Apple on steering commitee of task force that raided Gizmodo

[Bakustra]

Have you considered the fact that when it comes to cases like this the law itself mightt be broken ? Last I checked California state law is not a scripture on one true ethical standards. The law saying something is permissible does not make it ok always.

So what is so broken about the idea of aiding companies in the protection of trade secrets? This is a world apart from the RIAA's actions or from the Pentagon Papers. There is no compelling public interest to the publication of the minutiae of the iPhone prototype, unlike with the Pentagon Papers, and this is a clear-cut case, rather than the vague powers that the RIAA has accumulated under law.

Have you considered the fact that when it comes to cases like this the law itself mightt be broken ? Last I checked California state law is not a scripture on one true ethical standards. The law saying something is permissible does not make it ok always.

I'm failing to see what's unethical about arresting reporters for committing a serious crime to get a story. Journalism shield laws are also considerably less protective than doctor-patient, client-attorney or priest-confessor privileges, contrary to the popular opinion in this thread. Incidentally, since this happened in California, guess which state's laws we're going to reference?

For that matter, when it comes to the seizure of computers from Gizmodo, the point is to ensure that Gizmodo does not destroy documentation referring to their purchase of the prototype, which might well include clear admissions that they were aware it was stolen. Would it be unethical, in your view, Sarevok, for the police to seize papers from an office in the course of arresting someone for embezzling?

[ShadowDragon8685]

There's a difference, Bakustra and other hard-heads, between seizing information and papers and computers from, say, Enron corp, and seizing them from members of the press.

I do hope you can comprehend that whether or not you consider Gizmodo to be as vital a press organ as CNN, that seizing any such information from members of the press will have a tremendous chilling effect that will act contrary to compelling public interest?


Think of the precedent it's setting. If a guy's a low-ranking staffer at the Pentagon who comes into possession of a memo that states that (hyperbole,) the Pentagon has established a task force to investigate whether the blood-sacrifice of innocents can be militarily beneficial and you're thinking of leaking it, either out of civic duty or mercenary designs, whether you ask for some kind of compensation or not, the fact remains that this action sets the precedent that armed thugs* can burst into the news-room and seize the journalist's computers and papers, chances are you're not going to leak it for fear of retribution after having been found out by having had the news room raided.

*Any time the police are being used to prop up corporate interests instead of actually serving the public interest, they earn the appelation of 'thug'.

[General Zod]

There's a difference, Bakustra and other hard-heads, between seizing information and papers and computers from, say, Enron corp, and seizing them from members of the press.

I do hope you can comprehend that whether or not you consider Gizmodo to be as vital a press organ as CNN, that seizing any such information from members of the press will have a tremendous chilling effect that will act contrary to compelling public interest?

Think of the precedent it's setting. If a guy's a low-ranking staffer at the Pentagon who comes into possession of a memo that states that (hyperbole,) the Pentagon has established a task force to investigate whether the blood-sacrifice of innocents can be militarily beneficial and you're thinking of leaking it, either out of civic duty or mercenary designs, whether you ask for some kind of compensation or not, the fact remains that this action sets the precedent that armed thugs* can burst into the news-room and seize the journalist's computers and papers, chances are you're not going to leak it for fear of retribution after having been found out by having had the news room raided.

*Any time the police are being used to prop up corporate interests instead of actually serving the public interest, they earn the appelation of 'thug'.

Try getting it through your thick skull. Being a member of the press does not mean they have the wherewithal to commit crimes in order to get a story.

[Bakustra]

There's a difference, Bakustra and other hard-heads, between seizing information and papers and computers from, say, Enron corp, and seizing them from members of the press.

I do hope you can comprehend that whether or not you consider Gizmodo to be as vital a press organ as CNN, that seizing any such information from members of the press will have a tremendous chilling effect that will act contrary to compelling public interest?

So you hold the belief that there should be one law for the press and another for everybody else? You appear to be of the belief that the police will by necessity have seized inappropriate material. Why do you believe so? What evidence do you have that this is the case? If the police seized their financial records only, or at the outside any recordings they may have of conversations with the thief, then does that really send a message, to reasonable people at least, of corporate censorship?

