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

231–240 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#231

Post by pyre »

anigbrowl wrote: post #149
Alex3917 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And learn that 'checkbook journalism' just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods." Why is this?

'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' - see reprint at http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-...

I think he was mostly referring to 'Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods' with his question. That escapes the bounds of the current news item and makes a blanket statement about general practices. 'Paying for interviews' is can't easily be grouped in with 'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' without really broadening the net that you're casting.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#232

Post by hyperbovine »

danudey wrote: post #210
hyperbovine wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bought stolen goods, period. Sorry, at which point did the theft occur?

California law says that if you find lost goods and appropriate them for your own use (e.g. selling it to a news site for five grand), it's theft. The proper response would have been to make an honest effort to get ahold of Apple and/or Gray Powell directly (e.g. call the company switchboard), and, failing that, turn it in to the police. Instead, he sold it for a profit to a company (Gizmodo) who believed that it was…

So then... Jason Chen must be the guy who sold the phone to Gizmodo. Correct?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#233

Post by ErrantX »

amohr wrote: post #221
ptomato wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If this case is about stolen intellectual property, then Apple is most definitely involved. They have to specify the infringement on IP rights committed. If this were just a stolen phone, they wouldn't be confiscating every piece of technology he owns.

> If this were just a stolen phone, they wouldn't be confiscating every piece of technology he owns.

What about photographs, emails and records relating to the person it was bought from?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#234

Post by eli »

hyperbovine wrote: post #232
danudey wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California law says that if you find lost goods and appropriate them for your own use (e.g. selling it to a news site for five grand), it's theft. The proper response would have been to make an honest effort to get ahold of Apple and/or Gray Powell directly (e.g. call the company switchboard), and, failing that, turn it in to the police. Instead, he sold it for a profit to a company (Gizmodo) who believed that it was…

So then... Jason Chen must be the guy who sold the phone to Gizmodo. Correct?

buying stolen goods is a crime

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#235

Post by pyre »

amohr wrote: post #221
ptomato wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If this case is about stolen intellectual property, then Apple is most definitely involved. They have to specify the infringement on IP rights committed. If this were just a stolen phone, they wouldn't be confiscating every piece of technology he owns.

> If this were just a stolen phone, they wouldn't be confiscating every piece of technology he owns.

Nowadays that's standard operating procedure for any criminal investigation. There was an article on HN a while back about the police in SF confiscating the laptops of DJs at illegal raves and tying them up in paperwork to get their gear back just to punish them for helping out the raves (the DJs' laptops are their main source of income in a lot of cases).

Police love computers because people do a lot of their interaction with the world through them now. So by confiscating someone's computer they can get a lot of information.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#236

Post by mbreese »

Judson wrote: post #229
danudey wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California law says that if you find lost goods and appropriate them for your own use (e.g. selling it to a news site for five grand), it's theft. The proper response would have been to make an honest effort to get ahold of Apple and/or Gray Powell directly (e.g. call the company switchboard), and, failing that, turn it in to the police. Instead, he sold it for a profit to a company (Gizmodo) who believed that it was…

It is interesting that everyone always points to this california law, and the key word thrown around is misappropriation, though, according to wikipedia, misappropriation is meant to mean something like: "failure to care for property you were entrusted with" If the phone was returned, in order, to Apple - maybe it was in a contract he signed with Gizmodo, I don't think misappropriation occurred here as the found phon…

> according to wikipedia

I don't mean to sound glib, but I'm fairly certain that wikipedia is not an expert on California legal codes.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#237

Post by pyre »

jamesbressi wrote: post #11

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere bet…

My wife's car was stolen. When it was recovered we found ATM receipts in the car (presumably from the thief). The Toronto Police never called us back about it when we told them that we found the receipts. I mean, we had the bank account numbers of the thief (or at least someone that knew him/her). There was even a parking receipt from the Toronto Zoo and a receipt for school supplies from WalMart (along with an un-opened pencil sharpener).

I mean it was a f'ing car and the police did jack shit about it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#238

Post by mbreese »

jrockway wrote: post #199
ptomato wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your phone, obviously, isn't that important.

When the phone in question is a prototype of a model that is destined to sell millions, it gets noticed. But, it's important to look at this as a criminal investigation. There're is the suspiction that a criminal act occurred. A judge agreed, and issued a search warrant. Just based upon Gizmodo's coverage alone, there is enough to suspect that a crime happened. Because this is Apple property, it gets greater scrutiny, but it's not like Apple signed the warrant.

You can expect a whole other level of hurt for Gizmodo from Apple in a civil suit.

And I thought Google blocking cnet for a year was bad... Just imagine what the Apple blackout will be like for Gizmodo.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#239

Post by stcredzero »

rufo wrote: post #206
nailer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the owner (in the company sense) is better than handing a device in to some dodgy bartender. If I lost an item belonging to my current employer, we would both certainly prefer that. I don't know much about east coast US police but the NY ones certainly don't give a shit about stuff left in public places by drunk people.

I honestly don't buy that. You find an iPhone lying on a street-corner? Then maybe you go through your own methods. You find an iPhone at a bar? The first place that person is going to look is at that bar . The sensible thing is to turn it into the bartender, not take it home, attempt to track down the person, then explain why exactly it is you have their iPhone/wallet/etc. (EDIT: Put another way: according to the or…

Exactly this situation happened to me here in Houston with my 1st generation iPhone. I left it by the DDR machine. The result? I went to the barkeep, and someone had turned it in!

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#240

Post by pyre »

rhl wrote: post #214
showerst wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that covered by the 5th Amendment (not 100% sure, I'm not American)?

The 5th Amendment says that you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, but I don't think that covers everything. If you have a safe in your house and the police have a search warrant for the contents of the safe, I think you are legally required to turn over the combination or key.

I remember hearing about this being used as a justification by a judge in a case relating to encryption. It's just sad that most cases involving encryption / computer crimes are related to child porn charges so people are more worried about punishing the person than they are about protecting the rights of everyone that is brought into the court system.

Post reply on HN