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

81–90 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#81

Post by ahoyhere »

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…

Think about it for a minute. It sucks that your stuff got stolen, but it's not shaking an industry, is it?

This is bordering on accidental corporate espionage. It's not just Apple that's pissed off, but think about what it would be like for other Valley companies to look at this case and wonder "What if it were us, next time?" -- if it wasn't pursued swiftly by the police.

That's the engine of the area's economy, theoretically at risk.

Anyway, unfortunately, the people who stole your stuff probably didn't post on a highly trafficked site about the crime. Gizmodo, on the other hand, did talk about how they bought the phone, and then committed possibly other criminal acts by posting the photos and details.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#82

Post by nailer »

tokenadult wrote: post #25

"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists." I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most oth…

Interesting. What about if Gawker has a house style guide, pays a comprable word rate, requests particular markup in copy for boxouts or artwork, docks pay for late copy, and asks you kindly not to be too aggressive about the big advertisers?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#83

Post by ajg1977 »

drewcrawford wrote: post #35

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something…

You may want to read up on U.S. v Boucher, 2009.

Unless you're hiding evidence of something particularly heinous, refusing to provide a means of decryption may land you in more trouble than the crime of which you're suspected.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#85

Post by rufo »

protomyth wrote: post #68

This series of events is why "real" news outlets have legal council. You can, thankfully for society, get away with a lot of stuff as a journalist, but some things are illegal. Particularly, when we are talking about commerce and not politics / public safety.

One fact I find interesting: Engadget was offered the device as well, but was advised by their counsel (in no uncertain terms) to not acquire the prototype.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#86

Post by frossie »

nailer wrote: post #60
fjabre wrote: post #19

Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism? What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media? The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would d…

Because there's: - a news organization - matters of public interest involved?

Are the specs of the 4th iPhone truly a matter of public interest? Interest != curiosity in this context. If a journalist has a source that says a state governor is selling senate appointments, that is in the public interest because the public has an interest (is a stakeholder) in clean government. If a journalist gets a stolen toddler toy that turns out to be covered in lead paint, the public has an interest in (is entitled to) knowing not to buy the toy.

The iPhone will come out in July (or whenever) irrespective of you knowing two months in advance its specs. Nothing changes. Nothing will be hidden. There is no "public interest". It's just idle curiosity, and it's not journalism to pander to it to the extent of participating in a very dodgy transaction.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#87

Post by qq66 »

rufo wrote: post #78
nailer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.

Why didn't he do something reasonable, like turn it into the bartender or the police?

His legal obligation was to return it to the bartender, but calling Apple to return it is hardly "unreasonable."

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#88

Post by watty »

neonfunk wrote: post #80
nailer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.

Didn't he/she know the engineer's name? And have his facebook profile?

I don't think that was clear. The articles stated that he saw the engineer's name that night when looking at facebook but wasn't able to look it up in the morning due to being disabled.

I don't know about this guy but I probably recall 5% of all names of people I meet at a bar, 0% first and last names. I have a hard time faulting him if there is evidence of him calling Apple support and detailing the situations.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#89

Post by techiferous »

smallblacksun wrote: post #37
lionhearted wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got extraordinary mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, people shouldn't feel like it's okay to buy stolen property for their own gain at the expense of the people it was stolen from. But then there's reasonable search and seizure... Hmm, I don't know, I think I'm going to lean slightly towards stolen-property-bad side of the equation. If the editor wasn't a journalist, we wouldn't be having this discussi…

I see nothing at all unreasonable about this search and seizure. oops, didn't mean to downvote you. Can someone fix that for me?

I gave an upvote for you.

The triangles are too close; I've also accidentally downvoted someone before.

Post reply on HN