Think of the precedent it's setting. If a guy's a low-ranking staffer at the Pentagon who comes into possession of a memo that states that (hyperbole,) the Pentagon has established a task force to investigate whether the blood-sacrifice of innocents can be militarily beneficial and you're thinking of leaking it, either out of civic duty or mercenary designs, whether you ask for some kind of compensation or not, the fact remains that this action sets the precedent that armed thugs* can burst into the news-room and seize the journalist's computers and papers, chances are you're not going to leak it for fear of retribution after having been found out by having had the news room raided.

*Any time the police are being used to prop up corporate interests instead of actually serving the public interest, they earn the appelation of 'thug'.

Think of the precedent it sets to either allow corporations to freely shred incriminating documents, as the police cannot seize them, or to maintain that press companies are allowed to do so. In that case, what about General Electric and other large corporations that own more than just press services? Would only their individual channels, papers and services be freed from having evidence seized from them?

I also find it sadly amusing that you believe that theft isn't bad as long as it involves a company stealing from another company.

[ShadowDragon8685]

So you hold the belief that there should be one law for the press and another for everybody else?

Frankly, yes. In the interest of serving the public good inasmuch as reporting the news goes, minor crimes of property can and should be overlooked; otherwise why not, say, charge the whistleblower with theft for stealing the document he leaks to the press and use that - the petty theft conviction - as an end-run around whistleblower protection laws.

Hell, go for it! Charge the newscorp with recieving stolen goods - in this case paper and ink in a specific pattern amounting to an item of material worth (or a transmitted document - data has a value, just ask the RIAA!) and seize their stuff to find out who the whistleblower was!

You appear to be of the belief that the police will by necessity have seized inappropriate material. Why do you believe so?

Because I doubt the de facto Gizmodo newsroom had a big folder laying atop a laptop both of which had a sticky note labeled "iPhone leak informant details" and that, even if there were, that the policeCorporate Enforcement Agents would have been kind enough to take only that material. After all, we know that the 'evidence' is now in the hands of an enforcement branch that is ultimately being helmed by Apple Corp - why wouldn't they have a copy of all documents "fall" into their hands to see what else Gizmodo has that's worth knowing - such as if they're about to break the story on the iTampon that Apple thought it had kept under wraps, or if they have an inside scoop that LG or someone small and relatively unknown is about to come out with an iPhone killer that offers more awesome at half the cost?

God, this is like fucking Shadowrun, except they're getting Lone Star to do it instead of having the deceny to hire some deniable assets to break into the editor's house at three in the morning after having slipped him a roofie in a bar to ensure he wouldn't notice. (Also they probably won't kill the cops in lieu of paying them their wages.)

What evidence do you have that this is the case? If the police seized their financial records only, or at the outside any recordings they may have of conversations with the thief, then does that really send a message, to reasonable people at least, of corporate censorship?

You seize a computer, you've seized everything on that computer. If you grab all files under the presumption that this guy is guilty and might hide the real details in an innocous folder, you've seized them all.

So, yes. Yes, it does send a reasonable person (me) a message of "Apple Corp is getting the fuzz to stomp down on the press for breaking the scoop on their shit ahead of their schedule."

Think of the precedent it sets to either allow corporations to freely shred incriminating documents, as the police cannot seize them, or to maintain that press companies are allowed to do so.

Did anybody suggest allowing Enron to freely shred incriminate evience? No, I did not. I am talking about the press, not companies in general. In theory, the press serves a vital social function, and should be regarded more protections than Ken Lay.

In that case, what about General Electric and other large corporations that own more than just press services? Would only their individual channels, papers and services be freed from having evidence seized from them?

Yes. It's a pretty obvious divide between busting into a news room and busting into a factory floor or a corporate HQ.

I also find it sadly amusing that you believe that theft isn't bad as long as it involves a company stealing from another company.

If it's a "trade secret" and it gets into the open, tough shit. You want to legally protect it, patent it.

Apple's getting all butthurt because one of their schlubs left it in a bar, an opportunist with sticky fingers snagged it, realized what it was, and handed it off to the technology press to break the story. And no, I don't have a problem with the press paying informants for the information they have, even if the information is in the form of a physical artifact.


