21–30 of 80 posts
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?
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.
I'm not a fan of Apple, but selling proprietary information that was for all intents and purposes stolen is not comparable to an average Joe losing their cell phone.
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…
I don't find the second one particularly objectionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is correct with the caveat that the article assumes that Chen would be considered a journalist. The article says that "Federal and California law both protect reporters against police searches aimed at uncovering confidential sources or seizing other information developed during newsgathering activities." The commentary discusses the author's opinion that Chen's equipment should not have been taken under…
Do you have any sort of specific criteria for what is considered a journalist? It seems like the discussion here tends to equate journalists with reporters and then speculate to what extent Chen should be considered a reporter. The problem is that reporters are actually a proper subset of journalists.
However I can't find a link to back it up so..
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.
This analysis hinges on some large assumptions. First, Chen must be considered a professional journalist, and securing journalist protections for bloggers seems to be actively pursued by the EFF (a conflict of interest to keep in mind). Second, he must not have directly committed a crime himself, and receiving stolen goods is a crime. The claim that this was "lost" property may be the argument of the defense, but any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I read the article twice and don't see the evidence to support that argument. Can you be more specific?
They seized what probably amounts to all of the personal and professional records stored in his home, which seems excessive given the nature of this investigation.
Also:
>First, California Penal Code Section 1524(g) provides that "[n]o warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code." Section 1070 is California's reporter's shield provision (which has since been elevated to Article I, § 2(b) of the California Constitution). The items covered by the reporter's shield protections include unpublished information, such as "all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort," if that information was "obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public."
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.
You don't gain credibility for your argument by equating the loss of a top secret research prototype for a multi-billion dollar product with your $400 personal phone.
In any case, while it is possible that the loss of such a prototype could have devastating implications for a company, it seems pretty clear that this publication was not a serious problem for Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't gain credibility for your argument by equating the loss of a top secret research prototype for a multi-billion dollar product with your $400 personal phone.
Trade secret and top secret are two very different things. In any case, while it is possible that the loss of such a prototype could have devastating implications for a company, it seems pretty clear that this publication was not a serious problem for Apple.