| Rath said: Shield laws should undeniably have protected the journalists stuff from being raided (requires a subpoena rather than a search warrant when its dealing with a case of journalism with a source like this) which is the DA's fuck up I guess. Also I find it a bit dodgy that the police unit (a high tech crimes unit) that raided the house has got Apple as part of the steering committee. Hopefully turns out to be coincidence. |
You're assuming that the computers were taken to investigate the 'finder' of the phone. Buying stolen property is a crime in CA, and shield laws are a lot murkier when the journalist is the one being investigated.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/can-gizmodo-win-the-iphone-legal-battle/
If a judge ends up agreeing with the EFF on this, just imagine all the fun things that bloggers could do inside their own homes without having to worry about the police showing up. Doesn't seem practical to me in a world where anybody with a computer and an internet connection can become a 'journalist.'
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