No, I am not, to head you off at the pass, suggesting that the press be allowed to hire people to steal things. But that is clearly not the case here. And they returned the motherfucker, so Apple needs to sit down and STFU. They're just pissed that Gizmodo published the scoop on their new shit, and they're taking any and all punitive measures they can, probably hoping to intimidate them into not breaking any further Apple scoops they may come across.

[General Zod]

Frankly, yes. In the interest of serving the public good inasmuch as reporting the news goes, minor crimes of property can and should be overlooked; otherwise why not, say, charge the whistleblower with theft for stealing the document he leaks to the press and use that - the petty theft conviction - as an end-run around whistleblower protection laws.

The fact that they were willing to pay $5,000 puts this outside the realm or minor crimes and into felony territory, you moron. In cases where stolen goods do not have a set value, their value is determined by how much the receiver paid for them. Whistleblowing also does not apply here, since there was no conduct of bad faith on Apple's part. Frankly I don't see why the fuck anyone should trust a news agency that's willing to flagrantly violate the law in order to get a scoop.

[Edi]

ShadowDragon, once again you do not have the first fucking idea what you're talking about. Absolutely none. Please just shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. It will be far less painful for everyone involved that way and you might even learn something. But that will only happen if you can first get over your own massive ego and the delusion that you're infallible.

[Bakustra]

So you hold the belief that there should be one law for the press and another for everybody else?

Frankly, yes. In the interest of serving the public good inasmuch as reporting the news goes, minor crimes of property can and should be overlooked; otherwise why not, say, charge the whistleblower with theft for stealing the document he leaks to the press and use that - the petty theft conviction - as an end-run around whistleblower protection laws.

Hell, go for it! Charge the newscorp with recieving stolen goods - in this case paper and ink in a specific pattern amounting to an item of material worth (or a transmitted document - data has a value, just ask the RIAA!) and seize their stuff to find out who the whistleblower was!

So you do not believe that the press should have any restrictions as far as criminal behavior goes, as long as it's "minor crimes of property" that they commit. Well, it's good to know that the press shouldn't be able to steal cars in your paradise. However, why should they be able to declare what news is valid? Is it okay for them to steal the personal property of celebrities to report on their health or weight or medical prescriptions? That is why the idea of a compelling public interest exists- because there is an interest in the potential activities of government that is far greater in benefit to the public than the interest in the private lives of public figures or the technical minutiae of electronic devices.

You appear to be of the belief that the police will by necessity have seized inappropriate material. Why do you believe so?

Because I doubt the de facto Gizmodo newsroom had a big folder laying atop a laptop both of which had a sticky note labeled "iPhone leak informant details" and that, even if there were, that the policeCorporate Enforcement Agents would have been kind enough to take only that material. After all, we know that the 'evidence' is now in the hands of an enforcement branch that is ultimately being helmed by Apple Corp - why wouldn't they have a copy of all documents "fall" into their hands to see what else Gizmodo has that's worth knowing - such as if they're about to break the story on the iTampon that Apple thought it had kept under wraps, or if they have an inside scoop that LG or someone small and relatively unknown is about to come out with an iPhone killer that offers more awesome at half the cost?

God, this is like fucking Shadowrun, except they're getting Lone Star to do it instead of having the deceny to hire some deniable assets to break into the editor's house at three in the morning after having slipped him a roofie in a bar to ensure he wouldn't notice. (Also they probably won't kill the cops in lieu of paying them their wages.)

So you have no evidence besides your "doubt". Are you aware that warrants are generally issued for very specific things, such as, in this case, the financial records of Gizmodo and potentially any conversational records pursuant to the sale of the iPhone prototype?

What evidence do you have that this is the case? If the police seized their financial records only, or at the outside any recordings they may have of conversations with the thief, then does that really send a message, to reasonable people at least, of corporate censorship?

You seize a computer, you've seized everything on that computer. If you grab all files under the presumption that this guy is guilty and might hide the real details in an innocous folder, you've seized them all.

