I hope they can nail Gizmodo for something. I’m tired of their shtick. Its a bit petty, I know, but Gizmodo takes this unbearably snarky tone to life, a kind of “what the heck, we live in the internet work, so we’ll release ALL THE SALACIOUS DETAILS!!!!” Like the outing of that Apple engineer. They didn’t have to do that to the level they did.
David K.
They’ve done a number of things before this that were pretty sleazy but nothing like this. I hope they get whats coming to them.
Gizmodo’s deffense is that Chen is a journalist therefore what he did was ok.
Isn’t that like saying “sure I stole this car, but it was for a story officer!”
Brendan Loy
[Caveat: I only skimmed the link.]
No David, it’s NOT like saying that, because Gizmodo ISN’T saying “that Chen is a journalist therefore what he did was ok.” They’re saying “he’s a journalist therefore you can’t seize his computer under California law.” And you know what, as best as I can recall from my journalism education at USC, they’re absolutely right. California has a strong shield law that’s supposed to prevent this sort of thing, for obvious reasons. Even if a journalist did something wrong, it’s a serious problem for police and prosecutors to be able to go digging around in their hard drives, potentially uncovering all sorts of protected, confidential information that the journalist agreed to keep secret. It has a HUGE chilling effect on legitimate reporting, even when the ostensible target is perhaps arguably illegitimate reporting.
I realize Gizmodo-gate hardly rises to the level of Watergate, but imagine if Woodward and Bernstein, at the same time they were investigating Watergate, had ALSO gotten their hands on a prototype electronic device of some sort, under shady circumstances, and had done a piece on it, triggering a police investigation… and imagine the police had used that as justification to take their computer and search it (I’m being anachronistic, I know, but follow me on the concept)… thus discovering who Deep Throat was, what the Washington Post was about to publish, etc. That’s precisely why this law exists: to prevent the authorities from being able to pry into journalists’ unpublished work product.
(If you prefer, take my example in reverse. What if Jason Chen, when he’s not deconstructing stolen prototype phones, is also working on a serious investigative piece into, oh I don’t know, corruption at the FCC or something. Now the police are going to find that information on his computer, including perhaps his top-secret sources and so forth. Because he’s a journalist, and because the shield law exists, he’s not supposed to need to live in fear of that sort of thing.)
I have no sympathy for Gizmodo on the broader issue (I’ve come around to basically your position on it, albeit with somewhat less visceral outrage), but the idea of police busting into journalists’ homes — no matter how sleazy the journalist — and seizing computers, in violation of the law, is terrifying, and is not something you or anyone else should support.
David K.
Sorry but if thats the way the law really is, its f-ed up. Chen broke the law, he shouldnt’ be shielded because he works for a blog site. If the law wants to protect his journalistic sources fine, but they should be able to seize AND USE any evidence relating to his criminal theft. It would bother me more that a journalist could use this law to shield himself from any crime than on the off chance the police happened to find a watergate level conspiracy on his computer while investigating. Given that the warrant wouldn’t pretain to that information, seems like that would still be protected right?
Hmm, interesting. I suppose that makes sense. We’ll have to wait and see how this all develops to figure out whether the police violated (or skirted) the law here.
The federal newsroom search law known as the Privacy Protection Act is broader. It says that even journalists suspected of committing a crime are immune from searches–if, that is, the crime they’re suspected of committing relates to the “receipt” or “possession” of illegal materials. (Two exceptions to this are national security and child pornography.)
Also note, re: your hyperbole-filled statement that “a journalist could use this law to shield himself from any crime,” note:
“It is abundantly clear under the law that a search warrant to remove these items was invalid. The appropriate method of obtaining such materials would be the issuance of a subpoena,” Ms. Darbyshire continued.
Journalist shield laws do not immunize journalists from prosecution for crimes. They merely impose additional burdens on law enforcement in its collection of evidence, in recognition of the necessary balance between necessary police investigative powers, on the one hand, and journalistic prerogatives (and, at least tangentially, First Amendment freedom of the press), on the other. Frankly, David, I think you’re letting your feelings about Gizmodo get in the way of clear-headed analysis here. Imagine some government authority you don’t like, enforcing a policy you don’t approve of, behaving the same way, and perhaps journalist shield laws will seem a bit less like the problem.
Defending rights and liberties frequently requires defending detestable people. Historically, that has included racists, pornographers and overzealous political radicals, to name a few. While the facts are not totally clear yet, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if “sleazy tech bloggers” gets added to that list. But don’t let the personalities influence your judgment. It’s not about Gizmodo, it’s about government power and freedom of the press.
David K.
Volokh disagrees and points to precedent in California that journalists are not protected when the investigation involves crimes they themselves are involved in:
I’m not opposed to journalist sheild laws in general, in general i am in favor of them, even for sites like Drudge or Gizmodo. If Gizmodo had merely paid for pictures of the phone for example, i’d still think they were sleazebags based on various behaviors but I wouldn’t think they should be prosecuted and punished. What I AM opposed to is the idea that the spirit of a shield law is such that it would protect a journalist who commits a crime, such as in this case, purchasing stolen goods.
