Support NeoGAF

[WordAssassin]

I took the bullet so you guys don't have to give them clicks:

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.
Here is all the documentation (Jason Chen's personal details are pixelated).

Gawker's legal response to the police:

Jason Chen's account:

 

[mj1108]

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/

Jason Chen's computers seized. Ooh this is getting interesting. And of course the story is on Gizmodo so they're still milking this for all the clicks they can get.

Like someone said above, stop clicking.

Just have one person here visit the copy/paste the entire article.

No way I'm going to give those douchebags any visits.

 

[WordAssassin]

Way ahead of you!

Also, it doesn't matter that they made how they got it public. They got the new iPhone, Apple wanted it back. Do you REALLY think there wouldn't have been an investigation into how they came to possess it? Nothing would have changed. The computers still would have been taken and through their sweep of the hard drives and emails they would have found out anyways.

 

[numble]

I have not taken evidence, and I am not familiar with California law, but I think that section of the California law that Gawker is trying to rely on is only focused on confiscating items related to the disclosure of information or communication, but the authorities probably are arguing that they are confiscating items related to stolen property, not disclosure of information/communication.

 

[WaltJay]

I guess Apple isn't playing around.

I lost a lot of respect when Giz went around and fucked with presenters at CES by using a universal remote to shut off the presenter's TV mid-presentation, filmed it, and uploaded it on their site. How old are we? 12? Maybe they can set off some stink bombs at the next CES and upload that video to their site.

With the iPhone prototype, I was less offended at the idea of buying a stolen phone than them including the Apple employee's name in the story. It was completely unnessary, and shows you what kind of assholery is going on at that site.

 

[Konka]

I guess Apple isn't playing around.

I lost a lot of respect when Giz went around and fucked with presenters at CES by using a universal remote to shut off the presenter's TV mid-presentation, filmed it, and uploaded it on their site. How old are we? 12? Maybe they can set off some stink bombs at the next CES and upload that video to their site.

With the iPhone prototype, I was less offended at the idea of buying a stolen phone than them including the Apple employee's name in the story. It was completely unnessary, and shows you what kind of assholery is going on at that site.

Apple isn't doing anything. It's not up to them whether or not the DA presses charges.

 

[SuperPac]

What I'm really looking forward to is finding out who actually sold them the phone. That part of the story is going to be amazing.

 

[The Elite]

Way ahead of you!

Also, it doesn't matter that they made how they got it public. They got the new iPhone, Apple wanted it back. Do you REALLY think there wouldn't have been an investigation into how they came to possess it? Nothing would have changed. The computers still would have been taken and through their sweep of the hard drives and emails they would have found out anyways.

Well this is the thing. A smart journalist would have covered their tracks to protect their source. They wouldn't have revealed how the acquired their news and they wouldn't leave a paper trail that would incriminate them or their source. Unfortunately, in this day and age, that is almost impossible to do. I think there is no doubt that the search and seizure would have happened either way but I think Gizmodo would have been insane not to run with this opportunity.

In an age were all news seems to be filtered press releases, especially in the tech/entertainment/gaming realm, this is refreshing. Sure, I wish it was a site other than Gizmodo, but there is no way you sit on this or return it to Apple without reporting PAGE ONE news.

 

[numble]

His e-mails are most likely to be password-protected right? Would they still be able to find out who it is?

 

[JSnake]

What I'm really looking forward to is finding out who actually sold them the phone. That part of the story is going to be amazing.

it was secretly steve jobs himself

 

[MercuryLS]

it was secretly steve jobs himself

Yeah I hear he's hard up for cash, I mean Apple only pays him $1 a year. That 5k will go a long way.

 

[mattiewheels]

What I'm really looking forward to is finding out who actually sold them the phone. That part of the story is going to be amazing.

I think it's funny to think about that moment when the thief probably thought he was the coolest dude around with an extra 5 grand in his pocket, and that rapidly changing to him shitting his pants with fear while he waits for the cops to come arrest him. Oh man :lol :lol

 

[CharlieDigital]

His e-mails are most likely to be password-protected right? Would they still be able to find out who it is?

They can subpoena him for the password or just brute force it.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

His e-mails are most likely to be password-protected right? Would they still be able to find out who it is?

of course they can get into those e-mails.

and I hope he didn't have a bootleg copy of Photoshop on there

Spoiler

like everyone else

, or he's up shits creek!

 

[Firebrand]

I lost a lot of respect when Giz went around and fucked with presenters at CES by using a universal remote to shut off the presenter's TV mid-presentation, filmed it, and uploaded it on their site. How old are we? 12? Maybe they can set off some stink bombs at the next CES and upload that video to their site.