So, yes. Yes, it does send a reasonable person (me) a message of "Apple Corp is getting the fuzz to stomp down on the press for breaking the scoop on their shit ahead of their schedule."

Firstly, a paranoiac is not a reasonable person.

Secondly, most files would probably be on the company server, which they would not be able to access without a warrant, and presumably, the permission of Gizmodo. They seized one computer, which for a company the size of Gizmodo, is not going to contain all the files. Gizmodo, meanwhile, if the police unauthorizedly access files not covered in the warrant, can then bring charges and file suit against them.

Think of the precedent it sets to either allow corporations to freely shred incriminating documents, as the police cannot seize them, or to maintain that press companies are allowed to do so.

Did anybody suggest allowing Enron to freely shred incriminate evience? No, I did not. I am talking about the press, not companies in general. In theory, the press serves a vital social function, and should be regarded more protections than Ken Lay.

So why should the press be completely above the law in this instance? There are already exceptions, most of which involve the US Government, so why should they be free to steal without consequence in all instances?

In that case, what about General Electric and other large corporations that own more than just press services? Would only their individual channels, papers and services be freed from having evidence seized from them?

Yes. It's a pretty obvious divide between busting into a news room and busting into a factory floor or a corporate HQ.

Not all that much, in particular since news companies are companies.

I also find it sadly amusing that you believe that theft isn't bad as long as it involves a company stealing from another company.

If it's a "trade secret" and it gets into the open, tough shit. You want to legally protect it, patent it.

Do you know how the patenting system works? Patents are available publicly. That is the point. Any competitor can then look at the iPhone patent and start trying to improve upon it, or at least modify it enough that they can sell it. This is workable once the product is in its final stages, but this prototype was in the very early stages. You can't well patent at every stage of development, and it would hurt far more than help. There are legitimate reasons to have trade secrets, as they cover things that patents cannot.

Apple's getting all butthurt because one of their schlubs left it in a bar, an opportunist with sticky fingers snagged it, realized what it was, and handed it off to the technology press to break the story. And no, I don't have a problem with the press paying informants for the information they have, even if the information is in the form of a physical artifact.

I do have a problem with the press buying stolen property when there is no clear public interest involved.

No, I am not, to head you off at the pass, suggesting that the press be allowed to hire people to steal things. But that is clearly not the case here. And they returned the motherfucker, so Apple needs to sit down and STFU. They're just pissed that Gizmodo published the scoop on their new shit, and they're taking any and all punitive measures they can, probably hoping to intimidate them into not breaking any further Apple scoops they may come across.

Yes, you should be free from criminal prosecution if you agree to return the product in all cases. You're absolutely right. There are no societal considerations to ensuring prosecutions for crimes, even ones where the individual is clearly repentant.

[General Zod]

It looks like most reasonable people think there's room for doubt on whether or not shield laws apply. Who knew!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003664-37.html

A lawyer for Gizmodo says the gadget blog could sue the sheriff's office in San Mateo County, Calif., for raiding an editor's home last Friday as part of a criminal probe into an errant iPhone prototype.

The option of a lawsuit "is available because search is not the appropriate method in this situation," Thomas R. Burke, a media lawyer and partner in the San Francisco offices of Davis Wright Tremaine, told CNET. He said the search warrant violated a California journalist shield law designed to limit searches of newsrooms.

Burke added, however, that he has been in discussions with the San Mateo County District Attorney's office and that he appreciated prosecutors' agreement not to search editor Jason Chen's seized computers, iPad, and iPhone while talks are in progress.

"Very much to their credit, they aren't just putting their heads into the sand and saying, 'Go away,'" Burke said Tuesday afternoon. "The district attorney's office is independently looking at this. We're going to be sending them a detailed letter of what we already told them Saturday and yesterday."

For their part, San Mateo County prosecutors have told CNET they considered early on whether newsroom search laws applied--and decided to proceed only after carefully reviewing the rules. Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney, said the prosecutor "considered this issue right off the bat" and "had some good reasons why he and the judge felt the warrant was properly issued." (CNET broke the story of the criminal investigation last week.)

Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker Media, has said that the search warrant is "invalid," citing a California law curbing newsroom searches. So has the Electronic Frontier Foundation. On the other hand, if the Gizmodo employees who paid $5,000 for what they believed was a 4G iPhone prototype are targets of a criminal probe, it's likely that the law's protections do not apply and a civil lawsuit would be unsuccessful.

But if Gizmodo is not suspected of violating the law, they would have a good case against the county, legal experts said.

"Going in with a search warrant like that opens up the DA's office to a First Amendment lawsuit," says Roger Myers, a partner at Holme Roberts and Owen, who specializes in media law and has represented CNET.

A report Wednesday by The Recorder, a northern California legal newspaper, said that Chen, the Gizmodo editor, has hired Thomas Nolan, a veteran criminal defense attorney at a Palo Alto, Calif., law firm. Nolan told the paper that he does not know whether his client is a target of the criminal investigation. Prosecutors say they have interviewed the person who sold the suspected 4G prototype to Gizmodo.

The federal Privacy Protection Act broadly immunizes news organizations from searches, effectively requiring police to use subpoenas, though there are exceptions for when the reporter is suspected of a crime. A similar California law prevents judges from signing warrants that target writers for newspapers, magazines, or "other periodical publication," though at least one court has suggested that the protections do not extend to journalists convicted of a crime.

The price of newsroom searches

If a newsroom is searched in violation of the Privacy Protection Act, media organizations have the right to sue for damages. There are two caveats, though: first, if police or prosecutors had a "reasonable good faith belief" that their conduct was lawful, the lawsuit will not succeed. Second, the penalties that authorities can be forced to pay are often just $1,000 plus reasonable attorney's fees.


Probably the most famous Privacy Protection Act lawsuit stemmed from a Secret Service raid of Steve Jackson Games in Austin, Texas. Agents investigating an internal Bell South document relating to the 911 system seized a computer running the company's bulletin board system (a telephone modem-based BBS).

In 1993, a federal judge in Texas awarded Steve Jackson Games $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorneys fees, concluding: "The Secret Service was specifically advised of facts that put its employees on notice of probable violations of the Privacy Protection Act. It is no excuse that Agents Foley and Golden were not knowledgeable of the law."

A side note: that case may be just a footnote in legal history books today, but it's what directly led to the formation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation nearly 20 years ago.

Two years later, a television station in Missouri successfully sued local police and the county prosecutor under the Privacy Protection Act after a search warrant was used to seize a videotape showing a woman's abduction. The TV station had bought the tape from a local videographer who happened to capture the abduction while filming scenes in Kansas City, aired portions of it, and offered to show the remaining portions to police.

A similar case arose when the FBI demanded videotape from a Minneapolis television station depicting a narcotics arrest at a convenience store. After FBI agent Michael Elliot threatened the video crew with being arrested themselves, they turned over the tape.

The resulting lawsuit argued that the FBI violated the Privacy Protection Act, federal civil rights laws, and the TV station's common law rights. WCCO Television and the Minneapolis Star won their Privacy Protection Act argument, but lost on the others. A federal judge in 1989 awarded only $750 in damages and half of the $55,940 requested in attorneys' fees, saying the case was "over-lawyered."

Gawker Media's rights under the Privacy Protection Act were violated, says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va. "This is such an incredibly clear violation of state and federal law it takes my breath away," Dalglish said. "The only thing left for the authorities to do is return everything immediately and issue one of hell of an apology."

Burke, the lawyer for Gizmodo, said the search could have been avoided if police had contacted the blog first. "If a request had been made we would have freely and quickly given assurances under penalty of perjury that no information is destroyed," he said. "That's what would happen if a subpoena were followed, which is what happens ordinarily in these circumstances. That's why it's such a contravention of process. If that request had been made, none of this would have been an issue."

[ThomasP]

The part that disturbs me isn't the legalistic aspect. I think it's fairly obvious that Gizmodo and the journalist in particular have liability under the law, and I'm not sure that's in question. I certainly wouldn't try to argue otherwise.

Where I have issues with this is where we see 1) this kind of search and seizure on that magnitude for a stolen phone (If my phone gets stolen the cops don't act like this; and it was returned on top of that.) and 2) the fact that Apple apparently insitgated the raid themselves.

