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

31–40 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#31

Post by eli »

kfury wrote: post #23
ubernostrum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Theft of trade secrets is a criminal matter, actually. Google "Economic Espionage Act of 1996." It may well violate similar CA laws.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#32

Post by ubernostrum »

kfury wrote: post #23
ubernostrum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The amusing bit is that we all see, and probably laugh at, so many stories of people posting evidence of their crimes on Facebook or YouTube and then being surprised when they're caught. Gizmodo basically did exactly the same thing, but on a far larger scale.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#33

Post by anigbrowl »

fjabre wrote: post #19

Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism? What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media? The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would d…

Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis (http://gizmodo.com/5524843/)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#34

Post by tvon »

city41 wrote: post #14
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…

My house got broken into a few years ago, they took everything I owned except furniture and one tv. I later found my anime collection for sale at a local used dvd store (complete with my name written inside the cases of all the DVDs). I talked with the owner, he had photocopied the guy's drivers license who came in with them. Despite this, and my continually pinging the police, nothing ever happened. He got away with…

I think it's more that you need to get a lot of publicity to get justice in this country.

edit: scratch that, publicity only works because it has the potential to bring more powerful groups to your aid.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#35

Post by drewcrawford »

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption.

If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption.

The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something somebody can pin on you if they want to.

Seriously. Go tick the checkbox.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#36

Post by [deleted] »

noonespecial wrote: post #30
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.

[deleted]

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#37

Post by smallblacksun »

lionhearted wrote: post #22
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 discussi…

I see nothing at all unreasonable about this search and seizure.

oops, didn't mean to downvote you. Can someone fix that for me?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#38

Post by philwelch »

drewcrawford wrote: post #35

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…

Alternatively, don't buy stolen property and then publicly announce that you've done so.

Once you've committed a crime though, definitely be smart about asserting your civil rights, using encryption, etc. And even if you haven't committed a crime, assert your civil rights and use encryption. But probably the #1 thing you can do to not get harassed by police is to obey the law.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#39

Post by markbao »

ErrantX wrote: post #26
markbao wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WOW. That is really impressive. Serious kudos for efficiency.

It's weird to think that at any given moment, you're subject to a search and seizure (or any other kind of law enforcement ...enforcing) which will interrupt your life for sometime around one month to (in most cases) a year or so. Really kind of makes you want to hustle and get to work when you're not being served a warrant :P

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#40

Post by joezydeco »

zackattack wrote: post #24
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!)

How do you practice a restore on a backup that you don't quite know for sure is a usable backup?

That's a big fear of mine. I'm not about to wipe my system clean and hope the test works 100%.

Post reply on HN