The problem in both cases is the absence of any standards governing the exercise of the prosecutor's and investigator's discretion. The appearance of impropriety in both cases magnifies the problem.
If REACT wants to make it a high priority to issue subpoenas to recover information from third parties that might relate to someone else's wrongful possession of a phone for a brief amount of time, then so be it. Last I read they were focused on major counterfeit software operations.
At the moment, though, it appears REACT suddenly developed a zeal for prosecuting a trivial offense merely because the offense is high profile and involved an influential victim. That's a problem, and it's the same problem in the Gonzales case: the improper exercise of discretion. The public is entitled to know how and why REACT is utilizing its limited resources.
Selectively enforcing high-profile offenses is a valid strategy if you want the increased awareness to be used as a dissuader for similar offenses, so, I understand when the prosecution wants to be "overzealous" when it comes to a valuable prototype.
Having said that, what happened to that woman is inexcusable. I understand police doesn't want to be used to intimidate a parent on behalf of other parent, but this inaction is absolutely shocking.
"Selectively enforcing high-profile offenses is a valid strategy if you want the increased awareness to be used as a dissuader for similar offenses, so, I understand when the prosecution wants to be "overzealous" when it comes to a valuable prototype."
I can respect that. But that also raises a number of questions. Does REACT believe that this incident will create a wave of prototype thefts by journalists? Do they believe that public reaction and civil lawsuits arising from such incidents will be insufficient to deter future individuals contemplating such a crime?
The bigger problem is that we're all doing a post hoc analysis that REACT likely didn't do at all. Maybe it saw a hot story in the news and so dashed off the broadest subpoena it possibly could. Maybe Apple made a few calls. The situation is concerning enough to warrant, at a minimum, an explanation from REACT as to what they thought they were doing. Depending on that explanation, an investigation or sanctions could be warranted.
Frankly, that might happen sooner than we think. I wouldn't be surprised if the EFF or ACLU filed suit on behalf of Chen for the unlawful seizure of his property. Of all places, California is the last state in which you want to start seizing a journalist's computers on a mere hunch that a crime was committed by someone else.
If REACT wants to make it a high priority to issue subpoenas to recover information from third parties that might relate to someone else's wrongful possession of a phone for a brief amount of time, then so be it. Last I read they were focused on major counterfeit software operations.
At the moment, though, it appears REACT suddenly developed a zeal for prosecuting a trivial offense merely because the offense is high profile and involved an influential victim. That's a problem, and it's the same problem in the Gonzales case: the improper exercise of discretion. The public is entitled to know how and why REACT is utilizing its limited resources.