Slashdot Mirror
Police Seize Computers From Gizmodo Editor
secretcurse writes "California police have served a search warrant and seized computers from Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who unveiled the 4th-generation iPhone to the world. Gawker Media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist. The plot thickens..."
enGadget is owned by Time Warner... they have lawyers, and those lawyers told them not to touch this story.
Gawker apparently didn't check before the leaped... and Apple's got much bigger bucks than they do.
Wait, what? Journalists are immune from having their computers seized? In what dreamworld? They have the exact same first amendment protections as the rest of us. No more, no less. If Apple can get a warrant (which they obviously can), those computers are fair game, along with anything else that might be relevant to the charges.
The only reason that, traditionally, journalists had extra privileges was because they worked for large litigious media outlets who wouldn't put up with that horseshit, and the government was rightfully wary. These days, not so much.
Apple has a long history of suing people over trade secret violations, and since all you have to have to be a "trade secret" is simply to be arguably valuable, and, you know, secret, it's not hard to do. In this case I imagine they're looking in to charging them for full-on corporate espionage (which is a felony) and which the guy may be open to, depending on how he obtained the phone.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It was only a matter of time before this happened. iPwned.
Cheers, Chris
I don't think so.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
So, does being a journalist entitle you to full immunity from the law? The police are investigating a possible purchase of stolen goods. It's not like they are trying to arrest him simply because he wrote an article about it, or because they want to censor him.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If only this would kill the "This is just an apple PR Stunt" meme...
There is no way apple would be so outrageously stupid to bring in the police if this was just a matter of a PR stunt: the potential damage would be huge.
Instead, this really is about an inadvertant (or deliberate?) leak and did involve stolen property.
But I doubt it, those who see a Great Apple Conspiracy behind the V4 iPhone leak will not change their minds.
Test your net with Netalyzr
...all of these other "leaks" I see from other companies don't warrant someone getting their computers confiscated. Which means that when I hear about a "leak", it is endorsed by the company?
I can't say that I consider that good ethics either.
Gawker media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist.
I didn't realize that being a journalist protected you from prosecution for knowingly purchasing stolen goods. This is not about protecting sources of information, this is buying a product that is known to belong to someone else.
They bought a phone that was left in a bar, translated not stolen. They returned it when requested. It's not up to journalist to protect trade secrets they generally reveal them.
wft steve jobs? did you report this as stolen? are you filing criminal and/or civil charges? Are you really taking advantage of your company's incompetence? You already like to go all-gestapo in that fucking app store, but it's time for you and all your altar-boys in Apple to back the fuck down from the religious fanaticism, respect the press, respect developers, and stop disrespecting users with your "retarded customer confusion" pile of shit. The people I feel most sorry for are the intelligent, independent, Apple employees who are in crisis mode and daily thinking about publicly screwing you over, along with your madness. THIS is the reason they threw you out from Apple in the past, Steve. And I tend to think you sorta want to see if they'll do it again, hence all of these shenanigans. I hope this becomes the magical and revolutionary mother of all streisand effects, and that it comes at an unbelievable price.
Nothing to worry about.
Move along.
Sent from my iPad.
Now claim that unpublished articles were on the seized computers and file a claim against Apple and have the police come in and seize their computers. That'll teach 'em.
If the phone really was left in a public place, Apple has no case.
If the glove don't fit, you must aquit.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So are they big or small ?
I guess we can now say this whole thing was not a publicity stunt? It's seems a bit insane to go so far as engaging real-life policecops for a publicity stunt.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Under California law, lost property over a given value (and a prototype iPhone certainly qualifies), you are obligated to make a credible effort to return it to the owner (the "finder" did not: after all, he never talked to the BARTENDER!) or to the police. Otherwise, it is considered stolen.
So the iPhone in question was stolen property, and Gizmodo has effectively admitted to purchasing stolen property, and knowingly having purchased stolen property.
Given that Gizmodo paid $5K for it, they could be on the hook for felony receiving of stolen property.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Charges are the only possible outcome from publishing this story, and his lawyer's efforts at using "Journalist" as a defense are an absurd stretch. The "for the sake of public interest" theme certainly won't mitigate the fact that Gizmodo staff knowingly purchased property from an individual who clearly did not own the property. While I'm no fan of Apple lately, and it certainly was an interesting story, common sense should have prevailed. I guess the carrot was too big and donkey too greedy.
Too bad. The 'ethical' choice might have earned them a place at the feet of Jobs, rather than under his heel.
When the Gizmodo punks outed the name of the Apple Engineer who lost the phone for, as near as I could tell, no good reason other than to pile on, I lost all sympathy for them. This wasn't a whistle-blower story exposing corporate crime or government misdeeds. It was just a punk profiting off of another person's misfortune.
Enjoy your interactions with the Criminal Justice System, Mr. Chen.
A story just posted by CNET speculates that they're trying to enforce property laws that go back to the 1800s that say if you find something worth more than $400 and use it for your own purposes you can be charged with Grand Theft, and anybody you give that can be charged with Receipt of Stolen Property.
Doesn't seem to be a journalist's exemption to this one.
Apple was being too quiet last week. I knew the other shoe would drop, it was just a matter of time. If Chen is lucky, the police are really more interested in the identity of the thief (if they don't know it already).
However, my guess is that the police are trying to build a strong case that Giz definitely knew it was stolen prior to paying $5000 for the device. Not sure who goes down in a situation like that: whether it's Jason Chen or Nick Denton.
It looks like the reason for seizing the equipment was because of a possible felony that the equipment was used during the felony or shows that a felony was committed. So who are they going after? And what is the felony? It seems odd but I don't know the whole story.
