Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#21

Post by markbao »

ErrantX wrote: post #15
markbao wrote: post #13

I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit. Hope he has an offsite backup.

Just to stick up for the Forensics guys - it's not usually our fault unless there is actually evidence on there. Turn around times (at least in the UK) for actually processing evidence is less than a month. It's the police/prosecutors that cause all the hold ups.

Sorry—definitely didn't mean to frame you guys. Definitely aware of that, which is why I mentioned law enforcement in general.

The whole thing kind of makes sense (holding equipment to make sure no potential evidence is released without a final decision)—but it's still frustrating and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution that makes it easier for both parties.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#22

Post by lionhearted »

danudey wrote: post #5

While 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…

I've got extraordinary mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, people shouldn't feel like it's okay to buy stolen property for their own gain at the expense of the people it was stolen from. But then there's reasonable search and seizure...

Hmm, I don't know, I think I'm going to lean slightly towards stolen-property-bad side of the equation. If the editor wasn't a journalist, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all - if the head of engineering at another company bought a stolen trade-secreted device we'd be calling for his head. Buying obviously stolen property to profit from it is a bad thing and ought to be criminal - should there be exemptions made for doing it for journalism?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#23

Post by kfury »

ubernostrum wrote: post #18
danudey wrote: post #5

While 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…

As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism Except that's not a carte blanche shield. If a computer used for journalism was also used to store, say, records of a drug-running ring, would that computer be inviolable? Or seizable, with a warrant, as evidence in the commission of a crime?

This is the crux of the issue. The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak. It was used to procure evidence for the buying and selling of stolen goods. Trade secrets are a civil matter. The fact that the police sought a warrant implies that they're pursuing the criminal case regardless of Gizmodo's publication.

IOW: Running a blog or being a journalist doesn't protect your computers from being impounded when you break the law and happen to also blog about doing so.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#24

Post by zackattack »

markbao wrote: post #13

I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit. Hope he has an offsite backup.

Friendly reminder: Everyone should always have an offsite backup! (one which they've practiced restoring!)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#25

Post by tokenadult »

"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists."

I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most other bloggers). I wouldn't expect the typical blogger to be regarded as a journalist, legally, because the typical blogger doesn't maintain the standards of professional journalism.

(Note: I was a minor-league journalist, a reporter for a trade magazine, years ago. Big-league journalism is MUCH harder than blogging, by at least two orders of magnitude, and much more constitutionally important.)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#26

Post by ErrantX »

markbao wrote: post #21
ErrantX wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to stick up for the Forensics guys - it's not usually our fault unless there is actually evidence on there. Turn around times (at least in the UK) for actually processing evidence is less than a month. It's the police/prosecutors that cause all the hold ups.

Sorry—definitely didn't mean to frame you guys. Definitely aware of that, which is why I mentioned law enforcement in general. The whole thing kind of makes sense (holding equipment to make sure no potential evidence is released without a final decision)—but it's still frustrating and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution that makes it easier for both parties.

Heh, no worries :) in many cases illegitimate delays are simply due to incompetence, so it's good to complain then.

Turn around is pretty good; we serve a mid to large police force in the UK (around 5000 computer investigations a year). Average return time for evidence where no charges were brought last year was about 2 1/2 months. Complaints over delays were in the 10's.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#27

Post by eli »

jamesbressi wrote: post #11

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere bet…

well, it's not that this is overkill... it's that the usual response is too weak. I wish this happened every time something of value is misappropriated.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#28

Post by goatforce5 »

hoop wrote: post #7

This 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…

That law seems to be written to say "journalists are allowed to protect their sources". Which is not the same as saying "journalists are allowed to commit crimes in order the get a story".

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#30

Post by noonespecial »

markbao wrote: post #13

I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit. Hope he has an offsite backup.

I am impressed that he said that they did very little damage during the search. The last time I saw a search and seizure, it made a tornado look like a minor incident.
Post reply on HN