Steve Streza posted a six-point rundown on Twitter of the facts revealed in the newly-unsealed warrant for the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home(PDF).
1. Warrant was issued in a felony investigation.
2. Apple confirmed the device was theirs.
3. Gizmodo ruined the prototype.
4. The finder used his roommate’s computer to sync without permission, and she contacted Apple fearing criminal repercussions.
5. According to [Apple engineer Gray] Powell, he put the phone in his bag, which was possibly knocked over.
6. Finder knew of investigation and removed evidence.
7. The guy who helped finder remove evidence had TWO outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
8. Apple had prototype when Chen’s house was raided.
9. As far as I can tell, there was nothing in the warrant suggesting Apple asked REACT for a raid of Chen’s house.
The guy who took the phone was actually offered $10’000 for it by Gizmodo. Apparently he’ll get more money once Apple actually announces the phone. Also, he and one of his roommates evidently grabbed as much information as they could— they hid, and subsequently turned over to police, a computer, a USB thumb drive, and a 1GB flash card. Now why would they be keeping that around, eh? Perhaps some more money-making schemes?
Related: Gizmodo paid him with a shoe-box full of $100 bills. That doesn’t sound in the least bit fishy does it?
Chen is being investigated on three charges it seems: Buying stolen property, theft of trade secrets, and malicious damage to property. Of those, the first two are absolutely clear-cut as far as I can see. On the third, malicious damage may be difficult to prove, but it was certainly ass-tastic to take the phone apart such that it became totally broken. Not clever at all. It’s as if no-one figured that these early prototypes were manufactured at great cost, largely by hand.
Their whole argument seemed to be “journalists are allowed to publish trade secrets, even if we have a full understanding of the damage such publication would cause”. They figured that (somewhat shaky) assertion carried over to receipt of private property which happened to embody said secrets. Sadly this is not the case.
The moral of the story? Information might be free, but physical property most certainly is NOT. Do not treat one like the other.
