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

191–200 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#191

Post by Lazlo_Nibble »

eli wrote: post #164
ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'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…

I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, d…

We already protect one and not the other. If the seller had only provided Gizmodo with the information they published (photos, teardowns, etc.) instead of the phone itself, Gizmodo probably wouldn't be in any legal trouble and the seller's identity would likely be protected by the shield laws.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#192

Post by po »

johSho7w wrote: post #125
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…

If a company can't keep its own secrets it should be their problem. We give protections to patents and copyrights for a reason.

We also give protections to trade secrets for a reason.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#193

Post by ryanisinallofus »

icey wrote: post #182
ryanisinallofus wrote: post #150

Let's all be honest. If this was anyone other than Apple you would all be up in arms about this.

I think if Gizmodo hadn't decided to publish the engineer's information more people would be up in arms about this.

I agree. If they just would have blocked the guy's name out they would look better in the public's eye.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#194

Post by pingswept »

nailer wrote: post #159
ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'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?

How do trade secrets even enter into this? They're planning on selling these phones all over the world. How could just possession of one be regarded as violating trade secrets?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#195

Post by allwein »

rbanffy wrote: post #45
kfury wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This has been covered elsewhere, but I don't have a current link to it.

Essentially, there is a California law that says if you find something, you're compelled to either return it to its owner, or turn it over to the police if the rightful owner can't be found. So the very fact that he failed to turn it into the police converted it from an act of "finding" to an act of "stealing".

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#196

Post by anigbrowl »

jrockway wrote: post #168
anigbrowl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because you are commenting on something that was already public knowledge. There's nothing to suggest that the innards of the phone were discoverable by the public until Gizmodo threw up ~20 pictures of them.

But the ad views are due to being served with a search warrant, which is public information (or at least something they are allowed to disclose).

And thus, making money out of a legal problem they created for their own employee.

So we can add fraud to the potential charges, which requires a material misrepresentation of fact (his potential personal criminal liability), made with scienter (a reckless disregard for the truth), justifiably relied upon (by an employee listening to the company's self-identified legal representative, Gaby Derbyshire, who is not qualified to practice law in the US), and which has resulted in an injury (the confiscation of all his electronic stuff).

If I ever end up in court I want you there too. On the other side.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#197

Post by frossie »

nailer wrote: post #124
frossie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the specs of the 4th iPhone truly a matter of public interest? Interest != curiosity in this context. If a journalist has a source that says a state governor is selling senate appointments, that is in the public interest because the public has an interest (is a stakeholder) in clean government. If a journalist gets a stolen toddler toy that turns out to be covered in lead paint, the public has an interest in (is…

Courts around the world have ruled that the sex lives of celebrities is in the public interest. I personally don't agree with this, and you may not either, but that doesn't matter.

Courts around the world have ruled that the sex lives of celebrities is in the public interest.

Reference? The ones I have been aware of have been very narrow, and there have been many public cases of the opposite (such as the recent Max Mosley case in the UK).

Generally the law seems to take a line similar to that of Wikipedia - that "public interest" means "general welfare". Note that this does not mean you can't publish details about the sex lives of celebrities, but you can't use public interest as a defense if you have participated in a crime to do so.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#198

Post by hyperbovine »

eli wrote: post #164
ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'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…

I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, d…

They bought stolen goods, period.

Sorry, at which point did the theft occur?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#199

Post by jrockway »

ptomato wrote: post #178
jrockway wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one word that can't be used to describe this case, it's "clear". Nothing is clear yet, except that Apple is mad.

Except that Apple hasn't had anything to do with this case. Criminal, not civil.

If someone found my lost phone in a bar, I doubt any search warrants would be served.

Apple has something to do with this case.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#200

Post by watty »

anigbrowl wrote: post #113
watty wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that was clear. The articles stated that he saw the engineer's name that night when looking at facebook but wasn't able to look it up in the morning due to being disabled. I don't know about this guy but I probably recall 5% of all names of people I meet at a bar, 0% first and last names. I have a hard time faulting him if there is evidence of him calling Apple support and detailing the situations.

Apparently he recalled it well enough for Gizmodo to ID the Apple employee and make him (in)famous. So the finder or the Gizmodo people could have used another computer or smartphone to get in touch with him...it's not as if the prototype was the only internet-capable device in silicon Valley :)

Gizmodo: "Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen. Once we saw it inside and out, however, there was no doubt about it. It was the real thing, so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner. Later, we learnt about this story, but we didn't know for sure it was Powell's phone until today, when we contacted him via his phone."
Post reply on HN