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

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#71

Post by gbhn »

andreyf wrote: post #19
ck2 wrote: post #11

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…

Here's Yahoo News on the situation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1816

Money quote: "In a statement, the Santa Clara County DA confirmed our report yesterday that Apple sits on the steering committee of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force, a coalition of 17 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies created in 1997 to combat high-tech crimes (the Santa Clara County DA's office is the task force's lead agency)."

And: "Apple Inc. has provided "advice, recommendations, strategic input, and direction"..."

That can mean a lot of things, but "high level advisor" is certainly among the most obvious interpretations here.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#72

Post by ynniv »

jcl wrote: post #41
johSho7w wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's that a conflict of interest? It's valid context, but in what ways are EFF obligations in conflict?

Yes, "conflict of interest" is not quite the right term. He probably meant something like "source of bias".

Yes, "bias" is probably a better term.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#73

Post by jrockway »

tptacek wrote: post #26
ck2 wrote: post #11

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.

Yeah, true. Losing your normal phone is an average "oops". Losing your super-omg-secret prototype is a major fuckup.

But basically, both are $200 pieces of plastic and silicon. It's just that nobody was supposed to see the exact silicon that Apple chose.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#74

Post by jrockway »

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?

The issue here is whether or not the state has the right to take thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment because you stole a $300 phone. If the search warrant was simply looking for the phone in question, that would be reasonable. A search warrant requesting the author's Google history and browser cache is excessively invasive and harmful to society in general.

Even criminals have rights, and those rights are worth protecting. They are what makes America great.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#75

Post by jrockway »

cjbos wrote: post #21
barranger wrote: post #5

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?

Mice, Keyboards and monitors yield fingerprints which show the person in questions physically used and accessed the machine.

I access many more machines than I have console access to.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#76

Post by jrockway »

tptacek wrote: post #30
DrSprout wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Why, exactly, is it "clear" to you that this publication isn't an ongoing serious problem for Apple?

Because the phone is not that special. It is the same as the next-generation phones that HTC is going to release at about the same time. It's almost like all these phones are made by 2 or 3 companies in China, or something...

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#77

Post by mootothemax »

jrockway wrote: post #74
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?

The issue here is whether or not the state has the right to take thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment because you stole a $300 phone. If the search warrant was simply looking for the phone in question, that would be reasonable. A search warrant requesting the author's Google history and browser cache is excessively invasive and harmful to society in general. Even criminals have rights, and those rights ar…

Right and I agree with you... except that this isn't a $300 phone. If it was, why did they pay $5,000 for it?

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#78

Post by ubernostrum »

wvenable wrote: post #61
anigbrowl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo.

Apparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo.

Well, no.

The law gives him the option of: 1) finding the owner and returning it, or 2) turning it in to the police.

What the guy actually did, it seems, was poke around in the phone, find out the name, Facebook details, etc. of the person who'd lost it, and then... called an Apple customer-support line to tell them a vague story about finding something that might or might not legitimately be an iPhone.

Even if we accept that as a bona-fide attempt to return it to the owner, the only other option the law gives him is turning it in to the police. From that point forward, anything he did which was not "turn it in to the police" qualifies as theft; the relevant bit of California law has been quoted so many times in so many threads that there's really no argument left on that point.

And since "sell it to a tabloid for $$$" is not "turn it in to the police", well, you can kinda see how we end up at criminal investigations and search warrants.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#79

Post by johSho7w »

ynniv wrote: post #72
jcl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, "conflict of interest" is not quite the right term. He probably meant something like "source of bias".

Yes, "bias" is probably a better term.

It's not bias when an organization that believes bloggers are journalists makes a statement that it believes bloggers are journalists.

Re: EFF: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

#80

Post by kragen »

Lazlo_Nibble wrote: post #67
kragen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that: 1. A police force just executed a warrant. 2. The warrant was illegal. 3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return t…

Yeah -- #3. Where are you getting this from? And what does your parenthetical "(Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)" even mean? It's true that the warrant was executed as part of the investigation into a crime involving Apple, but that doesn't imply that Apple has the level of control over the investigation that you're claiming they do.

Sorry, I didn't realize that was unclear. I meant that if the folks at Apple who had reported the crime had thought it was unjustified to seize the "reporter's" equipment, they could certainly have issued a press release saying that they regretted that the police had seized all his stuff, and hoped that the guy would get it back immediately. They might additionally have behind-the-scenes channels to make requests like that — as Adobe did in the Sklyarov case — but that hypothesis isn't necessary for my #3.
Post reply on HN