They also posted a tubgirl pic on Kotaku's frontpage once. I think it's safe to say they're not the most professional bunch.

 

[PotatoeMasher]

Gaby Darbyshire is making a nice push to be named the nation's worst provider of legal opinion in 2010.

 

[Jex]

Man, this hoax sure is elaborate.

Real Response : This story keeps getting more interesting.

 

[Mr Cola]

Since when was anyone associated with Gawker media a journalist? Shit peddler is a more apt label.

 

[giga]

Man, this hoax sure is elaborate.

It’s all a marketing ploy man.

 

[wave dial]

Here's the man who busted into Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and seized all his computer equipment in connection with the iPhone investigation.
Detective Matthew Broad works for San Mateo County Sheriff's Office in the "high tech task force" called REACT.
On his LinkedIn page he lists computer forensics as a specialty. In particular, he says he is "proficient in Windows, Mac, and iPhone examinations."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-man-that-busted-gizmodos-editor-2010-4#ixzz0mF573KgV

 

[BocoDragon]

Man, this hoax sure is elaborate.

I can't wait to see the response when Steve Jobs calls Gray Powell, Jason Chen

Spoiler

and Tupac

on stage for the big reveal.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Best viral marketing campaign of 2010.

 

[PotatoeMasher]

So how long until we know the thief's name?

I'm hoping for a twist.

 

[LCfiner]

I have no idea what's gonna come out of this investigation but damn if it isn't super entertaining to watch unfold.

Draaaaama!

 

[Patrick Klepek]

As a reporter, the outcome of this end of this has me nervous.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Well this is the thing. A smart journalist would have covered their tracks to protect their source. They wouldn't have revealed how the acquired their news and they wouldn't leave a paper trail that would incriminate them or their source.

This is a great point. Gizmodo FUCKED their source a number of ways. There would be a lot less trouble if a) they just payed for access, and not purchased the item and B) NOT TOLD THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT YOUR SOURCE COMMITTED A FELONY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

And Denton is crying about "blogger's are journalists!" on twitter. Pretty sure shield laws don't apply when you gleefully admit buying stolen property.

 

[Gary Whitta]

His e-mails are most likely to be password-protected right? Would they still be able to find out who it is?

The cops have people that can recover data off hard drives that have been burned in a fire, I don't think Chen's passwords are going to trouble them too much.

 

[StopMakingSense]

As a reporter, the outcome of this end of this has me nervous.

Your lesson should be: Don't admit to committing a felony in public. You should be fine.

 

[numble]

This is a great point. Gizmodo FUCKED their source a number of ways. There would be a lot less trouble if a) they just payed for access, and not purchased the item and B) NOT TOLD THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT YOUR SOURCE COMMITTED A FELONY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

And Denton is crying about "blogger's are journalists!" on twitter. Pretty sure shield laws don't apply when you gleefully admit buying stolen property.

Yes, it seems like they would have a lot of legal protection if they just said "someone" showed this to us. Telling the whole story--and actually buying the item--was pretty stupid. The law that Gawker cited clearly protects disclosing of sources of information.

 

[BocoDragon]

The issue is purchase/possession of stolen property... I don't think taking the photos and reporting on it was a legal issue.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I really don't understand why they bought the damn thing. Early on, they said they paid for access...then it seemed to become them actually buying the device.

Seems to me that opened up a ton of potential liabilities. But hey...maybe not. My law degree is about 3 years of law school away from existing, so...:lol

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Does stolen property extend to internal documents distributed exclusively to employees with notices NOT to distribute? If so, that happens all the time in my work.

It's the precedent for protected information as extended to bloggers/online reporters/online journalists -- whatever you want to call what I try to engage in.

 

[equap]

he's not a journalist so what the fuck is that gawker guy talking about?

 

[numble]

Does stolen property extend to internal documents distributed exclusively to employees with noticies NOT to distribute? If so, that happens all the time in my work.

Since it's not text that can be copy/pasted, and I'm in class, I'm being lazy and posting just the images posted earlier:

So paragraph C of the second image seems to list the things that are protected from disclosure when it pertains to just information.

As long as you can say it's just information or communication you are receiving, you are allowed to protect sources, etc. I think they are going to argue that receiving the actual prototype is far more than "information" or "communication."

I am not an expert on this stuff, though.

 

[GDJustin]

As a reporter, the outcome of this end of this has me nervous.

Why? Gizmodo themselves certainly aren't reporters. They have conducted themselves in the OPPOSITE way a true journalist would, from the beginning.

 

[koam]

I hope they find child porn on his computer.

 

[moist]

After reading that I truly hope that the police take this opportunity to contact Gaby back using the AIM user name that is listed.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Why? Gizmodo themselves certainly aren't reporters. They have conducted themselves in the OPPOSITE way a true journalist would, from the beginning.

