EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#2This whole analysis is predicated on the idea that Gizmodo editors must not be the subjects of a criminal investigation because none of them have been arrested. Doesn't that whole analysis fail against the single word: "yet"?
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#3From the end of the article: "... the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars."
If someone purchased stolen property, why does it matter who it came from? In my eyes, the analyst loses a lot of credibility with this final statement. Feels childish.
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#4This is pretty interesting, really, regardless of whether you think Gizmodo should be tossed in the slammer or not. I've already learned quite a bit about the history of journalist shield type laws that I never would have known otherwise, particularly from the dude the EFF links to at the bottom:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/gizmodo-warrant-s...
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#5Was the warrant excessively broad? I'd say!
What exactly is the point of the police seizing someones mice and display screens in a case like this other than to ensure that Mr Chen now has an even bigger bill to pay if he wants to get back to work any time soon?
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#6This whole analysis is predicated on the idea that Gizmodo editors must not be the subjects of a criminal investigation because none of them have been arrested. Doesn't that whole analysis fail against the single word: "yet"?
It's not predicated on that, though, the broadness of the warrant seems to be a problem regardless of whether Jason Chen is suspected of anything.
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#7Was the warrant excessively broad? I'd say! What exactly is the point of the police seizing someones mice and display screens in a case like this other than to ensure that Mr Chen now has an even bigger bill to pay if he wants to get back to work any time soon?
I had a mouse that had built-in memory. When plugged in, it looked like a mouse, a hub and a pendrive.
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#8Summary: the warrant to gank Chen's equipment should not have been issued to begin with.
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#9From the end of the article: "... the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars." If someone purchased stolen property, why does it matter who it came from? In my eyes, the analyst loses a lot of credibility wi…
This same old tripe again.
Did Gizmodo return the phone to Apple immediately when Apple finally admitted it was theirs? Did Gizmodo demand payment from Apple in return for the phone? Did Gizmodo ever dispute Apple's claim to the phone? It doesn't really seem reasonable to me that anyone at Gizmodo ever thought they were "buying" the device.
Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant
#10From the end of the article: "... the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars." If someone purchased stolen property, why does it matter who it came from? In my eyes, the analyst loses a lot of credibility wi…
Purchasing stolen property should be a much smaller investigation -- police do it all the time. While they shouldn't do nothing, this is a significantly more expensive reaction.