IPhone HD/4G

[jmc]

I've read over the search warrant multiple times....... and there was no mention of a judge giving the ok for a "No-knock" search warrant. Usually used against high ranking criminals for the purpose of surprise by entry teams.


Someone is about to make some money off a lawsuit against a city.

*popcorn*

[Minions]

Grats to Cali for causing itself to lose even more money. Will be interesting to see how much the state loses in the future lawsuit that is bound to happen.

[GRT]

I've read over the search warrant multiple times....... and there was no mention of a judge giving the ok for a "No-knock" search warrant. Usually used against high ranking criminals for the purpose of surprise by entry teams.


Someone is about to make some money off a lawsuit against a city.

*popcorn*

doesn't seem like they needed one; the guy and his wife weren't home, and the police knocked, said something along the line of "if you don't open now we are breaking down the door" and just broke in

and yes they likely waited until the guy left the house to do this legally, and that's just what they do

[jmc]

doesn't seem like they needed one; the guy and his wife weren't home, and the police knocked, said something along the line of "if you don't open now we are breaking down the door" and just broke in

and yes they likely waited until the guy left the house to do this legally, and that's just what they do

Even then, for the warrant that was presented..... someone needs to be served with it before entry is made.

Esp. before evidence is gathered

Usually instead, they can "Lock down" the premise with police officers until someone arrives...... but the warrant doesn't allow a B&E

[GRT]

again, without a working knowledge of the legal proceedings, what do they do if the family just hide inside and not answer the door?

some people do that against sheriffs coming to repossess their homes on the banks' behalf, and they just break the door hinges and barge in

i mean technically, if you do the "lock down," guy inside can just destroy the evidences and dig a tunnel underground and escape... lol

[jmc]

again, without a working knowledge of the legal proceedings, what do they do if the family just hide inside and not answer the door?

some people do that against sheriffs coming to repossess their homes on the banks' behalf, and they just break the door hinges and barge in

i mean technically, if you do the "lock down," guy inside can just destroy the evidences and dig a tunnel underground and escape... lol

They could lock down the premise, and if they determine someone is unwilling to answer the door or come out they would need to obtain a warrant to forcefully remove them/or forcefully enter the house.

Also note, that if there is a warrant for a house......... and a unlocked door/garage/window they can enter the premise. However, the individual is stating they broke his door.


As for the guy destroying evidence....... if its something like a drug investigation, or something they believe evidence could be destroyed they can issue the "No-Knock" warrants in which its a search warrant normally portrayed on TV. 2 knocks on the door, no answer = forceful entry.

[GRT]

i see

i should watch more law & order

[jmc]

i see

i should watch more law & order

Just watch anything but CSI lol


To back on topic, does anyone think this legal proceeding/leak will have a affect on the release date for this new phone? I know apple is usually set in stone for release dates on electronics...... but it kinda makes you wonder if they will change anything on the phone now, just to still feel "unique" in releasing unknown things

[Tyche]

That was the most lucrative $5,000 investment gawker media has ever made. Between the web attention, ad revenue, and pending lawsuit, they could get their money back hundred-fold.

[Overburn]

That was the most lucrative $5,000 investment gawker media has ever made. Between the web attention, ad revenue, and pending lawsuit, they could get their money back hundred-fold.

Would this fall under profiting off a crime though? Or is that only for direct things like serial killers writing books? I guess even if it would, they can't exactly prove how much of it was due to the Iphone, and I imagine this was just general buzz about the place that can't have a price on it. It'll still suck though is Apple somehow wins this due to their stature.

[Blabj]

Two words: Holy fuckballs.

Mega advertising for both Apple and Giz right there. And delicious epic drama to boot!

[6souls]

Media reaction since Gizmodo can no longer comment on the case;

Earlier today news broke that police had raided Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home in connection with the iPhone leak last week. Authorities obtained a search warrant and removed four computers, two servers, and more. However, in light of claims by Gizmodo’s attorneys that Chen should be protected by California’s Shield Laws, we have just been told that the authorities are not yet looking through this evidence.

I just spoke to Stephen Wagstaffe, Chief Deputy at San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, who told me that nobody has yet been charged in the case, and at this point it is “just an investigation”. He says the investigation is “looking at any hand that touched or had something to do with this phone” but that the investigation is not currently targeting either Gawker or the person who originally found the phone — rather, police are collecting every fact they can to present to the DA, who will then make a decision.

With respect to the removal of Chen’s property, Wagstaffe says that the prosecutor on the case felt that the shield protection laws did not apply, so the raid was executed. However, after Gizmodo’s attorneys suggested some reasons why they believe Chen should be protected, the investigation has come to a bit of a pause. The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry).

When I asked if it was typical for the DA to evaluate the relevance of these shield laws after removing evidence, Wagstaffe did concede that it was unusual. Which makes the situation extremely odd— it should have been readily apparent that Gawker would defend its actions using this shield law defense, why put the brakes on after the fact?

California’s shield laws protect journalists from having to turn over their sources and unpublished information they’ve collected as part of their reporting. However, Gizmodo could be found to have committed a crime when they paid the phone’s finder for the device.

Earlier today Yahoo News pointed out that Apple serves on the steering committee of REACT, a special task force involved with the investigation. Wagstaffe said that Apple played no part in REACT’s inclusion and that he wasn’t even aware that Apple was part of the committee.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/iph...d-law-defense/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet’s leading digital rights advocacy group, has also taken a public position on the search, telling us that California’s search warrant is illegal and should never have been issued. In a phone interview this afternoon, EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick told us: “There are both federal and state laws here in California that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure for their news gathering activities. The federal law is the Privacy Protection Act and the state law is a provision of the penal code and evidence code. It appears that both of those laws may be being violated by this search and seizure.”

