Update : Gizmodo has reported thateditor Jason Chen ’s computer have been seize by the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team , an inter - agency undertaking force base in Silicon Valley that investigates engineering - related offense . Gawker Media ’s lawyers are contesting the search warrant on the ground that the California penal code prohibits the exit of countenance for a journalist ’s belongings in issue bear on to their work .
The Internet went nuclear last week over Gizmodo ’s decision to pay $ 5000 for a next - generation iPhone prototype found in a bar . While many believe the technical school blog ’s decision to give for closelipped technology that clearly did n’t belong to the seller is unethical , the San Mateo County District Attorney ’s office may also weigh in with its own , more significant conclusion : whether or not to charge criminal charges against the marketer , the buyer , or both .
The district attorney could play by early next week , consort to paper inThe New York Timeson Monday andlast week at Cnet , and we ’re not talking about smacking - on - the - wrist misdemeanor charges , either . Under California law , the theft of an item deserving over $ 950 can be prevail a felony and though an average iPhone plainly does n’t cost that much , the fact that Gizmodo paid $ 5000 for the equipment could be used to launch its worth and make felony charges an choice . Gizmodo parent company Gawker MediatoldBusinessWeekon Fridaythat it had not heard from any law enforcement personnel department .
Gizmodo ’s editor in chief , Brian Lam , take that Gizmodo has returned the machine and that the web log “ did n’t know this was stolen when we bought it . ” But California law states that a mortal who uses someone else ’s lost property without permission may be shamed of larceny . Charges are more probable to be filed against the seller of the iPhone , but it ’s all too possible that Gawker Media could also find itself in hot weewee with the law .