I guess I'm now convinced that this was not a publicity stunt by Apple to hype their new phone...unless my reaction to the warrant was predicted and this is all a truly well-orchestrated dance with the media that involves Apple, Gizmodo and the California po-po?
Perhaps someone knows more about this story than I do. But is it truly stolen property? If you find something on the ground, it is my understanding that it is yours unless you know whose its is (say if you saw someone drop it, or if it has an name/address) and then it is your if you make a good-faith effort to return it to its owner but are unable to do so (for whatever reason). Are my assumptions true for the state of California?
Just because you know someone lost it, doesn't mean that it is stolen
...Microsoft bought all of Linux. Checkmate open sourcians!
Sorry about the mess.
How can this happen when it was 100% totally and utterly obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that Apple staged the whole 'lost prototype' in the first place! In fact I'm sure I received one of those chain emails that said someone somewhere had proof.
So is this also just a marketing ploy by Apple?
I'll wait for a few more forum posts (well only ones that I agree with) before I make up my mind.
(BTW, I'm going for +1, Funny, not so much -1, Troll)
http://i40.tinypic.com/29m55i9.png
"Police Sieze PCs of Editor Who Posted iPhone Prototype Story" Spell-check, anyone?
What exactly were they expecting to find on these computers? Evidence that he had the "stolen" phone in his possession? They already had that. Information about the phone that wasn't published? Unlikely. Harassment of someone who is the object of a complaint by a politically connected corporation? Perhaps... Just plain incompetence and a routine overly-broad search policy? Most likely.
Gawker media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist.
There are two falsehoods in that statement.
Do you think ANYONE is going to buy a 3G or 3GS iPhone in the next few months, with the "V4 is in final prototype, it has a much better screen, a flash, a front camera, etc" on everybody's lips?
The value of the existing stock of iPhones easily dropped $50 a phone thanks to this, a price drop which would have been postponed by a month or two if this leak didn't happen.
This is why apple is so leak paranoid: leaks like this really contribute to the Osborne Effect
Test your net with Netalyzr
When they posted the Apple Engineer's name and screen shots of his facebook page complete with picture I lost all sympathy for those bastards. Maybe a year in pound me in the ass prison is bad but afterwards he will go on a damn book tour like some kind of hippie hero. Meanwhile Gray Powell's life will still be ruined.
I wonder if it's any consolation that his equipment has been officially recognized as lawfully "sizeable". I'd be pretty stoked if someone served me legal papers to tell me my gear was "sizeable". Just sayin'...
...the photos/specs are already on the web. They can't stop the signal, Mal.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
If they are so journalistic, why did they push out all the personal information about the guy who lost the iPhone?
enjoy. i wonder if there are STILL any apple fans who would come up and defend this kind of crookery. wait - there would. some idiot would come up and say that it was illegal for the site to expose the prototype.
i wont even touch that idiocy, which goes in line with 'it would be illegal to touch them scandalous tapes even if nixon left them out in the open', however i will comment on one thing :
1.5 years ago microsoft was increasingly coming up in news with crooked, bastardly, or oppressive actions like these. back then there were fools who were defending it. 1.5 years later, most of them seem to have shut up, not being able to take shit from their favorite company even themselves, anymore.
i said this before ; a corporate culture shows itself in all aspects of a corporation's activities. it will be same with apple.
Read radical news here
I'm torn. On one hand, it's scary business to be raiding a journalists home (your opinion of Gizmodo and/or tech blogs in geneeral determines whether you put "journalist" in quotes or not). On the other hand, Gizmodo (and perhaps Chen specificaly) allegedly committed a crime here.
That said, the only thing that really bothered me was how they tarred-and-feathered that Apple engineer. It makes me feel little-to-know sympathy for Gizmodo.
And it's ironic that Gizmodo pixelated Chen's personal details in the search warrant as well as the listing of what they took. I guess they suddenly start to value personal privacy when it's one of their own.
so they can take cable boxes that are cable co owned as well? and then not have to give them back?
Well, admitting to having bought an expensive item that was not the sellers (hot, though not stolen....), refusing to return it to the rightful owner, etc....
Thats like saying you get drunk in a bar, go to another bar, also get drunk, and forget where you parked your car. The car still had its keys in the ignition. It was taken for a joyride by a teenager that happened upon it. Now, here you were a drunken fool, and he was a bit of a dick for taking a car that showed no owner... Now say that car was the new prototype of a sports electric hybrid from Mercedes. Why, this teen decides to sell it to GM, to see if he can get some fun cash.... GM creams itself to pick apart the prototype, gleaming and cribbing a few ideas here and there for their new car, that they rapidly force into production, with its own version of the hot new features, before Mercedes releases its long awaited car. GM admits to having bought the car, saying how it now has access to excellent German designs. Investors are thrilled.
MB demands the return of its prototype, and GM laughs at them and states they bought it from a source that found the lost prototype, and had attempted to return it to a MB reseller to no avail, and therefore they did nothing wrong. MB contacts the police - who then seize the prototype, and all the computer files that might have documentation of the corporate theft....
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
That's what it comes down to, really. Your First Amendment rights do not trump knowingly engaging in or abetting unlawful activity. Otherwise, you would have the media encouraging people to do illegal things, just so they could have their fifteen minutes of fame, then the "reporters" can protect them as confidential sources. Even if Gizmodo can make the case that they are journalists and deserve the protection of their sources, the problem is that they admitted they knowingly paid money to procure trade secrets. Would there have been any doubt about the legality of such an action had, say, Microsoft or Google bid on the phone instead of Gizmodo? Do you think a single one of their lawyers would have actually thought such a thing might be a good idea?
