Last week we had a fun discussion about the ethics of Gizmodo’s iPhone 4 scoop. Now things are getting really interesting. The site revealed that the police have seized Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s personal computers:
Last Friday night, California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered editor Jason Chen’s home without him present, seizing four computers and two servers. They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
How do you think this is all going to shake down? Should California file criminal charges? Should Apple file civil charges?
WOW….
What's the acronym on that? CREACT? (douchebags).
@n8r
I think it's just R.E.A.C.T. I saw this on CNET last Friday and that's how they used it in their story.
How dumb. It was a phone scoop. seemed worth it at the time I'm sure and now he's thinking….maybe not so much.
@SlickyFats
They can't charge him for anything unless he was selling data stored on the phone to people. If the phone was remotely wiped before it was even sold to him, I don't see how he could.
@REACT
Why aren't people up in arms over this. Their a non jurisdiction militia for corporate figures. If Bush got in trouble for Blackwater, so should REACT.
@Sandrock
I didn't mean I am against what he did, heck I love that the info is out there now. I hope this doesn't somehow bite him on the ass, but I am sure its causing him way more trouble than he originally thought it would.
@Sandrock323 Several lawyers have said that Gizmodo can be charged. It will be interesting to follow.
@Ray
Gizmodo, Yes. They can't charge him specifically for what Gizmodo did. Also, Gizmodo's parent company paid for it, so technically they are the ones at fault. The only point in all of this I see, is to turn it into an out of court settlement. Quick cash and wasted tax dollars.
@Sandrock323 Is there a point? That's debatable. There are certainly repercussions in the blogosphere. Too many blogs only care about traffic — get as many page views by any means necessary. That's the Gawker philosophy. That's my problem with a large number of web sites. I'm more interested in quality stories and/or quality interaction.
Here's a great quote from Daring Fireball:
Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.”
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/26/blodg…
From my limited understanding of law (read: nothing), he did commit a felony by not only buying a stolen item, but benefiting off of that item as well. Because of that, he deserves to be fined/charged/sentenced to listen to an entire Cher album.
If he would have gotten the phone and returned it to Apple (once he figured out it belonged to Apple) or the cops and not write/publish any revealing details about it, none of this mess would have ever unfolded. In fact, Apple would have probably been so grateful, that they probably would have rewarded the guy with a $15 iTunes gift card or a solid gold iPod nano or maybe the severed head of Steve Ballmer.
-M
The former journalist part of me is all for what Gizmodo did because it broke the mold that Apple has had for so long, it shook up the strong controlling grip that Apple holds over all of its products, and as a watchdog they as journalists did their job.
but I am not surprised that there are criminal charges since technically it is a felony.
@bsukenyan Apple has a long history of product leaks. How did Gizmodo break the mold?
@Ray
I see Apple as being a control freak, when I say Gizmodo broke the mold I am meaning the mold that Apple tries to set which would involve no leaks of information, etc. So by breaking the story out of line with what Apple was intending they were breaking the mold. Channeling my journalist style of thinking I would say that Gizmodo was doing their job by informing the public about a new product. Like I said though, I understand that what they did is considered a felony, but journalism has a history of media law cases dealing with issues like this.
Did they ever return the phone?
@Ray
Lawyers will always say charges can or cannot be pressed. It's part of the game.
@Iceman
Supposedly the person who found the phone did try and return it. The people at Apple whom he called thought he was a crackpot. So he sold it to Gizmodo.
@smartguy Yes, but it's well explained. The situation is pretty clear. Gawker's defense is flimsy.
@Sandrock323 Gizmodo returned the phone, but waited for Apple to confirm that it was theirs.
@Ray
1524(g). Neat statute. Helps Chen.
Also since they are lawyers, they can explain it however they need :)