And I will absolutely admit to some schadenfreude over Gizmodo potentially getting some Karmic payback for the boorish, childish, and outright mean behavior over the years. But I don’t think that changes the fact that they are, if facts are as they seem to be, guilty.
Criminal investigation is launched into Gizmodo’s acquisition of prototype iPhone
Da-da-dunnnnn!!!
I hope they can nail Gizmodo for something. I’m tired of their shtick. Its a bit petty, I know, but Gizmodo takes this unbearably snarky tone to life, a kind of “what the heck, we live in the internet work, so we’ll release ALL THE SALACIOUS DETAILS!!!!” Like the outing of that Apple engineer. They didn’t have to do that to the level they did.
They’ve done a number of things before this that were pretty sleazy but nothing like this. I hope they get whats coming to them.
Looks like its moving forward too:
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor Jason Chen’s Computers
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/
Gizmodo’s deffense is that Chen is a journalist therefore what he did was ok.
Isn’t that like saying “sure I stole this car, but it was for a story officer!”
[Caveat: I only skimmed the link.]
No David, it’s NOT like saying that, because Gizmodo ISN’T saying “that Chen is a journalist therefore what he did was ok.” They’re saying “he’s a journalist therefore you can’t seize his computer under California law.” And you know what, as best as I can recall from my journalism education at USC, they’re absolutely right. California has a strong shield law that’s supposed to prevent this sort of thing, for obvious reasons. Even if a journalist did something wrong, it’s a serious problem for police and prosecutors to be able to go digging around in their hard drives, potentially uncovering all sorts of protected, confidential information that the journalist agreed to keep secret. It has a HUGE chilling effect on legitimate reporting, even when the ostensible target is perhaps arguably illegitimate reporting.
I realize Gizmodo-gate hardly rises to the level of Watergate, but imagine if Woodward and Bernstein, at the same time they were investigating Watergate, had ALSO gotten their hands on a prototype electronic device of some sort, under shady circumstances, and had done a piece on it, triggering a police investigation… and imagine the police had used that as justification to take their computer and search it (I’m being anachronistic, I know, but follow me on the concept)… thus discovering who Deep Throat was, what the Washington Post was about to publish, etc. That’s precisely why this law exists: to prevent the authorities from being able to pry into journalists’ unpublished work product.
(If you prefer, take my example in reverse. What if Jason Chen, when he’s not deconstructing stolen prototype phones, is also working on a serious investigative piece into, oh I don’t know, corruption at the FCC or something. Now the police are going to find that information on his computer, including perhaps his top-secret sources and so forth. Because he’s a journalist, and because the shield law exists, he’s not supposed to need to live in fear of that sort of thing.)
I have no sympathy for Gizmodo on the broader issue (I’ve come around to basically your position on it, albeit with somewhat less visceral outrage), but the idea of police busting into journalists’ homes — no matter how sleazy the journalist — and seizing computers, in violation of the law, is terrifying, and is not something you or anyone else should support.
Sorry but if thats the way the law really is, its f-ed up. Chen broke the law, he shouldnt’ be shielded because he works for a blog site. If the law wants to protect his journalistic sources fine, but they should be able to seize AND USE any evidence relating to his criminal theft. It would bother me more that a journalist could use this law to shield himself from any crime than on the off chance the police happened to find a watergate level conspiracy on his computer while investigating. Given that the warrant wouldn’t pretain to that information, seems like that would still be protected right?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/26/blodget-shield-law
Hmm, interesting. I suppose that makes sense. We’ll have to wait and see how this all develops to figure out whether the police violated (or skirted) the law here.
Hmm…
Also note, re: your hyperbole-filled statement that “a journalist could use this law to shield himself from any crime,” note:
Journalist shield laws do not immunize journalists from prosecution for crimes. They merely impose additional burdens on law enforcement in its collection of evidence, in recognition of the necessary balance between necessary police investigative powers, on the one hand, and journalistic prerogatives (and, at least tangentially, First Amendment freedom of the press), on the other. Frankly, David, I think you’re letting your feelings about Gizmodo get in the way of clear-headed analysis here. Imagine some government authority you don’t like, enforcing a policy you don’t approve of, behaving the same way, and perhaps journalist shield laws will seem a bit less like the problem.
Defending rights and liberties frequently requires defending detestable people. Historically, that has included racists, pornographers and overzealous political radicals, to name a few. While the facts are not totally clear yet, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if “sleazy tech bloggers” gets added to that list. But don’t let the personalities influence your judgment. It’s not about Gizmodo, it’s about government power and freedom of the press.
Volokh disagrees and points to precedent in California that journalists are not protected when the investigation involves crimes they themselves are involved in:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-Apple
I’m not opposed to journalist sheild laws in general, in general i am in favor of them, even for sites like Drudge or Gizmodo. If Gizmodo had merely paid for pictures of the phone for example, i’d still think they were sleazebags based on various behaviors but I wouldn’t think they should be prosecuted and punished. What I AM opposed to is the idea that the spirit of a shield law is such that it would protect a journalist who commits a crime, such as in this case, purchasing stolen goods.
And I will absolutely admit to some schadenfreude over Gizmodo potentially getting some Karmic payback for the boorish, childish, and outright mean behavior over the years. But I don’t think that changes the fact that they are, if facts are as they seem to be, guilty.