Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

Why is this a "computer crime"? What details would be different if this was a used box of condoms instead of an iPhone prototype?

View on HN

Were they prototype condoms that are not publicly available? If so not much other than the condoms don't hold electronic data (assuming they aren't super revolutionary).

So things that could be illegal here:

1. The product may have been taken without permission off apple property.

2. The device could have sensitive "trade secret" data on it. The person who lost the device is certainly under NDA, therefore the information on the device did not lose this status.

3. The device being a prototype may actually constitute trade secret worthy status.

In both 2 and 3 paying for the device could constitute industrial espionage for commercial purposes, depending on the circumstances.

4. Just because the person who sold it to Gizmodo claims to have found it in a bar does not mean he did not steal it himself, with or without collusion from the apple guy.

There are many more potential crimes in this scenario.

As for what warrants it being investigated by the computer crimes folks: it is a high tech device and most of the players involved are high tech folks. It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). The computer crimes folks are most likely to be able to trace that stuff down.

It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s).

Wouldn't this be true of any crime?

It could be, but with a blog it's a virtual certainty. Gizmodo doesn't publish their office phone number, for one thing.

Interesting.

Next week on HN, jrockway explains why Gizmodo should have used PGP :)

I suspect that sophocles mentioned this only as a suggestion as to why this is being investigated by REACT (they are equipped to investigate it), but not so much as a reason why it might be considered a "computer crime".

"...a multi-jurisdictional team that combines resources and specific investigative skills..."

From their "About Us" page: http://www.reacttf.org/10701.html

It looks like the notion of a "computer crime" is pretty broad. I suppose it's possible that the intent to disseminate ill-gotten trade secrets via one's blog for profit could make the purchase of stolen goods qualify in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_crime

> It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). The computer crimes folks are most likely to be able to trace that stuff down.

With most of the younger generation texting, emailing and twittering now-a-days, are you implying that all gang-related crimes are also investigated by the 'computer crimes folks?'

Are you also implying that the police don't bother to track down text messages, emails or 'tweets' for other crimes? Or are all crimes handled by the 'computer crimes folks?'

It's reasonable for this resource to be assigned to an incident of this nature and magnitude. Is it not?

This incident being a phone who some Apple fanboys claims to be stolen, not lost, I'd say a most definite "no".

I think you've failed to capture he essence of the incident. Try this:

http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secr...

How to 'trade secrets' translate to 'computer crime?' If I steal the blueprints for the 'better mousetrap,' then does it become a 'computer crime' because I'm liable to stealing trade secrets?

I don't follow you: Is someone claiming that trade secrets imply computer crime?

The strongest claim that I see is that REACT is an appropriate resource to assign.

Do you see anything about REACT that implies otherwise? http://www.reacttf.org/10701.html

It says on the bottom of their front page that they investigate trade secret matters: http://www.reacttf.org/2101.html

Why harp on the phrase "computer crime" in the first place? I don't see it mentioned on the REACT site at all. It appears to have been an oversimplification invented by a journalist and propagated here by jrockway's question.

From TFA: REACT, which stands for Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, and was established in 1997 with a goal of working closely with Bay Area technology companies.

I don't see anything about a "computer crime", only mention of a department established for working with Bay Area technology companies working with a Bay Area technology company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com