The police should now post the contents of Chen's hard drive online. After all, they did find it.
Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
151–160 of 306 posts
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#152Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police confiscated them as evidence. I'm sure they ultimately just threw them away. Towards the end when I started to accept they were never going to pursue the case, I started to ask if I could at least get the DVDs back. No dice.
I think you should have sought remedy in the civil courts. For $20 (or whatever), you probably could have at least gotten a default judgment against the guy and sold the case to a collection agency.
I never got the information on the guy. The store owner refused to give it to me. Basically once I and the store owner realized what happened, the owner called the cops and worked with them directly. They took the DVDs (and presumably a copy of the driver's license). I asked the store owner several times if I could get the driver's license as well, and he refused. And I can't blame him. Given the situation, I'd have done the same thing.
It does feel like in cases like this the cops rely on people having insurance and thus generally don't bother unless the break ins become an epidemic.
It's possible I could have approached the cops differently and received better success. Be more persistent? Be less persistent? Have a lawyer speak with them? I have no idea. When the cops refuse to do their job for whatever reason, there's no fool proof way of reversing that.
EDIT: And also, I probably should have been there when the cops came to the store. That might have also helped. Live and learn. At the time I thought "photocopy of the driver's license! score! I'm saved!" and was pretty naive about the whole thing.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a little different. The laptop was searched while unencrypted, and child porn was found. Only then did Boucher refuse to provide the key. This was also a customs case; where the courts have routinely held that your Constitutional protection against searches does not apply. (The courts are wrong, of course, but this issue remains unsolved pending new legislation.) Either way, the Constitution is clear on this…
But they can't punish you for not giving them the combination. Yes, they can. If the judge has reasonable grounds to believe that you are withholding evidence or the knowledge necessary for law enforcement to collect this evidence then the judge can hold you in contempt of court and place you in jail until you agree to provide the information. While there have been a couple of aberrations in the general flow of case…
There's a subtle distinction to be made here between providing the key and providing access. Courts have ruled that the Constitution permits the government to compel you to provide access to the relevant information (e.g. to open the safe). But you don't have to give the government the combination. Just open the safe for them, and you can keep the combination to yourself.
Anyway, that doesn't really change the basic fact — if law enforcement has a warrant for information that's locked away, a defendant can be compelled to provide the information.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a little different. The laptop was searched while unencrypted, and child porn was found. Only then did Boucher refuse to provide the key. This was also a customs case; where the courts have routinely held that your Constitutional protection against searches does not apply. (The courts are wrong, of course, but this issue remains unsolved pending new legislation.) Either way, the Constitution is clear on this…
But they can't punish you for not giving them the combination. Yes, they can. If the judge has reasonable grounds to believe that you are withholding evidence or the knowledge necessary for law enforcement to collect this evidence then the judge can hold you in contempt of court and place you in jail until you agree to provide the information. While there have been a couple of aberrations in the general flow of case…
Where's your citation for this? As far as I know, no clear-cut case has been tested yet.
Either way, if you are paranoid, the solution is hidden volumes. If the government can't prove you have an encrypted disk, they can't compel you to reveal its contents.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#156Everyone is debating the whole "Good Faith" thing again. Here's a suggestion: Ask how it is "Good Faith" to "find" something in a bar? This isn't your house, your place of work, or a public space, it's somebody else's property (a phone) inside somebody else's property (a bar). Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Long before we get to the question…
> Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Since you're a good person who wants to call the owner and give it back the next morning before someone less scrupulous steals it? What do you want them to do, leave it there? Give it to the bar staff who you don't know? Give it to the cops who'll simply tell you to contact the owner yourself?
Pick up phone. Wave to bartender. Done. Or pick up phone, drop at police station, done. Or pick up phone, use Safari to place notice on craigslist, done.
Once I exit the property with the phone, I've done wrong. The onus is now on me to follow through and get it back to the owner, not take a half-hearted effort to get through to Apple on the phone before selling it to someone else who is also not the owner.
p.s. I see you've replied to my points in your message. This makes the thread of conversation hard to follow. Yes, give it to bar staff you don't know. It's not your phone, it's not your bar. It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting, especially when you end up selling the phone for your own gain. Likewise, try giving it to the police and see what they say. That would be a lot more convincing than not doing so and selling the phone later.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrecked, no, but the dude was unnecessarily abused and humiliated for, as far as I can tell, shits and giggles and ad exposures.
If he's savvy he can turn this into a launchpad for his career. One of the hardest parts of moving up the chain is getting noticed by the right people. He's been noticed more than anyone could ever reasonably expect. If he's as talented as I've heard he should have no problem using that to his advantage.
I see your perspective, but the guy is an iPhone engineer, I don't think having lost a prototype at a bar in a very public way can possibly add anything to his resume or make him stand out more in a positive way. I could see someone maybe specifically contacting him and offering him a job after this event, though I don't really see why they'd single him out unless they were looking for an iPhone engineer specifically.
In other words it may have some net positive effect on his career, but it seems like he was probably doing okay anyway and it's at least equally as likely to lose him a job than to gain him one.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should have sought remedy in the civil courts. For $20 (or whatever), you probably could have at least gotten a default judgment against the guy and sold the case to a collection agency.
I never got the information on the guy. The store owner refused to give it to me. Basically once I and the store owner realized what happened, the owner called the cops and worked with them directly. They took the DVDs (and presumably a copy of the driver's license). I asked the store owner several times if I could get the driver's license as well, and he refused. And I can't blame him. Given the situation, I'd have…
I probably would have spoken to a lawyer about this. If it was going to cost me thousands of dollars, then I would have forgotten about it. If it was a couple hundred bucks, I would pursue the issue out of principle, even if the DVDs were not worth that much.
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#159I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade…
> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets
What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?
Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house
#160Everyone is debating the whole "Good Faith" thing again. Here's a suggestion: Ask how it is "Good Faith" to "find" something in a bar? This isn't your house, your place of work, or a public space, it's somebody else's property (a phone) inside somebody else's property (a bar). Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Long before we get to the question…
What if he'd dropped it on the street instead? Should you leave it on the street, to get rained on, run over, stolen, etc., or take the phone and attempt to return it to the original owner? Finding the phone disabled, what do you do next? Throw it out? Return it to the street? Turn it in to the police? Presumably you've figured out it's some sort of prototype that is property of a corporation, so you contact them about it. No reply? I could see myself doing the same thing as the original finder, if all pieces of his story are to be believed.