It's pretty clear that, legally speaking, Gizmodo et al were in the wrong; I just don't like the set of circumstances surrounding the enforcement of that particular broken law. This wasn't about a matter of theft. It was about Apple bringing down the hammer.

[General Zod]

The part that disturbs me isn't the legalistic aspect. I think it's fairly obvious that Gizmodo and the journalist in particular have liability under the law, and I'm not sure that's in question. I certainly wouldn't try to argue otherwise.

Where I have issues with this is where we see 1) this kind of search and seizure on that magnitude for a stolen phone (If my phone gets stolen the cops don't act like this; and it was returned on top of that.) and 2) the fact that Apple apparently insitgated the raid themselves.

It's pretty clear that, legally speaking, Gizmodo et al were in the wrong; I just don't like the set of circumstances surrounding the enforcement of that particular broken law. This wasn't about a matter of theft. It was about Apple bringing down the hammer.

I'd say you're overreacting with alarmist claptrap. If the police have a warrant to conduct a search and nobody is there, how the fuck else are they supposed to conduct the search?

[Phantasee]

The part that disturbs me isn't the legalistic aspect. I think it's fairly obvious that Gizmodo and the journalist in particular have liability under the law, and I'm not sure that's in question. I certainly wouldn't try to argue otherwise.

Where I have issues with this is where we see 1) this kind of search and seizure on that magnitude for a stolen phone (If my phone gets stolen the cops don't act like this; and it was returned on top of that.)

The cops don't give a fuck about your phone because there are millions like it. That prototype is one of a kind, and it is filled with technology still under development. Equating the two is the sign of a retard who should shut the fuck up.

And so what if Apple asked the cops to do something about the situation? Apple is a corporation, which is a legal person. If you can ask the police to do something on your behalf (recovering your car, for example, or better yet, something you invented), why can't Apple?

[Terralthra]

The yellow highlight text is completely illegible on the low-bandwidth style. If your intention was to emphasize said text rather than obscure it, perhaps you could look into "bold" and "italics," which have been used to emphasize sections of text for a few centuries now.

[ThomasP]

The cops don't give a fuck about your phone because there are millions like it. That prototype is one of a kind, and it is filled with technology still under development. Equating the two is the sign of a retard who should shut the fuck up.

I'm not interested in equating the two. I'm interested in why the cops have any motive at all to enforce Apple's trade secrecy above and beyond what they would for any piece of stolen property.

If they're invoking the local "theft" statute as cause for search & seizure, then why is the prototype given more preference than any individual theft? Or is there a corporate trade-secrets clause in the theft statute that I'm not seeing?

And so what if Apple asked the cops to do something about the situation? Apple is a corporation, which is a legal person. If you can ask the police to do something on your behalf (recovering your car, for example, or better yet, something you invented), why can't Apple?

Again, I'm not interested in the legalistic argument and I said as much. I'm interested in why it's being treated this way and the right/wrong of the treatment, not what the law says.

In any case, regarding the latter statement, I can ask the cops. The point is, as you pointed out, the cops aren't going to break down some guy's door and seize his property because I point out my phone was stolen.

The fact that it's corporate IP should be irrelevant to the enforcement of the broader theft statute.

[Phantasee]

I would think protecting Apple's trade secrets from their competitors would be a pretty good reason. Or are you in favour of these sorts of things getting out into the world and letting Apple's competitors get a leg up on them? Silicon Valley is a major part of California's economy. Do you think the state has no place in protecting local companies like Apple from the Korean Samsung, or LG, or the Finnish Nokia, or the Japanese Sony?

[General Zod]

The cops don't give a fuck about your phone because there are millions like it. That prototype is one of a kind, and it is filled with technology still under development. Equating the two is the sign of a retard who should shut the fuck up.

I'm not interested in equating the two. I'm interested in why the cops have any motive at all to enforce Apple's trade secrecy above and beyond what they would for any piece of stolen property.

If they're invoking the local "theft" statute as cause for search & seizure, then why is the prototype given more preference than any individual theft? Or is there a corporate trade-secrets clause in the theft statute that I'm not seeing?