Journalism used to be about uncovering truth. It doesn't mean journalists are magically immune from the law and are protected from indictment and prosecution should their methods of uncovering the truth involve illegal activities, such as knowingly purchasing stolen property. No reasonable person can believe that the person who originally obtained the phone made the appropriate effort to return it to Apple. And Gizmodo dismantled the phone, presumably to confirm it was made by Apple, and published that information once it was discovered that was the case. But the fact that they knew the name of the engineer who lost the phone, and knew he was an Apple employee, means they should not have needed to dismantle the phone in the first place to confirm its provenance.
How hard would it have been for Gizmodo to call up Apple and ask "hey, did you lose a phone?" As much as I personally would have been interested in news about an iPhone 4G, even I'm not that incompetent. Then again, everyone knows such a device has been under development. They've released a new model every year around the same time. Just freaking wait and be patient like everyone else. It's just a PHONE for fuck's sake.
Gizmodo = fucked. And deservedly so, for doing something so obviously stupid and illegal, then bragging about it.
Hi Mr. Ballmer. You seem a tad angry. Perhaps some nice chair therapy is in order.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If the police really want to be thorough they should look into all the residents that live on stolen land. Which would include themselves. Which really kills me on Arizona's new law. Sorry we came here first illegally you will just have to wait in line.
it is ok for journalists backed with large companies that can defend themselves to enjoy freedom from prosecution, whereas the citizens get prosecuted if they do the same.
so, the one with the money makes the rules is it ?
an idiot engineer leaves out a corporation's prototype IN A FUCKING BAR, and when citizen press puts it out as news, it is ok to prosecute them ?
i cant even being to tell how wrong justifying above shit is, in so many levels.
Read radical news here
First off, he *says* he called apple. Second, The law doesn't care who you call. What matters is that you return the item either to owner, the place you found it, or to the police. This guy did not of those things and then sold it for $5,000.
Theft.
Being a journalist doesn't protect him from charges of receiving stolen property. However, they already had written evidence to convict him of that. The only reason to subpoena all computer data is to try to discover who gave him the phone. But in doing so, they are violating the confidentiality of the journalist's source, so journalistic privilege arguably applies to protecting the identity of the original finder of the phone.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
wait for it...
Gawker media isn't "the Press".
but after they sent the immature letter to Apple, they posted on their blog that they had warm and fuzzy feelings of legal compliance on their blog.
Isn't that enough to keep the law at bay?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
the idiot LEFT IT ON THE BAR. it was FOUND. when they purchased it, probably they didnt even know which idiot left it in the bar.
Read radical news here
Now - sorry USA friends, I know you can't do anything about this and prob don't agree to it- how the hell can finding a phone that you recognize as maybe a prototype (not something Jane or Joe can....) offer to bring it back to Apple be a reason to get your home searched? And how do you combine that with bringing 'freedom' *in exchange for oil lol* to iraq? How? I am pretty sure some of the smartest people in the world have their lives in the USA and yet this is happening... That's pretty (sorry for the language) fucked up :(
just another perfect example of how shitty apple can be.
they did the same thing to someone else, yet, they are going after someone else because they had got served the same thing.
deplorable.
control freaks are control freaks, and it doesnt matter whether the control freak is a person, or a corporation.
apple has become an oppressive thorn in information society's side.
Read radical news here
No cops investigating my neighbor's car that was stolen (in the ca bay area). These cops seem really motivated. Why? What's Jobs offering them that the average private citizen isn't?
Apple has absolutely no grounds when dealing with any legitimate reporting, even the leaks. The only reason why companies retract anything is because when it comes to nasty sobs, Bill Gates looks like a girlscout when compared to him.
All of the equipment will be returned and the prosecution will not press charges. Even if Gawker sues, the lack of charges will cause the case to be thrown out. Check Absence of Malice
Steve Jobs and Apple will spend millions of dollars to make it impossible for Gawker to continue to exist and probably send his goons to stalk their spouses and children.
Don't get me wrong, Apple makes the best products of any company in the world, but remember Dictators always seem to be able to keep everything all nice and quiet until the die or are killed.
busted! maybe the last history of gizmodo.
One cuestion the Police could ask is: why did the person did not told the bar owner about the phone? The owner of the phone could come back a few hours later or call(as he did). And another one: how is that you loose a phone? Someone could have stole it and later said, "hey, watch what I found!".
Seems to me that the paparazzi of tech has just started ...
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
Karma is a bitch, what goes around comes around, I wonder how this would have played out if the guy had not outed the Apple employee?
Apple has a long history of suing people over trade secret violations
Apple lost its trade secret protection when their employee left the phone at the bar. If someone had picked it up and reported on it there and then, Apple would have no legal recourse. It is not the responsibility of the world at large to protect Apple's trade secrets for them. The only thing that could result in a charge here is the fact that Gizmodo paid $5000 for the prototype.
I can't figure out what law giz was supposed to have broken?
Phone wasn't stolen.
Apple apparently didn't want it when the person tried to return it. (which is there fault).
Giz bought it to confirm what it was, because that's what they do.
And Apple made no effort to get it back.
Be seeing you...
"Please do not pick up lost balls until they have stopped rolling"
Corporation has something stolen, they get a task force. If an individual has something stolen, what are the odds on that person getting a task forced assigned to their case?
Lindsay Lohan steals an Escalade, goes on a high-speed chase up PCH, shows up at jail with a load of blow in her pants, and two years later the cops are all "hey, if you could show up for a deposition or something that would be, kind of, you know, cool and stuff."
