“Are bloggers journalists? I guess we’ll find out,”

[RWebb]

He appears to be the victim of an illegal search & seizure.

Do you really want the cops to be able to bust in your front door if you accept & write about something someone else found and gave to you??

Even if Chen was not given the phone by someone who found it (i.e the 3rd party stole it) should a warrant have issued to bust in and search his home??

[Moses]

Originally Posted by RWebb

He appears to be the victim of an illegal search & seizure.

Do you really want the cops to be able to bust in your front door if you accept & write about something someone else found and gave to you??

Even if Chen was not given the phone by someone who found it (i.e the 3rd party stole it) should a warrant have issued to bust in and search his home??

Kinda standard when you're accused of receiving stolen property. He KNEW he was buying property that didn't belong to the seller. Is this a tricky concept? Really?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RWebb

He appears to be the victim of an illegal search & seizure.

Do you really want the cops to be able to bust in your front door if you accept & write about something someone else found and you purchased from him for 10x's retail value of currently available model??

Even if Chen was not given the phone by someone who found it (i.e the 3rd party stole it) should a warrant have issued to bust in and search his home??

He is a willing accomplice to the sale of stolen property. Do you think he paid 5 large for it without knowing what it was?

I have no sympathy for him.

I was involved in a business transaction where the other party requested a concession far in excess of what was legally allowed.

The likelihood of getting tagged for it was pretty insignificant.

On advice of my attorney I killed the deal as I would have been aiding in the commission of a fraudulent act. Considering the fraudulent portion of the deal was 6 figures I'm sure it would have carried felony penalties.

He either got some pretty bad legal advice or chose to ignore it and take the risk.

[RWebb]

"when you're accused"
"willing accomplice"

- you guys are missing something - it is called probable cause & is enshrined in the Constitution

there is a tiny tiny chance that the cops somehow had probable cause but I'd REALLY like to see the evidence

[enzo1]

his computer may have the evidence your looking for..... what if the guy next to him slipped him a "ghb" beer...... remember Gizmodo offered 100,000$$ for 1 hour with an Ipad before it was launched, how many $$$ have they made off of this, the prototype had a plastic case over it, that looked pretty hard to get off

[Moses]

Originally Posted by RWebb

"
- you guys are missing something - it is called probable cause & is enshrined in the Constitution

there is a tiny tiny chance that the cops somehow had probable cause but I'd REALLY like to see the evidence

WTF???

He posted a video of himself dissecting property that he bought from someone he KNEW was not the owner.

No probable cause? Really? REALLY???

[RWebb]

yeh - REALLY

he lives in the US - we have a Constitution here

where the F do you live???

[Moses]

Originally Posted by RWebb

yeh - REALLY

he lives in the US - we have a Constitution here

where the F do you live???

Appearing in a video in possession of illegally obtained property is "probable cause" that a crime has been committed.

I'd ask you to think carefully before you respond but I don't want you to hurt yourself.

[RWebb]

it is amazing how many legal and factual errors you can compress into a single sentence

[enzo1]

actually the REAT team has not opened the computers up because Gizmodo is saying it is protected by the "Journalist' confidentiality clause, so before anything can be looked at do they fall under that... I say no, but I was just trying to get differing views on if bloggers are in fact journalist and protected http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/04/26/daily36.html

[island911]

Originally Posted by island911

If the Gizmo guys were evil they would have sold it to HTC or Google. ....actually, wait. ....That would have been ripping-off HTC or Google, as the new iPhone had no notable tech of value to HTC. ...and styling like a HP Slate.

Originally Posted by Schumi

They may just have well of..

they took the thing apart and posted every detail about it on their website.

.....

So, you think that the hardware is what makes an iPhone?


Anyway, here's the list of observations from gizmo guys...

• Front-facing video chat camera
• Improved regular back-camera (the lens is quite noticeably larger than the iPhone 3GS)
• Camera flash
• Micro-SIM instead of standard SIM (like the iPad)
• Improved display. It's unclear if it's the 960x640 display thrown around before—it certainly looks like it, with the "Connect to iTunes" screen displaying much higher resolution than on a 3GS.
• What looks to be a secondary mic for noise cancellation, at the top, next to the headphone jack
• Split buttons for volume
• Power, mute, and volume buttons are all metallic


Again, they didn't divulge any killer features about the product. Just that the iPhone is FINALLY getting some features that so many other phones have had for some time now.

Oh wait . .this JUST in... the new iPhone has a special, customizable, voice activated vibe-mode --to control, fanboys just yell; yes Apple YES!!! . .. yes YES YES!!!

[enzo1]

island: "My HTC TouchPro 2 " yes yes yes...... HAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO what a 'piece'

[Jamikest]

Buying known stolen property- how does that protect a journalist?

That may/may not be the case, but I bet that is how they acquired the subpoena!

Even a journalist is not protected if they did something illegal to acquire the source/story/whatever!

[enzo1]

I agree

[island911]

Originally Posted by enzo1

island: "My HTC TouchPro 2 " yes yes yes...... HAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO what a 'piece'

holey non-sequitur batman

[enzo1]

[idontknow]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

You need some exposure to a higher class of people.

in a higher class of bars...

[Moses]

Originally Posted by RWebb

- you guys are missing something - it is called probable cause & is enshrined in the Constitution

there is a tiny tiny chance that the cops somehow had probable cause but I'd REALLY like to see the evidence

I expressed your concerns to my next door neighbor tonight. She's the District Attorney. She laughed. A lot.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by enzo1

actually the REAT team has not opened the computers up because Gizmodo is saying it is protected by the "Journalist' confidentiality clause, so before anything can be looked at do they fall under that... I say no, but I was just trying to get differing views on if bloggers are in fact journalist and protected Apple asked for 'lost' iPhone criminal probe - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:

I think that clearly bloggers are journalists.

They are the 21st century newspapers.

Originally Posted by Moses

I expressed your concerns to my next door neighbor tonight. She's the District Attorney. She laughed. A lot.

What do you expect?

District attorneys think everyone is guilty.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally Posted by Moses

Kinda standard when you're accused of receiving stolen property. He KNEW he was buying property that didn't belong to the seller. Is this a tricky concept? Really?

Yup, and then he admitted as such that he went on to pick it apart and document it once he determined it was in fact a real Apple product, before he returned it.