Because they are part of the "blogosphere." Their actions will impact us all.

 

[giga]

Prosecuting the traffic of stolen goods seems to be the angle that the DA is going after with the seizure, not going after a journalist’s source.

On a lighter note..

 

[LCfiner]

Fake Steve Jobs has me rolling with this post:

http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/04/gizmodo-suddenly-not-in-a-hurry-to-break-a-scoop.html

Gawker’s COO says the warrant was not valid because in California you can’t bust into the house of a reporter and take his stuff. Well, excuse me, but as far as I can tell, that just happened. And do you know why it happened? Because this is my state, Gawker. I make the rules.

Penal code? Please. Cite your little laws all you want. Write memos to the cops. I own the cops. They work for me. So do the judges and the prosecutors.

In case you’re wondering how far we’re going to push this, let me put it this way: Katie asks me to ask you if anyone knows Jason Chen’s waist size, because she wants to buy him a skirt.

Yeah. It’s like that.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Prosecuting the traffic of stolen goods seems to be the angle that the DA is going after with the seizure, not going after a journalist’s source.

On a lighter note..

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Jill Sandwich]

 

[GDJustin]

Because they are part of the "blogosphere." Their actions will impact us all.

1) Gizmodo used a device to remotely turn off TVs at CES and filmed themselves doing so, edited it, and then ran it as a story. Including during CES press conferences!

2) Gizmodo tubgirl'd Kotaku's front page.

3) Gizmodo ran a bullshit rumor on Jobs' health that ended up having a significant material impact on AAPL stock, with some suggesting that this manipulation was intentional.

4) I'm not even sure where to start with the current iPhone mess. Knowingly purchasing stolen goods? Giving up their source for no reason (it did not benefit the story in any way)?

Gizmodo are clowns.

 

[LCfiner]

1) Gizmodo used a device to remotely turn off TVs at CES and filmed themselves doing so, edited it, and then ran it as a story. Including during CES press conferences!

2) Gizmodo tubgirl'd engadgets front page.

3) Gizmodo ran a bullshit rumor on Jobs' health that ended up having a significant material impact on AAPL stock, with some suggesting that this manipulation was intentional.

4) I'm not even sure where to start with the current iPhone mess. Knowingly purchasing stolen goods? Giving up their source for no reason (it did not benefit the story in any way)?

Gizmodo are clowns.

they did not give up their source. they gave up the poor sap who lost the thing in the first place.

there’s a difference, as you know.

of course, the source (phone finder) may end up getting found out now due to the criminal investigation.

 

[GDJustin]

they did not give up their source. they gave up the poor sap who lost the thing in the first place.

there’s a difference, as you know.

of course, the source (phone finder) may end up getting found out now due to the criminal investigation.

But they didn't need to. Do you think Woodward and Bernstein, if they were on this beat, would have said "Also here is the first and last name of the dude that lost the phone. We called him! Here is the transcript!"

It adds nothing.

 

[LCfiner]

But they didn't need to. Do you think Woodward and Bernstein, if they were on this beat, would have said "Also here is the first and last name of the dude that lost the phone. We called him! Here is the transcript!"

It adds nothing.

I know. I’m agreeing with you. I’m just saying your use of the word “source” was incorrect.

they were dicks and gave up the guy who lost the phone. they didn’t give up their source who found the phone and sold it to them.

 

[brotkasten]

1) Gizmodo used a device to remotely turn off TVs at CES and filmed themselves doing so, edited it, and then ran it as a story. Including during CES press conferences!

2) Gizmodo tubgirl'd engadgets front page.

3) Gizmodo ran a bullshit rumor on Jobs' health that ended up having a significant material impact on AAPL stock, with some suggesting that this manipulation was intentional.

4) I'm not even sure where to start with the current iPhone mess. Knowingly purchasing stolen goods? Giving up their source for no reason (it did not benefit the story in any way)?

Gizmodo are clowns.

They what?

On a lighter note..

:lol

 

[Mr Cola]

It would be all manner of awesome if apple post up for real Chengs pc, plus a quick peak a some "hidden files" on his pc on their main blog, a little payback

 

[McBacon]

2) Gizmodo tubgirl'd Kotaku's front page.

More on that please. Why would they intentionally fuck up another Gawker-owned site?

 

[StopMakingSense]

I know. I’m agreeing with you. I’m just saying your use of the word “source” was incorrect.

they were dicks and gave up the guy who lost the phone. they didn’t give up their source who found the phone and sold it to them.

But what they did do was describe, in public, how their source committed a felony in selling the phone to Gizmodo. That really fucks over their source.