Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Apr 2010 23:11 UTC, submitted by UglyKidBill
Legal Well, this is unexpected. The iPhone 4G saga just got a whole lot crazier - dare I say it, a whole lot more ridiculous. Have you ever reported anything like a phone or something similarly small stolen to the police? What was their reaction? Did you ever get the device back? Did they send an army of officers to get your device back? No? Odd. They raided Jason Chen's house, and took four computers and two servers. Update: And thus our true colours reveal. "The raid that San Mateo area cops conducted last week on the house of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen came at the behest of a special multi-agency task force that was commissioned to work with the computer industry to tackle high-tech crimes. And Apple Inc. sits on the task force's steering committee." Update II: According to TechCrunch, the investigation has been put on hold while the DA ponders Gizmodo's shield defence. Update III: Some legal insight from a constitutional law and first amendment expert and a law professor. The gist? The DA has said no one has been charged with anything here, making this just an investigation - however, this makes the search and seizing of material worse. "If the police are literally just gathering information, with no suspect targeted yet, then a subpoena against a journalist would have probably been smarter than a search warranted that resulted in the front door of Chen's home being bashed in."
Permalink for comment 420993
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Warning Across the Bows
by targetnovember on Tue 27th Apr 2010 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Warning Across the Bows"
targetnovember
Member since:
2010-04-27

Can trade secrets economically improve thousands of people's lives through increased business, tax revenue, share prices, and jobs? Losing trade secrets can be bad for lots of people. Losing one person's data on a phone is bad for one person.

I think both cases, the law tries to provide equal protection. Stealing a person's data is as illegal as stealing a company's data. So the hard question comes from allocating finite resources, and politically, I think it's defensible to do what results in the largest benefit first. One person's computer getting hacked will likely not result in anything. A bank getting hacked and having millions of people's information stolen should.

You could argue a company's profits should be less important than an individual's data . . . but from the viewpoint of the government, it might not be. As long as identity theft and such is always something that happens to "someone else" and businesses cay say "we're losing $$$", I don't think there will be enough social pressure to change priorities.

Reply Parent Score: 1