One hardware nerd loses a phone and suddenly it's a goddamned national disaster. ZOMGMANTHEBATTLESHIPS!
It's only a trade secret violation if Apple communicated the information in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence. Leaving a phone on a bar stool does not count.
Furthermore, since Apple didn't have GPS tracking on the device, didn't lock the device, didn't provide a return address/phone number, didn't respond to phone calls, and otherwise didn't try to get the prototype back, they took less care with their prototype than many people take with their regular phones. Since Apple didn't take reasonable precautions to protect their information, they probably lose their trade secret even if the phone was obtained illegally.
There's some problems with the stories being told about this incident. Apparently it starts with some Apple engineer taking a prototype of an unreleased product out clubbing and he apparently left it behind when he left a bar. First question: did this Apple employee have authorization to take that prototype out of the Apple facility? This whole "oops, left it at a bar" story is weak.
Where things get really odd is when this prototype came to be purchased by Giz staff. It's said that they paid $5000 for the prototype - so who did they give this money to? It's clear that the Giz editor didn't just find it at the bar and take it - someone else did, then sold it to the Giz guy. So who "stole" the prototype? And at what point did the Giz editor discover that the prototype was "stolen"?
If Apple wants to call the prototype a trade secret, then how can they reconcile that claim with the fact that the prototype was left in a public place where anyone could see and examine it? It was left there by an Apple employee - this trade secret was "revealed" by that Apple employee.
Could Giz have handled this situation better? Probably. Apple's response is extremely unwise; they're used to using "overwhelming force" to deal with problem employees but this time they've taken it to the news media and they've created their own "Streisand moment". Unhappy with a report about an upcoming product? Send the swat team to make a night raid and be sure to take anything and everything possible. Seizing paperwork and computers from a journalist is unwise - but what were they thinking to seize vehicles, too? Yeah, what they were thinking is to show that guy who has the power - mess with Apple and we'll come for you in the night and wreck your life.
Apple has yet to realize that attacks against the news media like this are like playing global thermonuclear war - the only winning move is not to play.
Next time sell it to China
Just like corporations expect privacy, and individuals are told that we should have no expectation of privacy. Too bad we can sue TRW for providing every creditor in the world our "trade secrets".
America has gone the wrong way. Even the tea party movement has it wrong. We don't need to fear and change the government, we need to fear and change the power corporations have over us.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
No: If there's a conviction, the government is going to want the ill-gotten gains and then some -- like several times the total. You don't send a company to jail; you fine the heck out of it. A criminal is not supposed to keep the profits, and the conviction is supposed to deter others.
I wonder what Apple wants in all this? They can bring a civil claim as well, and a conviction would make that a quick fit b/c the facts would already be established against the defendant.
...most charges of slander, libel, incitement, and invasion of privacy. so now we should also include knowingly receiving stolen goods AND the willful destruction of aforementioned goods/property ? i have a difficult time believing that good old tommy jefferson would have argued that such a large blanket is need.
US Code - TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21A > SUBCHAPTER I > Part A > 2000aa:
2000aa. Searches and seizures by government officers and employees in connection with investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if--
If the judge says they can, then yes. Evidence is evidence, regardless of whether it's owned by the suspect or by someone else. If the police have a good enough reason to suspect that a friend of yours used your computer to commit a crime that they can get a judge to sign off on the warrant, then you, probably, won't be seeing you computer for a while. (disclaimer, IANAL)
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Depends on where you find it, eh? California penal code 485 says that it is:
Under California law, lost property over a given value (and a prototype iPhone certainly qualifies), you are obligated to make a credible effort to return it to the owner
He did: he published the fact that he found an iPhone 4G prototype on Gizmodo in great detail, and as soon as Apple called, they got their prototype back.
Neither the finder nor Gizmodo are obligated to respect Apple's trade secrets.
What happens when it is revealed that this whole affair is nothing more than a marketing ploy.
Who goes to jail/ to the unemployment line/ the lawyers?
This issue is far from over.
Stay tuned for episode 2.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I noticed while reading the warrant the it says that his computer equipment is "Lawfully sizeable under penal code section 1524" Now I don't know what that means but I bet a lawyer could argue that it doesn't say seizable.
Why bother
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is reading a lost art?
http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back
Apple told them to get stuffed. Apple is using the police to intimidate, again.
Sun passess behind planet, our state thrown into darkness!
(This was so obviously going to happen I don't understand why it is considered news.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
...to start making and selling Free Jason Chen t-shirts....
So what if Gizmodo had actually just paid $5000 to anonymous finder to borrow or rent the device for a few hours, instead of buying it outright? Would that mean they would no longer be subject to the felony of purchasing stolen property?
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that. Treasure in shipwrecks leads to big arguments over ownership centuries later. You don't lose you property rights just because you misplace or are deprived of something (in the old days the big problem was property that departed on its own, i.e., livestock ... the owner had to pay damages for what the critter ate or broke, but it was still his). Only if something is *abandoned* is it up for grabs. Would any reasonable person things the prototype was abandoned? Reportedly they even sought legal counsel, knowing they were pushing it.
The only reason the iPhone was worth $5k to them was that even possessing it was wrongful. Buying something from a thief, even unknowingly, also gives you no prperty right, and it's just silly for them to say it was "lost." They knew what they were doing by paying that much alone, and I'm sure more evidence will pop up when the suspects squeal on each other.
Arguably Apple's profit could be damaged here. I have no idea how they could prove that (and Apple can sue for civil damages, using the conviction as a slam-dunk proof of the facts), and I assume it will go to settlement anyway given the legal fees it would cost to defend it. It could get ugly.
