this, they may not compel him to release unpublished information related to his journalistic endeavour. Assuming they can make a case without that information, and it would be worrying if they couldn't, there is absolutely no bar to him being prosecuted, found guilty and fined or imprisoned.