Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
techcrunch.com
Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
1–10 of 306 posts
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#2...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks).
Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#3...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks). Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.
yes sir!
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#4Seems kind of... excessive.
Granted, I guess if you want to see someone's email correspondence, this is the only way to do it.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#5While I've argued in several places that Gizmodo should face the penalty for what they've done (buying stolen property, then taunting Apple with it), this doesn't seem like the right way to go. As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism, and I would argue that, regardless of the quality of Gawker's work, Jason Chen counts as a journalist. I can only hope the court agrees.
I want to see Gizmodo get penalized for this, but if the choice is between that and ignoring the rights of journalists, it's not worth it.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#6So much for the 'clever marketing ploy' theory.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#7This will be very interesting to watch unfold. According to Gizmodo's letter to the Detective, they seem to feel that there is a legal precedence set for treating bloggers as journalists under the law in CA state. Both companies are based out of CA. But then again, so is the EFF; I wonder if we will see them step in.
Gizmodo definitely saw this coming. If the pre-written legal defense doesn't give it away, they very publicly bought stolen property and (very likely) profited by doing so.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#8...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks). Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.
We may see Apple challenge the precedence in CA that bloggers should be treated as journalists under the law.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#9...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks). Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.
> Surely Apple's counsel knows US law
Was this a typo? The search was conducted by police, not Apple. This is a criminal matter, not a civil one.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#10[deleted]