Gizmodo did a very dumb thing. (Not to mention the party who found and sold the phone, knowing it wasn't his, either.) Remember though that it's the gov't not Apple that decides whether to bring criminal charges. Apple could ask them to drop it, but it sounds like they're OK with the brute force approach, or else the prosecutor wants to do what the prosecutor wants to do.
would be why you keep the important stuff on one machine, crypto the heck out of it, and shut it off when you're not around. Take it all you want, losers, is it important enough for the NSA to waste time crunching on it awhile?
Full disk crypto FTW!
From what I heard, the finder of the phone called Apple and Apple refused the offer to return it. I'm not a lawyer but I'd say that was a reasonable effort to return the phone to its owner. The finder shouldn't be responsible to go out of his way to save a corporation from making a stupid mistake. At that point, it seems to me that the phone belonged to the finder because it was intentionally abandoned by an employee of its owner and so there was no stolen property. It's trade secrets were no longer secrets because Apple had released them to a member of the public with no obligation.
Even though Apple made a mistake, I'd say the phone was still intentionally abandoned because the Apple employees intentionally told him not to return the phone. The fact that an Apple employee was making a mistake doesn't make the act of abandoning the phone unintentional, because if that was the case then anybody could be held criminally liable for theft if they accepted a free gift from any employee that was mistakenly giving away company property. Employees do stupid things sometimes, and it is the employer that has to bear the losses for the employees' mistakes. You save money on minimum wage operators at the cost of the occasional stupid mistake.
the problem is that they admitted they knowingly paid money to procure trade secrets
It wasn't a trade secret anymore once Gray Powell left it on a bar stool. There is no corporate espionage, misappropriation of trade secrets, or anything like that.
How hard would it have been for Gizmodo to call up Apple and ask "hey, did you lose a phone?"
The person who originally found it apparently did just that. Apple gave him a support ticket number and didn't call back. After a week or two, he sold the thing to Gizmodo. Selling it was improper for lost property, but that's all.
The person who found it repeatedly tried to contact Apple, and they ignored him. If he'd kept it for himself, you still might have a point, but he didn't. He handed it over to the people best able to get the attention of the owner.
That he made a profit doing so is immaterial.
No cops investigating my neighbor's car that was stolen (in the ca bay area). These cops seem really motivated. Why? What's Jobs offering them that the average private citizen isn't?
The name and address of the the guy who bought their stolen property.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Suuuure. And Gizmodo were so altruistic in their desire to give the phone back to Apple that they gave the guy $5,000. And to make sure that they guy hadn't messed with the phone, they disassembled and inspected it. And to make sure that they weren't wrong in their assumption that the phone was Apple's, they published an article describing it in thorough detail, so that if it was actually owned by somebody other than Apple, the true owner could then come forward.
California law requires the finder of lost property of substantial value to turn it over to the police. Both parties understood that Apple was the legitimate owner of the phone, and that they had lost it. So instead, Gizmodo agreed to give the guy $5,000 in exchange for the phone. That's prima facie a sale of the phone, because money changed hands along with the phone.
Some information or a "story" may also have been part of the deal, but you don't get to claim that Gizmodo paid $5,000 only for the story and that the guy entrusted the phone to them for free, because a big part of the stories they published involved disassembling the device and showing photos of it.
Then there's also the rumor that the guy who "entrusted" the phone to them was shopping around with other news sites (e.g., Engadget) for the best deal. Dunno if that is true, but if it is, then Gizmodo actually outbid the other potential buyers (likely by being the only one to be dumb enough to bid).
Are you adequate?
There's people getting scammed on the internet daily that have ALL of the information on the criminal at hand, and the police, 9 times out of 10, tell you it's a civil matter and that they can't help. I've experienced it first hand.
Except in those cases, the "thief" doesn't actually give you your stuff back... Reality is, if this weren't' a large corporation who clearly influenced the raid, absolutely nothing would have happened from a criminal/law enforcement perspective.
Name me *ONE* case of someone "stealing" $5,000 worth of goods (read: it was left somewhere by its rightful owner), returning it, then being raided by police.
This already has hit ABC News, CBS News, Business Week, Forbes, CNN, Fortune, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Register, Computerworld...
Reporters care about this stuff. If they're at risk because someone passed them some info, or they bought something from an informant, that gets their attention.
...doesn't mean they still want pictures of it out there and other details. They like to keep secrets.....secret.
Now, I see how far Apple really is willing to go.
Ohh the gaysauce. How it flows over everything and gets stuck in every crack.
Alright, even though I disagree that it was "stolen", I'll grant that, for the sake of argument, it was.
Also, on the assumption of the fact that there was no industrial espionage means that the article and the information within it are fair game.
Given those things: what a huge waste of taxpayer resources. It's not like the seller was a criminal that made a career of out using Gizmodo as a fence. And he's the *only* person that *might* be in the wrong here, as Gizmodo already gave the damn phone back. Are the police really just interested in going for such low-hanging fruit that they want to nail some guy that found a phone, tried to return it, couldn't, and then sold it to a news site?
California's already having prison population issues -- so now they want to add one more non-violent "offender" to the system? And all the self-righteous idiots commenting about this article about how they all "deserve what they get" from the police ... Seriously, get some perspective. I hope you enjoy the authoritarian government that you (apparently) want so badly.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You misunderstand.
