Remember Godwin’s Law?

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

…but sometimes contracted to: ‘The first person to mention Hitler or the Nazis in an online argument loses’

Here’s a nice reference in a comment thread on the TUAW post I linked to earlier re the lost-found-stolen 4G iPhone fiasco…

balls said 6:25PM on 4-26-2010

Most of the commenters are missing the point.

Apple is essentially using their influence to seek punitive damages against Gizmodo for essentially providing information on a secret product.

If you want to boil this down into an oversimplified argument of “theft” and punishment, then it’s simple:

A $300 phone was stolen. The police know who received the property; there is no cause for search and seizure.

The punishment must fit the crime. The bill of rights protects this, as well as protects against unlawful search and seizure. Chen wasn’t arrested. The police had no cause to seize all his computers. If he was guilty of receiving stolen property, then he should have been arrested.

Put it another way; say you knowingly buy a stolen cellphone (ie what most of you are accusing Giz of doing). Does the police have the authority to break into your house and seize your computers, cameras, and other electronic devices? For a single stolen phone?

Apple is using their influence to to get the police department to use strong arm tactics to scare bloggers.

Think about it, what police department has time to follow up on a stolen phone? Ever have your car stolen? Did the police send a massive police effort to recover it?

Whatever side of the story you land on (Giz was right/wrong), these Gestapo tactics should be fought tooth and nail.

And a response I happen to agree with on the issues that matter to me.

Farmboy said 6:52PM on 4-26-2010

No, in reality pretty much every comment of yours is “missing the point.”

| Apple is essentially using their influence to seek punitive damages against Gizmodo for essentially providing information on a secret product.

No, the local police are enforcing the law. You have a problem with the concept of “rule of law?”

| If you want to boil this down into an oversimplified argument of “theft” and punishment, then it’s simple: A $300 phone was stolen. The police know who received the property; there is no cause for search and seizure.

By their own admission Gizmodo paid $5000 for the stolen phone. Buying stolen goods is a crime in California (and most other places).

| The punishment must fit the crime. The bill of rights protects this, as well as protects against unlawful search and seizure. Chen wasn’t arrested. The police had no cause to seize all his computers. If he was guilty of receiving stolen property, then he should have been arrested.

No one has mentioned punishment; the police had a search warrant; Chen doesn’t need to be arrested for the police to execute the warrant; and the warrant gave them the right to seize the computers. Chen hasn’t been convicted of anything, therefore he isn’t guilty. What the police were doing was a thing called gathering evidence. It’s more of that due process thing.

| Put it another way; say you knowingly buy a stolen cellphone (ie what most of you are accusing Giz of doing). Does the police have the authority to break into your house and seize your computers, cameras, and other electronic devices? For a single stolen phone?

Put it this way: yes.

| Apple is using their influence to to get the police department to use strong arm tactics to scare bloggers.

No, the police are following due process to investigate a crime.

| Think about it, what police department has time to follow up on a stolen phone? Ever have your car stolen? Did the police send a massive police effort to recover it?

When the buyers of the stolen goods confess repeatedly and publicly, the answer is: all police departments have the time.

| Whatever side of the story you land on (Giz was right/wrong), these Gestapo tactics should be fought tooth and nail.

And you Godwin out. Fail.

I’m a journalist but I wouldn’t expect the ‘shield laws’ — do they even exist in NZ? Arguable. Plenty of journos have been found in contempt of court for not revealing sources — to protect me if I bought stolen property.

That’s different to getting leaked information — including the suitcase of Blue Chip documents Olly Newland was offered during our work together on BC. That ended up in the Serious Fraud Office’s hands (without any sought-for payment to the ‘source’).