I make no secret I enjoy Apple products. I got into Apple products after my experience with my first iPod and deciding that I was tired of feeling like I was still at work when I was home.  All the maintenance and effort to keep Windows based products working efficiently was too much like my day job. Most of the time Apple products just work for how I use them. Sure like any product made by humans Apple can have design issues.  Like any electronic device it will fail at some point in time.  With that said I am an information security professional.  I also spent several years out of college in loss prevention.  I am not a lawyer but clearly I have strong feelings on this whole situation.  And here they are.  

Recently a number of tech journalist sites pushed to get the documents from the Apple/Gizmodo affair released.  Specifically in relation to why Jason Chen's equipment was seized.  They have been all upset saying he is protected as a journalist from having his systems and data examined by authorities. They wanted to see in the documents how horrible the authorities are and how this abused Jason Chen and First Amendment protection he should have been enjoying.

In this case Gawker media has made no secret of their brand of checkbook journalism.  People like to say poor Gizmodo just paid for the right to examine the device.  Excuse me?  The RIGHT?  Brian Hogan was not the owner.  He KNEW he was not the owner.  Gizmodo could not reasonably doubt Brian Hogan was not the owner.  It was not his right of examination to sell.   There is no way anyone at the level of knowledge of Gizmodo or even most tech bloggers could not recognize the device was legitimate within minutes.   After all no one parts with that much cash on a maybe.  They took a look, they handed over cash and Brian Hogan handed over the device.  So lets look at that again.  Cash was exchanged for possession of the device that was clearly not the property of either party.  That is not selling a RIGHT of examination.  That is selling the device.

CNet has a good bit of coverage in the article titled "Apple spurred police in iPhone probe."  No kidding.  Their property went missing.  Brian Hogan had more than enough time to comply with California law and turn it over to the police.  Instead he set out to sell it.  Gizmodo then had it for more than enough time to turn it over to police per California law.  Steve Jobs asked Gizmodo for the device back.  Gizmodo refused to turn over what they publicly claimed was Apple's property.  They sure didn't say, sorry, now we are sure its not our property we'll go turn it over to the police in accordance with California law.  Then they can confirm its yours.  They demanded something from Apple before they would hand it over directly.  To me that sure sounds like ransom.

Apple has every right to report to police what is clearly gone beyond a lost to a stolen and then ransomed property. Of course they spurred police.  Just as if someone mugs you, breaks into your house etc you are going to report it to spur the authorities into doing something about it.

So the whole point I am trying to make?  All those tech journalists with their fur ruffled over Jason Chen.  Steve Jobs asked for the return of the device on April 19th.  Gizmodo replied electronically with their ransom demand for a device they knowingly paid to get possession of from someone clearly did not have the right to sell it.  You don't get a call from a large company CEO as a joke.  The very fact he contacted you tells you that it's real.  Gizmodo was even making it clear they thought it was Apple's property in their coverage.  The authorities seized James Chen's systems On April 23rd.  Big surprise. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the systems have evidence critical to showing motives. On April 22nd the roommate reported to authorities that Brian Hogan was attempting to get rid of electronic evidence.  So is it any surprise they moved the next day to preserve all other digital evidence from potential destruction, loss or tampering? Additionally it provides a second validation point of any information they find on the recovered evidence Brian Hogan was attempting to get rid of.

I say this to all the tech journalists who were getting all high ground about the seizure being a violation of the First Amendment.  Every action taken by Brian Hogan and Gizmodo quacks like the duck of a violation of California Law when you look at the timeline and the clearly both parties knew it was not their property.  Look at the attitude of Brian Hogan about the loss of the phone.  Look at the reply to Steve Jobs by Gizmodo.  It is all clearly showing motive of both of them. The timeline shows the authorities had valid concerns for the evidence of violation of California law when they seized Jason Chen's systems.  Look into that ethical abyss and hope you don't blink.  

Personally, I prefer the wait and see the facts attitude of real tech journalists like Andy Ihnatko and Clayton Morris.