The article only describes the lost opportunity that Apple had in reclaiming the lost iPhone PRIOR to Gizmodo purchasing it. It does not describe Gizmodo's failure to return the iPhone to Apple KNOWING it was their property. The fact that they dismantled the phone and published its internal design components and then waited for Apple legal to send them a request to return the device does not mean Gizmodo made any effort to return the device to the owner.
That Gizmodo then uses Apple's secrecy as an argument against them is not only disingenuous--it is a deliberate and convenient ploy to deflect attention from the fact that Gizmodo themselves became responsible for not exposing Apple's trade secrets and returning the device to them once they purchased it, and failed to do so. Where is the article telling their readers how they refused to open the device and their calls to someone other than a support tech?
They are getting what they deserve. Not only did they fail to turn over lost property to police but they then proceeded to dismantle it. How would you feel if someone did this to YOUR phone, I bet you wouldn't be too happy. I make no comment about whether the phone was stolen or not. It is inconsequential. The issue for me is still the same. Property that does not belong to you should be returned to the rightful owner where possible. In this case it is quite obvious who the rightful owner is because it is a proto-type
And to high behind the "I'm a journalist" line is both patronising and offensive. Being a Journalist does not make you any different that the average person on the street. The arguement has traditionally been to protect secret sources. But more and more it is being used to try and justify any action journalists make. I half expect a journalist to be caught having an affire and hear the "i'm a journalist" line to justify it.
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
If Apple didn't claim it, then it must be turned over to the police station, not sold for $5000.
but sorry, this is a criminal investigation against another entity.
To claim you can do things to people with near immunity under the guise of being the press is pushing it.
Now if this were Wikileaks versus the US Government I could stand and cheer Wikileaks. I won't cheer these twits who wanted geek points.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How do you get from that to seizing all the electronic equipment from the house for an indeterminate period of time, "to be disposed of" if he's found guilty (it's in the warrant) ?
It may be someone's life there. Personal shit, photographs, documents, etc. Not to mention that if he has his banking passwords there, this may well render one unable to keep up with bills and stuff.
First, they have to prove the phone was stolen which is next to impossible unless Apple has a video of it being taken from the Apple Employee.
Second, although it may not seem moral, there is no Federal or State law that requires that a person return anything that was lost. You have probably heard possession is nine tenths of the law and selling something you possess is not against the law.
Third, Magazines, Newspapers and Books have been revealing trade secrets since the beginning of time. I've seen thousands of pictures of boats, cars, computers, planes and just about everything else reported on in Magazines.
Finally if it wasn't stolen then it sucks to be Apple because now it is in the public domain and any effort to declare it trade secret will fail. Think about it how many times we have about journalists being accidentally copied on internal trade secret emails. If Apple's employee was stupid enough to leave the phone at the bar they can no longer claim trade secrets on the device.
Corporations have power over us through government.
I think Steve needs to watch that 1984 commercial he helped make -- except HIS FACE needs to be the face of Big Brother.
You're right, the setting of the 1984 commercial is essentially a Steve Jobs keynote in 2010.
;-)
That's not coincidence. It was easily predictable, even 25 years ago. It's a result of the way the ego functions, and in particular the feature called projection - which is where we energetically or emotionally attribute to others the characteristics and behaviors we can't see or can't accept about ourselves.
Projection is also not an occasional occurrence - it's the basic functioning of the ego 24x7. And because consciousness is self-similar, it works the same way at the scale of an individual, a corporation (as we see in this case), or a nation.
Knowing this allows us to understand the real truth in what we hear and read: that when we hear a person or a corporation or a nation speaking vehemently about the nature of someone else, they're really telling us about themselves.
It's also probably useful to remember before posting online.
That act could establish an intent to own. Say you lost your regular old cell phone, and someone finds and eventually returns it to you, but in pieces, what's your reaction going to be? "Thanks!" or "hey fucker, you broke my phone!" ??
Flamebait? This is the most sensible comment on this discussion! Gawker is Fox News of the gadget blogs. They thrive on nothing but popular opinion - see them sucking Ballmer's dick (like they do now with Jobs') if tomorrow the public opinion turns hugely favorable to Microsoft.
I think it also has to be considered that when Gizmodo bought the phone (or the story, whatever) they were buying something that MIGHT have been an apple prototype. It might also have been a knock-off or some random iPhone clone. Therefore you can't assume Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen goods.
Oh, and speaking of the police, why didn't the person who took the iPhone from the bar simply inform the police that he found a lost phone, or give it to the bar owner? Why did he SELL it? Do you think that is a lawful thing to do?
I don't know about you, but if I ever find lost property, the last thing I'd ever do is try to fence it. So, what did you say about Apple using the police to intimidate?
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there a shield law that protects news reporters, publishers, bloggers and other people that report news from this?
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-protections-sources-and-source-material
Sounds like Apple is getting the local police to be their Gestapo for their corporate use and this is not good. This should be an interesting fight for this shield law since this is the second time that Apple is on the other side of this legal fight.
Did everyone notice they blur'd out all Jason's personal info? Too bad no one did that for Gray Powell.
So is this the mother of all conspiracies now and the police are now in on Apple's Media coup? Surely that misbelief is now put to rest?
To play the requisite part of the devil's advocate:
Lesson to be learned: don't become the story you are reporting.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
He called AppleCare, and they are not Apple employees - they work for another company on behalf of Apple but are not directly employed by Apple.
Also calling a tech support line (allegedly - it was Gizmodo who said he did - he may not have even done that) instead of Apple's publicly available PR number does not strike me as "reasonable attempts", especially since he could also have walked to Apple's HQ and made an attempt to return it that way, since it was just around the corner. Or he could have mailed it to their HQ, using the address on Apple's website.
