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

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#51

Post by tptacek »

jcl wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, exactly, is it "clear" to you that this publication isn't an ongoing serious problem for Apple? As you can tell, I'm a bit baffled by how blase people are about what's happened here. Just because it happened on the Internet, and the sky didn't immediately erupt with lightning and fireballs, doesn't mean that something momentously bad didn't happen.

I think the reason people are blase is because the story makes it seem like Apple brought the problem on themselves. The leak was utterly mundane; no one broke into the Apple campus or smuggled anything out, no one bribed or attacked an employee. As far as we can tell from the story, Apple regularly dresses up its research prototypes and takes them for walks outside. This practice is so obviously prone to leaks that…

I know this assertion about trade secrets not to be true. Things that are more valuable than research prototypes go for walks outside all the time. Maybe it's that context, which I get from my field of work, that's lighting me up so much.

I think you're dead flat-out wrong about this, but I understand where you're coming from.

[update: the San Jose Business Journal is reporting that Apple outside counsel reported the phone stolen. So much for the "it was a publicity stunt" story.]

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#52

Post by vitobcn »

swombat wrote: post #42
wvenable wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purchasing stolen property should be a much smaller investigation -- police do it all the time. While they shouldn't do nothing, this is a significantly more expensive reaction.

If someone purchased the stolen Mona Lisa the police would be down on them like a ton of bricks. It's all a matter of relative value. This iPhone prototype was worth a lot more than the parts inside (which was obvious to Gizmodo since they paid upwards of $5000 for it).

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...

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#53

Post by fleitz »

mootothemax wrote: post #40

This makes me feel really disappointed with the EFF, as they're a charity and they're wasting time (and resources) on this matter. Sure, it's a point worth investigating further: are bloggers legitimate journalist or not? However, they seem to be have ignored what this case is about: is it illegal for journalists - or anyone - to buy stolen goods?

If the goods were stolen a warrant should be issued for arrest for possession of stolen property. The fact that a warrant for search and seizure was issued makes it clear that not even the police are sure that the goods were stolen given the evidence publicly available.

When you leave your property sitting around and refuse people trying to return it, it creates a lot of ambiguity as to whether the property was stolen or abandoned.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#54

Post by yumraj »

I'm pretty sure I will be down voted, but still:

1) Everyone is too keen on saying that the iPhone was "stolen" based on the definition in the CA law. However, let's put the legal definition aside for a second and consider was the iPhone really "stolen". The Apple employee lost it in a bar, someone picked it up and "misused" it. Dictionary definition of "stolen" (from Apple's dashboard dictionary) is "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it " and I don't think that happened here and if it did, it remains to be proven.

2) I do agree that Gizmodo should not have paid for it, however, informants are almost always paid and IMNAL but it can be tricky to prove if Gizmodo knew how the iPhone was acquired before hand, and moreover if they knew if was an unreleased version if iPhone before they paid for it. Yes yes, common sense aside, where is the proof. People on eBay have paid a lot more then they're worth for a lot of things.

3) And regardless of whether Gizmodo is guilty or not, let's wait for the judge-jury to decide, it is unclear what the charges against Jason Chen are and why were those not disclosed before his house was raided.

4) I think the outcome of this this whole episode could have some really big ramifications, such as defining if professional Bloggers are journalists, or not.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#55

Post by gridspy »

ryoshu wrote: post #47
ynniv wrote: post #17

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…

Apple gave Gizmodo bloggers press passes to Apple events, so Apple seems to believe they were part of the press.

Just because you invite someone to your party doesn't mean they are your friend.

Handing you a press pass is simply the easiest way to tell my security that you are allowed in. It doesn't mean that it makes you a member of the press.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#56

Post by Anechoic »

positr0n wrote: post #25
johSho7w wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#57

Post by mootothemax »

fleitz wrote: post #53
mootothemax wrote: post #40

This makes me feel really disappointed with the EFF, as they're a charity and they're wasting time (and resources) on this matter. Sure, it's a point worth investigating further: are bloggers legitimate journalist or not? However, they seem to be have ignored what this case is about: is it illegal for journalists - or anyone - to buy stolen goods?

If the goods were stolen a warrant should be issued for arrest for possession of stolen property. The fact that a warrant for search and seizure was issued makes it clear that not even the police are sure that the goods were stolen given the evidence publicly available. When you leave your property sitting around and refuse people trying to return it, it creates a lot of ambiguity as to whether the property was stole…

When you leave your property sitting around and refuse people trying to return it

So far there is no evidence that proves that one way or the other.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#58

Post by anigbrowl »

ashishbharthi wrote: post #24

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

a) maybe they are, or intend to, or indeed intend to move against their parent company, Gawker media.

b) Chen was the last person who had possession of the device; when Apple's general counsel demanded its return, the Gizmodo editor directed him to contact Chen directly.

It might be more appropriate to wonder why Chen was left to handle the situation on his own, rather than the return to Apple being handled by Giz/Gawker's legal counsel or legal representative.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#59

Post by dfox »

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?)

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#60

Post by anigbrowl »

vitobcn wrote: post #52
swombat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone purchased the stolen Mona Lisa the police would be down on them like a ton of bricks. It's all a matter of relative value. This iPhone prototype was worth a lot more than the parts inside (which was obvious to Gizmodo since they paid upwards of $5000 for it).

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.
Post reply on HN