Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#61

Post by wvenable »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
vitobcn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the stolen Mona Lisa and relative value analogy, but Gizmodo offered to return the 'stolen' property to their rightful owner! Didn't they send Apple something like, "We believe we found a prototype phone which might be yours. If so, let us know and we'll be glad to give it back." I certainly hope all thieves were like that...

I don't think they'd be having any trouble if they had done that before dissecting it, publishing what they found, outing the engineer, and publicly demanding Apple submit a request for the return of their own property.

Apparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#62

Post by johSho7w »

Anechoic wrote: post #56
positr0n wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the Gawker CEO has said publicly something to the order of: Our employees are not journalists. Journalists have to do it right, we just have to do it first. However I can't find a link to back it up so..

Here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06...

That's interesting, but I don't think that's what positr0n was describing. The Washington Post reporter describes Gawker's work repeatedly as journalism. Even the photograph caption uses "Gawker Web site reporter" to mean blogger.

It does say that the CEO cares more about breaking the story first than verifying facts and sources--but I don't see where he goes so far as to state or imply that he doesn't consider Gawker to be journalism. And he is quoted as saying: "We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention." I can see how that might mean what positr0n says but I can also see how that could have a nuanced meaning in the context of the WP article.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#63

Post by hga »

tptacek wrote: post #48
mrkurt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that the shield laws are there for the journalist and their sources. I'd almost argue that it's more important to protect the sources than the organization in most cases. It's scary to me that prosecutors and cops now have a whole ton of information that may be related to sources for other stories Jason Chen's worked on independently of this particular iPhone thing. What if some whistleblower at…

"It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws," the U.S. Supreme Court has said. "Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such c…

The First Amendment doesn't, but the Congress in its infinite wisdom could (at least for Federal law breaking). For whatever reason, the California legislature may have done this with their shield law.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#64

Post by kragen »

andreyf wrote: post #19
ck2 wrote: post #11

It bothers the heck out of me that there is a corporate sponsored, multi-state police force out there (REACT) that jumps at their whim. Apple is a high level advisor to REACT, serving on their steering committee. There is no coincidence here. Just try getting that kind of personal law enforcement reaction if your cellphone was lost and then sold on craigslist.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Do you have any sources backing up that REACT is "corporate sponsored"? While I saw that Apple was on "a steering committee", where did you hear that they were a "high level advisor"? While "steering committee" sure sounds impressive, that doesn't tel…

> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding?

Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that:

1. A police force just executed a warrant.

2. The warrant was illegal.

3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)

So I don't see how that's an "enormous accusation". It sounds like a simple reporting of the known facts. Do you dispute one of those bullet points?

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#66

Post by ubernostrum »

kragen wrote: post #64
andreyf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Do you have any sources backing up that REACT is "corporate sponsored"? While I saw that Apple was on "a steering committee", where did you hear that they were a "high level advisor"? While "steering committee" sure sounds impressive, that doesn't tel…

> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that: 1. A police force just executed a warrant. 2. The warrant was illegal. 3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return t…

The warrant was illegal.

Correction: EFF asserts that the warrant should not, in this form, have been issued. EFF's certainly entitled to its opinion, but EFF is not the final arbiter, and is pushing an interpretation of shield laws which has a number of large drawbacks.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#67

Post by Lazlo_Nibble »

kragen wrote: post #64
andreyf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Do you have any sources backing up that REACT is "corporate sponsored"? While I saw that Apple was on "a steering committee", where did you hear that they were a "high level advisor"? While "steering committee" sure sounds impressive, that doesn't tel…

> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that: 1. A police force just executed a warrant. 2. The warrant was illegal. 3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return t…

Yeah -- #3. Where are you getting this from? And what does your parenthetical "(Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)" even mean?

It's true that the warrant was executed as part of the investigation into a crime involving Apple, but that doesn't imply that Apple has the level of control over the investigation that you're claiming they do.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#68

Post by anigbrowl »

wvenable wrote: post #61
anigbrowl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they'd be having any trouble if they had done that before dissecting it, publishing what they found, outing the engineer, and publicly demanding Apple submit a request for the return of their own property.

Apparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo.

Right. Whoever heard of a journalist making their own phone calls? Everyone knows that rule 1 of journalism is that you just sit around and hope interesting stories will find their way to you. Rule 2 is that you never, ever attempt to confirm any information that does come your way.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#69

Post by anigbrowl »

dfox wrote: post #59
ashishbharthi wrote: post #24

I have a question: Why they are not acting against Gizmodo as a company and bothering Chan?

Because you cannot make criminal case against company. (I assume that this is the case even in US. And from practical standpoint it makes sense: how would you send company to jail?)

Certainly you can. you can't send the company to jail, but you can fine them, jail the executives who approved a criminal act, and suchlike.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#70

Post by nitrogen »

cjbos wrote: post #21
barranger wrote: post #5

Was 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?

Mice, Keyboards and monitors yield fingerprints which show the person in questions physically used and accessed the machine.

Considering the police took several hours to go through everything, fingerprints could be obtained on site, could they not?
Post reply on HN