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

111–120 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#111

Post by jrockway »

ajg1977 wrote: post #83
drewcrawford wrote: post #35

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…

You may want to read up on U.S. v Boucher, 2009. Unless you're hiding evidence of something particularly heinous, refusing to provide a means of decryption may land you in more trouble than the crime of which you're suspected.

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 issue: "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". If a safe is found in your house, the government can do whatever they want to open it. They can blow it up, or they can ask your friends for the combination, or even just try every combination. But they can't punish you for not giving them the combination.

Cryptography is a very strong safe.

(A quick reading of related cases leads me to believe that this one is more relevant: http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/201/case.html. It holds that "In order to be "testimonial," an accused's oral or written communication, or act, must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information." Since reveling the decryption key is a factual assertion and discloses information, it is protected. Note that in Boucher, it is not clear that the key would disclose information.

But honestly, I think my Google skills are just better than the Appeals court in that case. I doubt that the decision would hold up in the Supreme court. And I especially doubt that one could be compelled to give up his or her key in normal, non-customs, criminal proceedings. IANAL.)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#112

Post by 37prime »

nailer wrote: post #71
bsiemon wrote: post #16

Section 1070 California Evidence Code protects sources of information from discovery by the state. It does not protect evidence related to the commission of a crime. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&#...

What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.

Do you really know if this is a fact or just hearsay? I bet you don't.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#113

Post by anigbrowl »

watty wrote: post #88
neonfunk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he/she know the engineer's name? And have his facebook profile?

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 :)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#114

Post by jaxc »

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…

From Wikipedia:

"In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#115

Post by evgen »

jrockway wrote: post #103
anigbrowl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis ( http://gizmodo.com/5524843/ )

Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)

It does not remove the ability of law enforcement to serve a search warrant and carry your computers out the door, nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords. What it does do in create an incentive for anyone who does serve a search warrant upon you to look very, very closely at the contents of the drive once you do provide the password -- if you thought the inconvenience of full-disk encryption was this important then they are likely to think that they will find some child porn or tax evasion documents buried in there somewhere.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#116

Post by tmsh »

anigbrowl wrote: post #110
tmsh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets abo…

They'd probably be mostly OK if they had just shown the exterior of the thing - it (or something very similar) has appeared in photographs on the internet before, I believe. But the teardown showing the internals? That's got to be of significant interest to competing manufacturers.

I see, good point. Yeah, I didn't see the article where they profiled the phone like it had been released.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#117

Post by showerst »

jrockway wrote: post #103
anigbrowl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis ( http://gizmodo.com/5524843/ )

Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)

I believe in the US you can still be legally compelled to give up the encryption key(s), and simply held in contempt (indefinitely?) until you do.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#118

Post by donw »

slackerIII wrote: post #79
drewcrawford wrote: post #35

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…

What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?

You supply it, of course. But having the drive encrypted buys you time. The cops have to take the machines into evidence, nominally send them out to the lab for processing, and only then do they run into your encryption key.

They then need to go back to the judge, and get a court order to compel you to supply your encryption key. By which time you've gotten a lawyer, and can fight back.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#119

Post by iamjustlooking »

slackerIII wrote: post #79
drewcrawford wrote: post #35

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…

What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?

Does the 5th amendment not apply in this situation?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#120

Post by jonknee »

tvon wrote: post #108
jonknee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.

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.
Post reply on HN