"Reasonable attempt" - hardly. Even if that is true - we have no proof he even called the tech support line.
Pretty nice going. I missed the first story, now more people will know its leaked.
Look at Jalopnik on the Toyota issues, first they were posting every accident and wondering aloud if Toyota's move to electronic links was the problem and once it got popularized in the media, they started defending Toyota.
At first they were calling it "Beige bites back." Now they are blaming old drivers.
"Police Sieze PCs of Editor Who Posted iPhone Prototype Story" Spell-check, anyone?
You must be new here... ;)
Because every product they make and sell here come from stolen USA IP. If you wanna be sanctimonious, be evenly sanctimonious.
LOL.. Ballmer btw is probably having a fiiine day
Gizmodo is nothing more than a meeting place of Apple fanbois.
When you're doing the right thing and trying to give something back to somebody for free and they make the stupid mistake of refusing, it shouldn't be your responsibility to waste your time arguing with them or running around to get them to take it back. They should have just said "thanks, here's the address to send it to" or "thanks, if one of our people reports a missing prototype, we'll get back to you".
Often when property is found, the owner is known to the finder. For example someone might say "It looks like joe forgot his sunglasses again." ... has not claimed the property..." is for when you know who it belongs to but you can't or don't want to bother contacting the owner, so you are expected to turn it over to police. But in this case, Apple didn't just not claim the item, an Apple employee intentionally told the guy not to return it. I don't think an item has to be turned over if it is intentionally abandoned. He didn't need to search for other owners after finding the correct owner.
I think "If the owner
You forgot to read this part:
Since there is probable cause to believe Chen received stolen property, the San Mateo County Sheriff is in the clear.
This ain't rocket surgery.
He did the responsible thing. He hung around a while in case the guy returned. In the morning he could have flipped through the address book, calling the guy's friends, but it had been remotely bricked, preventing that.
If I lost my wallet, I might check the bar. If I lost my phone, I'd just call the damn thing and ask where it was.
There's no reason to believe there was anything half assed about his calls o Apple. He knew at that point that it was a prototype, and he asked them to escalate the call. They never called him back. Apple dropped the ball, not him.
I wonder if Slashdot (and virtually every other news site that relayed the news) could be considered an accessory to the crime.
Just a thought... IANAL and I'm not from the USA.
As if I didn't have reason enough to despise Apple, they pull this sort of stunt. And yes, I blame Apple completely and without reservation, whole-heartedly convinced of both malice and the intent to cause harm entirely beyond the pale. Apple as a company, and as a way of doing business, deserves only contempt and scorn.
marrying a 8 year old is legal in saudi arabia too. that does not make it right in the eyes of rest of the world. neither one would look upon someone making use of that law there.
apple's position is similar. california may have a bullshit law that goes contrary to majority of the world, and apple may be making use of it.
that does not justify it in the eyes of rest of the world, ie, the internet community.
Read radical news here
is finders, keepers...but that doesn't fly in the real world.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
This is the most epic story of the day. Now let's beat the Steven hawking vs aliens story.
How does being a journalist make warrant searches illegal?
Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein.
That phrase is in there to cover this situation, where the journalist is accused of stealing the documents or materials of interest. Otherwise, journalists could be harassed for receiving stolen property if someone gave them leaked documents.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. There's no way they should be able to arrest Gizmondo's journalists for receiving stolen property. If the story has changed from "iPhone4 was lost at a bar, found, and sold to Gizmondo" to "iPhone4 was stolen from a guy at a bar and sold to Gizmondo", how exactly is Gizmondo able to verify that it was stolen? Assuming the reporter was acting on good faith, and not in on the alleged theft. If they have any evidence of that, how'd it surface? Illegal wiretapping, hacked email, intercepted SMS?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Want a site to talk about politics? Base it in the states.
Want a site to talk about anything else? Go China!
No UK libel suits!
No Bullshit Apple secrecy!
China home of the free (from american overreaching arms)!
And to continue punishing my karma. Why the fuck people love a company that threatens its most loyal news outlets? Gizmodo and similar sites should give the cold shoulder to Apple, make them learn or they'll never change.
But... the future refused to change.
We know for a fact that Gizmodo successfully returned it to Apple. The police probably would have gotten it back to them, but they might not have.
That he was compensated is irrelevant. He turned it over to a respectable publication with the means and motivation to get Apple's attention. That's all that is required of him.
Yeah, maybe that applies in this case, but we're getting into far more complicated stuff here than I'm qualified to argue. IANAL but I've been following this thing pretty closely and have read a few things written by people who are. Once we get past that, though, I'm out of my depth.
This ain't rocket surgery.
... that would be a good name for a sequel "Chicken Run".
BTW, is Chicken Run a metaphor for the US?
Gizmodo's status : [X] Told
Apple's status : [X] Gay ass fucking in progress
If you post anymore comments below this, you have been trolled.
Although I agree with your sentiment - have you read the story in question? Apple is not directly involved in this. The Gizmodo guy is (going to be) busted for BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY. Not for industrial espionage or such. Apple might sue him later, but that's the kind of thing that generates bad PR and I hope would not actually succeed. However, I do hope he gets his due for buying clearly stolen property and bragging about it, not to mention revealing the name of the poor sap who lost the phone while protecting the seller.
First, it was their guy who left the phone in a bar for all too see. Second, an attempt was made to return it. Third, Gizmodo returned the phone as soon as they were asked to do so. Finally, Apple uses the press quite extensively to generate buzz for their upcoming releases. Its bad form to blame them for doing what in any other situation they would be counting on them to do. It's not as though this leak is going to hurt the release.
iCame, iSaw, iSeized.
jo_ham wrote:
That means they are Apple employees indirectly. Apple is ultimately responsible for the behavior of those AppleCare employees much like they are their own employees.
