Yes, I'm being a gruber apologist, but that post was written days ago, before the raid. If anything, I think that there was a raid vindicates gruber's sense that this is serious business, and that the police are treating it as such.
I dunno, that seems more like a "lighting a joint in front of a police car" kind of thing. An offense that the police might let slide becomes a priority when it's done publicly or obviously.
{edit} Also, the police will go after popular news items because their response will also get into the 'papers.' This way it looks to the public as if they are doing something. (The police may also feel there is public pressure to 'do something' due to the coverage of the crime.)
I'm nowhere near the apologist for Apple that Gruber is and the Gizmodo thing is way, way under my skin. The TechCrunch Twitter debacle is still under my skin for exactly the same reason.
Gruber is no Apple apologist, he's just too insightful to come up with rants and raves about how one could "fix" Apple's business with a simple adjustment — unlike everybody else with an opinion on Apple.
I think that point is that Gaby is a lawyer in the UK, not licensed to practice in the US, and probably not well-versed in California's state laws. So for her to give legal advice about how to not commit a crime in California is a little disingenuous.
Fair enough, I'm largely talking about Gruber doing things like comparing Darbyshire unfavorably to a drunk character from the Simpsons when the analysis I've seen from people who actually practice and teach law for a living has been far more moderate in its assessment of whether Gawker's arguments will fly or not.
Shield law doesn't protect you from committing a crime. The issue here is that Chen is suspected in (or suspected of being complicit in) purchasing stolen goods.
If the phone finder had found the phone and sent photos and info to Gizmodo, they would be protected, but since they purchased the phone they've also committed a crime and have forfeited their journalistic protection.
No one is arguing the State of California can't get the evidence. Just the law states you can't use warrants to get it from journalists, just subpoenas, to allow to filter out items from other sources/stories.
Federal law has an exception. State law doesn't have an explicit one.
This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.
==========================================================
http://greatlawgroup.com
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.
Either way, the POINT of the shield law is to protect all other items not connected to the case.
So if Gizmodo say, talked to a source who committed a crime last Feb, THAT correspondence should never ever should end up in the hands of a prosecutors office unless they subpoena it and Gizmodo gets to go in front of a judge and move for the subpoena to be quashed.
For journalists, you have to subpoena items, not seize them. That's the important point now.
The DA's may or may not be allowed to see what giz knew and when they knew it about this case. But it's very unlikely they are allowed to know everything else on that hard drive, and they went about getting what they are allowed to know the wrong way (search warrant rather than subpoena).
'For journalists, you have to subpoena items, not seize them. That's the important point now.'
Not if it's the journalists you're investigating because you suspect THEY committed a crime (in this case, purchasing stolen property). The police aren't doing this to find his source, they're doing this to determine how much Chen/Gawker knew about the phone being stolen before they bought it, and what they did about it once they found out.
> The police aren't doing this to find his source, they're doing this to determine how much Chen/Gawker knew about the phone being stolen before they bought it, and what they did about it once they found out.
That's what we suspect and what seems to be the case, but unless I missed an update, I don't believe the police have said what they are looking for specifically.
Apparently he attempted to contact the owner (Apple Inc.). Just because Apple's bureaucracy prevented the phone from being recovered immediately doesn't mean he stole the phone.
He called tech support. If he'd called Apple's main switchboard and asked for Grey Powell, or mailed it to him at 1 Infinite Loop, or e-mailed pictures to sjobs@apple.com, or turned it in to the police, then he'd be faultless. As it was, he did the minimum necessary to say 'Yeah, well I tried to call them but they didn't want it back.'
The point is that taking a lost item and saying, "finders, keepers" is against the law in California. Gizmodo would not be on the wrong end of the law if they had purchased pictures of the prototype from the guy that found it (and the shield laws would apply). By purchasing the prototype itself, they were in possession of the 'stolen' property, and their actions once obtaining it were restricted by law.
The law says the finder has to try to contact the owner, he tried and they didn't answer his calls. So he's supposed to just burn the phone or make it magically disappear?
(a)If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property
shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred
dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time
turn the property over to the police department of
the city or city and county, if found therein, or
to the sheriff's department of the county if found
outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit,
stating when and where he or she found or saved the
property, particularly describing it.
If you don't like the law, don't down-vote me just for stating what it is.
So a journalist may go to jail for breaking news over a technicality and a law that barely no one knows about and that never gets applies to anyone except when corporations are in the game. Great.
Exposing bogus laws is what generates publicity/public pressure to repeal them. Ignoring them, but leaving them on the books just because dealing with them is inconvenient is not the way to build a better society.
Not saying that I agree with you, but this is that way that society/law/etc works.
Fake Steve Jobs: "John, dude, I love you like a son, but you’re letting this get to you, it’s getting under your skin, you need to let it go"