It seems like Gizmodo could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had acted in a somewhat professional manner. They could have easily examined the device, taken it apart and re-assembled it, and returned it to Apple, and <i>then</i> published the story without revealing that they had paid $5k for it and without revealing the identity of the guy who lost it (the justification of which still mystifies me, at least in the manner in which they did it).<p>At any rate, I wonder if the shield law coming into play now is more related to weather or not they feel they can legally extract information from the equipment rather than weather or not it was legal for Gizmodo to purchase the device, or for the "finder" to sell it. IANAL, of course.
This iPhone raid is a reminder that only the government has the legal monopoly on trespassing, breaking-and-entering, and theft -- which are <i>functionally</i> equivalent to this raid & confiscate operation. These monopolies are in addition to those on kidnapping (arrest, imprisonment) and murder (executions, military actions).<p>But... do not be alarmed.
<i>The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry).</i><p>So a guy finds a $5000 phone in a bar, sells it to the media, has the media look at it, and then returns it to its owner. The state, in an effort to prevent others from doing this, breaks into the writer's house, takes $5000+ worth of his property, are going to look at it for a few days, and then they'll return it.<p>I smiled.