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."
Thread beginning with comment 420993
To view parent comment, click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


At the risk of repeating myself...

Patents? Copyrights? Trademarks? NDAs? Those together (with money) offer more than enough protection and legal handles for companies.

Edited 2010-04-27 13:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

targetnovember Member since:
2010-04-27

Then maybe I misunderstand your point. I thought you were asking why corporations get unequal preference from the government in investigating crimes, and I offered a company's larger impact on the community than one individual as a plausible reason why a government would choose that.

Patents are totally different from copyright . . . which is totally different from trademarks, and which are totally different from NDAs. Aren't individuals also offered the legal protections of copyright, patents, trademarks, and NDAs?? And aren't those all civil matters, while this was a criminal case?

Reply Parent Score: 1

fanboi_fanboi Member since:
2010-04-21

Patents? Copyrights? Trademarks? NDAs? Those together (with money) offer more than enough protection and legal handles for companies.


Um, hello? How do you *enforce* those things? Could it be in the realm of possibility that you need to call in law enforcement to ... I don't know ... *ENFORCE LAWS*?

Please take a break and eat some pannenkoeken, and repost.

Reply Parent Score: 0