Police raid Gizmodo editor's house • Hacker News Board

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#251

Post by johSho7w » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 1:50 AM UTC

count wrote: post #54

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…

The trade secrets at stake here are probably worth WAY more than $5000 to Apple. Just because Gizmodo hasn't published any more details about the phone, or left out specific things, doesn't mean they don't know them. That information could be damaging to Apple and it's business relationships (say, if for example, it was shown that it's an LTE phone on VZW, and AT&T didn't know Apple was going to do that).

If these secrets are so valuable maybe Apple should rethink its policy of letting them walk out the door to go to a bar.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#252

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 1:52 AM UTC

kjhgfghjknbv wrote: post #188

ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade…

So what about photos of a new car prototypes? There are a bunch of magazines devoted to those. Or reviews of to-be-released movies? Or photos of celebs in public? Not terribly happy about companies using the Police to break down doors to manage their PR.

reviews to-be-released movies

well might you ask. In this case, an unreleased movie made its way through a longer chain of people, eventually ending up on bittorrent...for which the uploader did ~5 months in jail and >1 year of supervised release: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm

Not an identical situation, of course...but not so very different either. Apparently the sentence was reasonably light on the basis that there was no profit involved. Adding $ into the equation usually changes things for the worse in a case like this.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#253

Post by danieldon » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 1:54 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #177

angstrom wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed. This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blo…

> I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Apparently they did, and were ignored. Nobody has come up with anything that refutes this so far. I look at it as: someone made an innocent mistake losing a phone, someone found a phone and called a company, Apple's bureaucracy fucked up and didn't respond as soon as it should have.

"Apparently they did"

Nope. He had Gray Powell's information but didn't contact him. He took it from the bar and then didn't check back, despite that being the obvious first place it would be looked for. He didn't take it to the police, despite that being both common sense and the law.

Instead, he claims he tried calling a public apple number or two and then sold it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#254

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 1:58 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #231

anigbrowl wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

True. I was referring to the specific context of pay as an inducement to break confidentiality agreements, as opposed to paying to interview a famous actor or something like People magazine.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#255

Post by Judson » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:05 AM UTC

pingswept wrote: post #194

nailer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

How do trade secrets even enter into this? They're planning on selling these phones all over the world. How could just possession of one be regarded as violating trade secrets?

I kind of agree. The trade secrets would be, (maybe) the design (which was leaked by Engadget a day earlier), and the added features (a front facing camera??).

Maybe the California DA didn't know the next iPhone had a front-facing camera, but anyone who would have read the Gizmodo story probably did.

Plus, Gruber told us: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/29/wsj

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#256

Post by po » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:09 AM UTC

johSho7w wrote: post #248

po wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also give protections to trade secrets for a reason.

If Apple is claiming trade secret protection, they need to demonstrate that they attempted to protect the secret. Apple authorized taking the phone into the public. These "secrets" were not taken from the Apple campus or workplace.

I believe that if I have a briefcase full of confidential documents, it would be logical that I can leave my workplace with them without them suddenly not being trade-secrets anymore. I can bring them to the airport. I can put it on a chair next to me while I eat and if I forget them, they are not suddenly considered open.

To me, the point of this law is that the finder's-keepers attitude is encouraging theft. I think "I found it" is a common alibi for theft. If you get rid of that alibi (which doesn't harm people who would return the items) then you discourage actual theft by making it harder to buy and sell.

The only people who are inconvenienced are those who truly did find an item and keep it. There's an exemption for items of small value so as not to burden those people too much. That's just my view of it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#257

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:11 AM UTC

kfury wrote: post #23

ubernostrum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism Except that's not a carte blanche shield. If a computer used for journalism was also used to store, say, records of a drug-running ring, would that computer be inviolable? Or seizable, with a warrant, as evidence in the commission of a crime?

This is the crux of the issue. The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak. It was used to procure evidence for the buying and selling of stolen goods. Trade secrets are a civil matter. The fact that the police sought a warrant implies that they're pursuing the criminal case regardless of Gizmodo's publication. IOW: Running a blog or being a journalist doesn't protect your computers from…

The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak.

Actually...

Appendix B, paragraph 4: 'Printed documents, images, and/or notation pertaining to the sale and/or purchase of the stolen iPhone prototype and/or the sale and/or transfer of trade secret information pertaining to the iPhone prototype.'

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#258

Post by mbreese » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:17 AM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #249

mbreese wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nor are most Hacker News posters. At least Wikipedia cites sources. :)

Very true... but most HN posters at least have some sort of identity that they like to protect. And karma helps too... With wikipedia you can never be sure that someone doesn't have an axe to grind. At least it's usually obvious here. :)

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#259

Post by mbreese » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:30 AM UTC

johSho7w wrote: post #251

count wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trade secrets at stake here are probably worth WAY more than $5000 to Apple. Just because Gizmodo hasn't published any more details about the phone, or left out specific things, doesn't mean they don't know them. That information could be damaging to Apple and it's business relationships (say, if for example, it was shown that it's an LTE phone on VZW, and AT&T didn't know Apple was going to do that).

If these secrets are so valuable maybe Apple should rethink its policy of letting them walk out the door to go to a bar.

Okay, this type of reasoning really is starting to get to me. You aren't the first to mention it in this thread, but it is wrong. Let me ask you this: if you are designing a phone, how else would you test it?

You have to take it out into the real world and test it in real world situations. They gave it to a trusted employee and disguised it as much as they could. And the guy lost it. It's a known risk and it happens.

The choice then became to either activate the GPS and track the phone (potentially making the leak worse) or wipe it. Apple chose to remotely wiped it as soon as they could.

They did what they could to adequately test the new phone and protect it at the same time.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#260

Post by Sukotto » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 2:35 AM UTC

Legal issues aside, I would have been cool with it if they'd taken their scoop then made an attempt to return the phone. Instead they kept it and screwed over the poor guy who lost it.

Funny how I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now.