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

41–50 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#41

Post by maxharris »

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…

> should there be exemptions made for doing it for journalism?

No. That would mean that journalists could steal anything, write a story about it, and not face justice.

Suppose that you became famous for fifteen minutes (this happens to people from time to time: see Susan Boyle, etc.) The exemption you propose would allow the press to enter your home, steal things, and plaster images of you and those things everywhere, without any regard for your rights.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#42

Post by prodigal_erik »

grellas wrote: post #20

An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R... ). Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony in…

I feel for his wife. But I have to wonder whether Jason Chen is the guy who chose to wreck Powell's life to cram one more factoid into a big story, and what just consequences from that would look like.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#43

Post by ErrantX »

markbao wrote: post #39
ErrantX wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Again I can only speak for the UK but.. the chances of you having a search warrant issued on you is pretty low if you are not doing anything illegal.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#44

Post by eli »

goatforce5 wrote: post #28
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".

Five bucks says there's a post on Gizmodo referencing the Pentagon Papers in the next 12 hours.

I don't agree with what Gizmodo did, but I definitely support strong shield laws for online journalists. I really hope they don't end becoming poster children for a free online press.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#45

Post by rbanffy »

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…

I think the biggest problem here is that the source of the leak (the guy who found the phone) is also suspect of selling stolen property (the said phone).

BTW, was it really stolen? It's obviously wrong to sell something you found before doing a reasonable effort to return it to its owner, but where is the line between finding and stealing?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#46

Post by BRadmin »

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…

What happened to the DVDs?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#47

Post by nailer »

grellas wrote: post #20

An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R... ). Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony in…

It ruled that the lady in question "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity".

Ie, this lady wasn't considered a journalist.

Chen is an employee of a media organization. That the organization has a blog doesn't make it different to, say, AA Gill writing for The Times, which also has a blog. The main difference is The Times is a more recognized media outlet than Gawker media.

Interesting question: what if it were Engadget? AOL is a recognized media name (sad this was used by the judge in his definition). Or Reddit (owned by Conde Nast) started paying people to write about gadgets?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#48

Post by eli »

grellas wrote: post #20

An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R... ). Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony in…

Does the NJ decision have any bearing on the CA shield law? My understanding is that they don't have much in common.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#50

Post by rbanffy »

ErrantX wrote: post #43
markbao wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Again I can only speak for the UK but.. the chances of you having a search warrant issued on you is pretty low if you are not doing anything illegal.

> chances of you having a search warrant issued on you is pretty low if you are not doing anything illegal.

It's the definition of "illegal" that worries me.

Post reply on HN