Granick said that, even if Jason Chen is under investigation for receipt of stolen property, the government has no right to issue a search warrant, because California law includes exceptions for journalists who are in receipt of information from sources.

“There’s a prohibition that says the government may not seize work product or documentary materials that are possessed in connection with news reporting and then it says that protection does not apply if there’s probable cause to believe the reporter is committing a crime, but then it says that exception to the exception doesn’t apply if the crime that the reporter is being investigated for is receipt of the information,” she said. “Whether or not receiving the iPhone was a criminal matter, the Privacy Protection Act says that you can’t do a search for receipt of that information. I think the idea that looking at the iPhone was unlawful is a real stretch. We don’t know what the claim is for that. I don’t know that that’s what they’re claiming. We don’t know what the situation is. But even if they are saying it was unlawful, the statute appears to say it doesn’t matter. The crime that you’re investigating cannot be receipt of that information or materials.”

Granick said that a gadget like an iPhone fits the definition of “information or materials” and falls under the law’s protection.

The Privacy Protection Act states that ”a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein.”

The state law Granick referred to is California Penal Code section 1524G which states “No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.” And section 1070 of the evidence code states that:

A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

Granick also said that, rather than issuing a search warrant, the court should have issued a subpoena. “The subpoena gives the reporter an opportunity to ask the court to review the request and it also gives the reporter an opportunity to segregate potentially responsive information from private information,” she said. “The search warrant process doesn’t allow for either of those.” Under a subpoena, Chen would be able to not only challenge the government’s request, but also make sure that authorities do not get to look at other information on his The storage device that holds your OS, programs, and data.
Learn Morehard drive such as his banking records or e-mails about other stories.

http://blog.laptopmag.com/eff-lawyer...nd-federal-law
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-raid/

E.F.F. follow-up to the two articles above;

Federal and California law both protect reporters against police searches aimed at uncovering confidential sources or seizing other information developed during newsgathering activities. Yet on Friday, agents with the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) executed a search warrant at Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home, searching for evidence related to Gizmodo's scoop on what appears to be a pre-release version of Apple's next iPhone model. The warrant does not reveal whether Chen himself is considered a criminal suspect, or what alleged crime the police are investigating, but Chen was not arrested. All of his computers and hard drives (among other materials) were seized for further search and analysis.

Under California and federal law, this warrant should never have issued. First, California Penal Code Section 1524(g) provides that "[n]o warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code." Section 1070 is California's reporter's shield provision (which has since been elevated to Article I, § 2(b) of the California Constitution). The items covered by the reporter's shield protections include unpublished information, such as "all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort," if that information was "obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public." The warrant explicitly authorizes the seizure of such protected materials and information, including the photographs and video taken of the iPhone prototype, as well as research regarding the Apple employee who purportedly lost the phone. This fact alone should have stopped this warrant in its tracks.

Second, the warrant likely violates the Privacy Protection Act (or PPA, 42 USC § 2000aa et al.). Congress passed the PPA to ensure special protection for journalists by prohibiting government search and seizure of both "documentary material" (explicitly including photos and video) and "work product material," material which is or has been used "in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public." 42 USC § 2000aa-7(a) and (b). The PPA includes an exception for searches targeting criminal suspects (which Chen may or may not be), but that exception does not apply "if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein." 42 USC § 2000aa(a)(1). Violations of the PPA could render the law enforcement agencies or the individual officers who searched Chen's house liable for damages no less than $1,000.

The purpose of the PPA and state shield law is to prevent police from rummaging through sensitive information contained in a reporter's notes and communications. This search warrant is particularly worrisome on this point because it is so plainly overbroad. An officer seeking a search warrant must demonstrate to the issuing judge both probable cause that a crime was committed and that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the materials sought and searched are relevant to that crime. The warrant issued in the Chen case was remarkably broad, seeking "all records and data located and/or stored on any computers, hard drives, or memory storage devices, located at the listed location." That a computer or hard drive may be capable of storing information relevant to the case is not enough. Unless the warrant application provided a factual basis to tie Chen's computer (and "digital cameras," "display screens," "mice," "cassette tapes," "CD-ROM disks," etc.), any information obtained from them could be thrown out. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court for California and the surrounding states) in its 2009 opinion in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009), identified a series of guildelines meant to ensure that even otherwise lawful warrants authorizing the search and seizure of computers do not give officers too much access to private data that might be intermingled with evidence of a crime. This warrant does not appear to comply with those guidelines.

The police appear to have gone too far. The REACT team, "a partnership of 17 local, state, and federal agencies" with a "close working partnership with the high tech industry," seems to have leapt eagerly to Apple's aid before it looked at the law. Putting the presumed interests of an important local company before the rights guaranteed by law is an obvious occupational hazard for a police force charged with paying particular attention to the interests of high tech businesses. Now that First Amendment lawyers, reporters, and others have highlighted the potential legal improprieties of this search, the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04...arrant-illegal

[6souls]

Also, Google's Andy Rubin takes a pot shot at Apple

At the end of the hourlong chat, I joked with Mr. Rubin that his press relations colleague, who was in the room, wanted to confess that he had left a prototype Android phone at a local bar.

“I’d be happy if that happened and someone wrote about it,” Mr. Rubin said. “With openness comes less secrets.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...thing-android/

[Mamimikun]

Bumping new info released. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/201...ovietvn_r.html