And so what if Apple asked the cops to do something about the situation? Apple is a corporation, which is a legal person. If you can ask the police to do something on your behalf (recovering your car, for example, or better yet, something you invented), why can't Apple?

Again, I'm not interested in the legalistic argument and I said as much. I'm interested in why it's being treated this way and the right/wrong of the treatment, not what the law says.

In any case, regarding the latter statement, I can ask the cops. The point is, as you pointed out, the cops aren't going to break down some guy's door and seize his property because I point out my phone was stolen.

The fact that it's corporate IP should be irrelevant to the enforcement of the broader theft statute.

You're an idiot. If nobody's home when the cops come to serve any warrant, guess what? They're going to break the fucking door down. It doesn't matter how big or small the crime is when they're serving a warrant. Or would you prefer they waited around for several hours or days in hopes that the suspect they're looking to search happens to come by?

Incidentally, your first point is retarded. When most people report a theft? They don't know where the fucking thief lives. The police aren't going to go down banging any random door unless they know where to find the stolen property and you can prove that it is indeed, stolen. Also, most phones aren't worth $5,000.

[ThomasP]

I would think protecting Apple's trade secrets from their competitors would be a pretty good reason. Or are you in favour of these sorts of things getting out into the world and letting Apple's competitors get a leg up on them? Silicon Valley is a major part of California's economy. Do you think the state has no place in protecting local companies like Apple from the Korean Samsung, or LG, or the Finnish Nokia, or the Japanese Sony?

You're raising two separate points here:

1. That the police should protect Apple's (or really any company's) trade secrets. Regardless of how you or I may feel about that (and personally I'm against it, for reasons I'll get to), the point is that that isn't what was happening here. The police were operating under California's theft laws, not (as far as I'm aware) any laws regarding corporate IP.

The fact that a big company can shift its weight around and get unequal, preferential protection under the same written laws that supposedly protect all citizens is what chaps at me here. The issue with corporations being legally considered people is an undercurrent that I strongly disagree with, especially once it becomes clear that they can achieve preferential treatment.

Even if you want to argue that the police have a role in protecting IP, they should not be subverting an existing law to the exclusive benefit a powerful company.

2. That trade secrecy and concepts of patents and protected IP in the broader sense are required in order to maintain a functioning advantage and competitive environment. That particular discussion transcends the bounds of this thread by far, but I'll leave it at this: I don't think that such is necessary, certainly not to the degree that is often claimed (and in fact IP rights can harm innovation and competition).

I absolutely don't agree with enforcement of IP when it begins to clash with the civil rights of individual citizens. Search of a man's home and seizure of his property may be legal by the letter of the criminal statutes, but realistically this is a civil matter (Apple didn't like getting scooped) and should have remained such.

[General Zod]

You're raising two separate points here:

1. That the police should protect Apple's (or really any company's) trade secrets. Regardless of how you or I may feel about that (and personally I'm against it, for reasons I'll get to), the point is that that isn't what was happening here. The police were operating under California's theft laws, not (as far as I'm aware) any laws regarding corporate IP.

The fact that a big company can shift its weight around and get unequal, preferential protection under the same written laws that supposedly protect all citizens is what chaps at me here. The issue with corporations being legally considered people is an undercurrent that I strongly disagree with, especially once it becomes clear that they can achieve preferential treatment.

Your evidence that Apple is getting preferential protection compared to anyone else who has things stolen from them, knows where their property is and can prove it is theirs would be . . . what?

I absolutely don't agree with enforcement of IP when it begins to clash with the civil rights of individual citizens. Search of a man's home and seizure of his property may be legal by the letter of the criminal statutes, but realistically this is a civil matter (Apple didn't like getting scooped) and should have remained such.

So you'd prefer it if Apple sued Gawker out of existence instead? Like the RIAA does to anyone it suspects of piracy?

[ThomasP]

If nobody's home when the cops come to serve any warrant, guess what? They're going to break the fucking door down. It doesn't matter how big or small the crime is when they're serving a warrant. Or would you prefer they waited around for several hours or days in hopes that the suspect they're looking to search happens to come by?

I'm not sure you're paying attention. My point was more to the effect that the warrant should never have been served in the first place.

