iPhone HD Leaked?

[Ducay]

Gizmodo Editor behind the story got his house searched and all his electronics siezed on Friday.

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-se...hens-computers

[Yeah_Baby]

Yeah, Apple leaked it on purpose.

[photon]

In related news, man does Canada get raped on accessories from the Apple store!

My Sennheiser headset is now broken, wires shorted out at the plug end

So I'm checking the Apple store to get ideas on what to try next (Sennheisers where good sound, but I didn't like the cords), and there's as much as a 40% markup in the Canadian store vs. the US store!!!

Sheesh..

/rant

[burn_this_city]

Seems a bit much to have a editors home searched and computers seized over a stupid lost prototype.

Not surprised Apple screws us on accessories, I'm sure they'd make some lame excuse about volume if you questioned why.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Seems a bit much to have a editors home searched and computers seized over a stupid lost prototype.

Not surprised Apple screws us on accessories, I'm sure they'd make some lame excuse about volume if you questioned why.

Might have something to do with him paying for stolen property and telling everybody about it.

[QuadCityImages]

Its actually a pretty interesting legal debate. There's the argument about whether it can be called stolen (CA law seems to say yes) and also whether Gizmodo knew that it was "stolen" when they paid for it. Its complicated by the fact that supposedly the finder tried to give it back to Apple, but was told it wasn't theirs.

Then you have all the legal issues relating to the raid. CA and possibly federal laws do not allow search warrants against journalists, with a few exceptions. It was done at night, which may not have been permitted by the judge who signed it, and there are plenty more things to keep lawyers busy. It will be interesting to see how it all comes out.

[Hack&Lube]

This is a terrible waste of money and police resources.

Under California law, bloggers are journalists and journalists are protected from search and seizure when related to their work. Gizmondo returned the phone to Apple at no cost. This is the sort of thing that makes you shake your head at the wasteful things police and government agencies do

[bluejays]

Police apologists in 3...2...1...

[jar_e]

Probably a dumb question...but is there anything to link this to the actual Apple claim? Maybe there's something else?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This is a terrible waste of money and police resources.

Under California law, bloggers are journalists and journalists are protected from search and seizure when related to their work. Gizmondo returned the phone to Apple at no cost. This is the sort of thing that makes you shake your head at the wasteful things police and government agencies do

You enter a slippery slope though when you say the police shouldn't investigate it because it was a "victimless" crime. A crime was still committed...and regardless, if anything, I'm sure Apple will go after Gizmodo civilly.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by jar_e

You enter a slippery slope though when you say the police shouldn't investigate it because it was a "victimless" crime. A crime was still committed...and regardless, if anything, I'm sure Apple will go after Gizmodo civilly.

I don't think Gizmodo will be getting invited to the next Apple event thats for sure.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jar_e

You enter a slippery slope though when you say the police shouldn't investigate it because it was a "victimless" crime. A crime was still committed...and regardless, if anything, I'm sure Apple will go after Gizmodo civilly.

It's not a matter of it being "victimless" (which was never said anyways), it's a matter of compliance with the law as it relates to journalists and search and seizure.

[Yeah_Baby]

Does that protect them from paying $5000 for either lost or stolen property?

[QuadCityImages]

But is something stolen if you find it, offer to give it back, and are told that they don't want it?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not a matter of it being "victimless" (which was never said anyways), it's a matter of compliance with the law as it relates to journalists and search and seizure.

Just cause they're journalists doesn't mean they're above the law. They are protected (to an extent) in regards to certain searches and seizures but they can still be prosecuted. Which thus makes me believe there's something more than just the Apple phone thing if they're seizing that much stuff.

[FanIn80]

Protection from search and seizure is only warranted when dealing with legally obtained items. Under California law, the editor of Gizmodo (ie: the guy who paid $5000 for stolen property) is considered party to theft. Therefore, "search and seizure" cannot be invoked.

I'm well aware that the Apple haters will try to turn this into something it isn't, but Apple did not write the State of California's laws.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Protection from search and seizure is only warranted when dealing with legally obtained items.

Under California law, the editor of Gizmodo (ie: the guy who paid $5000 for stolen property) is considered party to theft. Therefore, "search and seizure" cannot be invoked.

That's not necesarilly true, if it were that black and white there wouldn't be a strong argument against the validity of the warrant. There's also a question as to whether the obtaining of the phone constiuted a crime.

[valo403]

[QUOTE=FanIn80;2479361]Protection from search and seizure is only warranted when dealing with legally obtained items. Under California law, the editor of Gizmodo (ie: the guy who paid $5000 for stolen property) is considered party to theft. Therefore, "search and seizure" cannot be invoked.

I'm well aware that the Apple haters will try to turn this into something it isn't, but Apple did not write the State of California's laws.[/QUOTE]

Apple has nothing to do with it. At all.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

But is something stolen if you find it, offer to give it back, and are told that they don't want it?

They admitting to having it for over week. They knew exactly what it was, and didn't mention anything about giving it back until after they had their 'exclusive'. Doesn't seem like they genuinely looked at giving it back. But hey if I spent 5000 bones on something that would get my page a zillion clicks, I wouldn't do my legal Due Diligence either.

[FanIn80]

Exactly.

Gizmodo knew who owned it. They knew how to contact who owned it. They knew exactly what it was. They chose to keep it, they chose to publish details about it and they chose to copy physical evidence of it. Sounds like textbook theft to me (CA law).

The seizure probably has more to do with making sure that nothing was sold or given to any competitors, than anything else.

Edit: Although, I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with sending a message.