We'll see how this pans out regarding the "press" and whether the press can "get away" with stuff like this, especially when it deals with a violation of California law. This will be an interesting case ... for sure ... :-)
by Jason Kincaid on Apr 26, 2010
Wow. Last week, Gizmodo published a massive scoop when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant.
Gawker’s COO Gaby Darbyshire responded to the actions by citing California Penal Code 1524(g), which states that “no warrant shall issue for any items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code”, which protects information obtained in protection of a news organization. Darbyshire also points out that the California Court of Appeal has previously found that these protections apply to online journalists (O’Grady v. Superior Court).
In Gizmodo’s post, Chen recounts last night’s events. Chen wasn’t home when the raid began, and came home after officers had already been in his house for hours. Chen’s door was broken open because he wasn’t home to open it. He wasn’t arrested, but police seized external hard drives, four computers, two servers, phones, and more.
The document detailing what police intended to seize refers to Apple’s “prototype 4G iPhone” and is also referred to as “stolen” (Gizmodo has contended that the device was found in a bar, not stolen). Also note that all of this went down on Friday night, and Gizmodo didn’t say anything until today.
Here’s Chen’s full account, via Gizmodo:
Here's an interesting post, from a reader, on this news story ... it's further on down the page ...
D-Rock Says:
April 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but I do have a journalism degree, and I’m pretty sure there are some limits to most shield laws. Also, I’m fairly certain that felony theft is not protected.
Here’s my question. Should gadget blogging be afforded the same protections of other traditional journalists?
This whole sorry episode is about a company’s prototype product that was either lost or stolen, and when it was found or “found” it was not returned to the rightful owner, as prescribed by local law. Then this private property was exposed to the world by a blog. This is not about government or public info. It was not about uncovering any legal or ethical wrongdoing by Apple. It was about covering Apple’s possibly stolen private property that they had chosen not to share with the public at the time. How was the public interest or public good served by exposing this product? Is your life somehow better now that you know about it? Did it enhance society in any way?
Mr. Chen may still avoid charges because of the shield laws. The police are probably collecting information to see if he can or should be charged with a crime. They’re also probably seeking the identity of the gentleman who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.
Who’s within their rights here? I don’t know. Obviously I think Gizmodo may have crossed the line in this story. I hate to seem them rewarded for their behavior with the money they made from all the traffic to their site. However, I’d hate to seem them as the martyr too.