In addition, your point about serving warrants is incorrect. People are issued warrants for such minor offenses as traffic tickets. Police absolutely do not go breaking down doors over any given warrant, and if they did, they would be rightfully criticized for it. There's such a thing as reasonable and proportional response, which you seem to be completely discounting in this matter.

Incidentally, your first point is retarded. When most people report a theft? They don't know where the fucking thief lives. The police aren't going to go down banging any random door unless they know where to find the stolen property and you can prove that it is indeed, stolen. Also, most phones aren't worth $5,000.

The stolen property wasn't in the house and had previously been returned, for one thing, so I'm not sure what the point of that red herring is.

Additionally, the phone wasn't worth $5000; as far as I know, that's merely what Gizmodo paid the actual "thief" for the phone. It's actual worth is probably far higher, given that Apple places a premium on secrecy; but I've already addressed that point.

I simply don't see how it follows that this response was proportional in light of these circumstances.

Legal, sure. That doesn't make it the correct response.

[ThomasP]

Your evidence that Apple is getting preferential protection compared to anyone else who has things stolen from them, knows where their property is and can prove it is theirs would be . . . what?

If you're asking for concrete claims, I have none unfortunately.

At the same time, I can't think of any instances where a stolen consumer good was purchased second-hand, returned to the owner, and then the purchaser had his home searched and property seized in a raid.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, if this is SOP in small theft situations.

So you'd prefer it if Apple sued Gawker out of existence instead? Like the RIAA does to anyone it suspects of piracy?

I'd prefer it if they used the proper legal channels, instead of subverting the criminal justice system.

[General Zod]

I'm not sure you're paying attention. My point was more to the effect that the warrant should never have been served in the first place.

In addition, your point about serving warrants is incorrect. People are issued warrants for such minor offenses as traffic tickets. Police absolutely do not go breaking down doors over any given warrant, and if they did, they would be rightfully criticized for it. There's such a thing as reasonable and proportional response, which you seem to be completely discounting in this matter.

Serve != issue. Quite frankly you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Additionally, the phone wasn't worth $5000; as far as I know, that's merely what Gizmodo paid the actual "thief" for the phone. It's actual worth is probably far higher, given that Apple places a premium on secrecy; but I've already addressed that point.

So what? The value of the property is whatever the recipient paid for it on top of any tangible value.

I simply don't see how it follows that this response was proportional in light of these circumstances.

Legal, sure. That doesn't make it the correct response.

Exactly what would have been the "proportional" response?

[General Zod]

If you're asking for concrete claims, I have none unfortunately.

At the same time, I can't think of any instances where a stolen consumer good was purchased second-hand, returned to the owner, and then the purchaser had his home searched and property seized in a raid.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, if this is SOP in small theft situations.

I'll take that as a concession since you can't prove shit.

I'd prefer it if they used the proper legal channels, instead of subverting the criminal justice system.

Your proof that Apple did not use the proper legal channels would be . . .?

[ThomasP]

So what? The value of the property is whatever the recipient paid for it on top of any tangible value.

So if I own a car that is valued at $20,000, that car is stolen, and then someone buys it for $5000, the car is worth $5000?

How does that follow?

And why are we talking about this since it's massively irrelevant?

Exactly what would have been the "proportional" response?

Something that wouldn't involve search and seizure of a third party's property, which had nothing to do with retrieving said stolen property, would be a start.

[ThomasP]

I'll take that as a concession since you can't prove shit.

You could take it as a concession, or you could actually think about the point instead of trying to score points.

Your proof that Apple did not use the proper legal channels would be . . .?

The fact that the man in question had his house raided after their property was returned.

[General Zod]

So if I own a car that is valued at $20,000, that car is stolen, and then someone buys it for $5000, the car is worth $5000?

How does that follow?

And why are we talking about this since it's massively irrelevant?

What part of "on top of tangible value" did you not grasp exactly?

Something that wouldn't involve search and seizure of a third party's property, which had nothing to do with retrieving said stolen property, would be a start.

They're already conducting an investigation onto whether or not the response was appropriate anyway. In any case, mountain, molehill, etc.