The tech support operators should have forwarded him to the correct department. So when you want to do the right thing, you are responsible to hunt down just the right phone number, but an actual employee is not?
He talked to them. He gave them a reasonable chance. It is also said that he waited a week for them to get back to him. That is all that should be expected of him to kindly take care of somebody else's property. Apple didn't lose its property because of what this guy did. Apple lost its property because Apple's employees made the big mistake of not taking the phone back.
My arguments above have been assuming the reports that he called are true. If they aren't, then it looks like he broke the law, but given the claim I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Phone records may settle that issue. In a way, calling may have been smarter than going directly to headquarters. If they'd sent him out the door with it, he may have no evidence he'd even offered it back.
There are tons of "found" cell phones sold on EBay. Will the police investigate them? Here's a good example. This guy found a Verizon Droid in a mall in California and sold it for $235. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250597638336 How hard is it to drop it off at a Verizon store and let them return it to the rightful owner? My kids have literally lost half a dozen cell phones, and I'm sure a good number have been resold. Verizon is no different than Apple. Report finding a lost phone and they wont try to get it to the owner. Much better to get them to buy a new phone. Let the crook set up a new account.
As far as Apple is concerned, I'd imagine they'd prefer to shift the story to "iPhone prototype stolen" from "Drunken Apple engineer loses iPhone prototype". That shifts the blame and doesn't have the implication that Apple engineers are drunkards. (Not that they are, but people subconsciously assume since all they know about the guy who lost the prototype is that he was drunk and he works for Apple.)
Two actually(plus any that might go prepaid or non-major), but given that T-mobile isn't all that cozy with I-Phone 3g freq....yeah.
import system.cool.Sig;
I have tried to deal with Apple on a number of occasions, every time it was not something I HAD to do, but something I felt obliged to do. I dutifully called them up, recorded the process, recorded the messages I left (try to get a real person there, I dare you!), and gave them more then enough time to get back to me (several days). I also left the same message on a number of relevant voice mails.
Apple just won't deal with you, they are Apple, and you are beneath them. If you are not a known kiss-up, they won't return your calls, emails, or anything else. Try, don't try, it doesn't matter, they won't get back to you. Insiders have told me that this is policy, not a fluke.
What did I contact them about? This:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1049921/inquirer-confirms-apple-macbook-pros-have-nvidia-bad-bump-material
Nope, no calls back. Could have saved them a big black eye though.
-Charlie
Hello Gents.
Selling or giving national secrets,secrets APTA reports, and other documents which are confidential and prive to WikiLeaks is illegal as well? Would you defend Wikilieaks from their computers been seized? Last time I checked Wikileaks, just like Gizmodo, doesn't have a newspaper published. Whats the difference?
Wikileaks KNOWS that all information THEY GET could be STOLEN or LEAKED ILLEGALLY or SECRET - should we also throw them in jail?
Thank you.
Speaking as a reporter who deals in such things, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Mr Chen. If the phone was paid for, he broke the law, period. It is one thing for someone to break an NDA and tell you something, show you something, or let you use something that they are entitled to have. It is quite another to know something is stolen, and use it. To know it is stolen, then to PAY for it, nope, no chance that this is right.
Before you say, "You don't know what you are talking about", I can point you to literally dozens of times I have seen info/roadmaps/prototypes/whatever, but not once did I ever pay for the information, or knowingly (even suspecting) break the law to do so. Others may have before they got to me, but when things were obviously not legit, I have politely declined the info.
Once you are 'known' in the industry, and have a good reputation (I think I do), you can ask for almost any info and get it, If you burn bridges, that also gets known, and nothing ever comes your way. After a short while, it is painfully obvious what is legit and what is not. No where, no way, and no how is paying for information, or worse yet prototypes, legit. Period. Hard line.
When I first heard about this, I knew it was only a matter of time before the hammer came down on Gizmodo. It was a stunningly stupid thing to do, and how any editor, much less higher ups if they knew, would have touched this with a 10 foot pole is beyond me. Unless there is something really profound that has not made the media yet, Gizmodo did wrong.
When I have similar offers/gifts/whatever come into my life, I politely decline, and usually call the company involved, tell them in general terms what happened, and tell them directly that it was declined. You usually get profound thanks, and a good deal of karma, and you don't even have to rat out your sources because nothing happened. Win/win/win/win/lose/win/win, or something like that. :)
All this said, of all the companies I have dealt with in this type of situation, the only one that are complete bastards about it are Apple. They won't return phone calls or emails even if you are really trying to help them. Not a chance.
In this case, I can't see how the Gizmodo guys didn't do wrong in the most basic way. I reserve the right to update that opinion if more evidence comes out, but the $5000 pretty much seals it. I would expect Gizmodo to go down. Hard.
-Charlie
Finders keepers, losers weepers...unless the finder blabs to the whole world he found it and proceeds to take it apart and publish the photos, and the loser is Steve Jobs.
Maybe I just have really weird standards (which might be the case), but I think it was really crappy of Gizmodo to release the name of the person who lost the phone. If Gray Powell gets fired from Apple (as far as I know, he hasn't yet), good luck finding a job with the "I lost a super important company prototype" stigma attached to your name...
We don't need to fear and change the government, we need to fear and change the power corporations have over us.
I just finished reading Market Forces by Richard K. Morgan and I'm afraid you might be right.
Seriously, you can't buy this kind of publicity.
Sure, you have to leak your product - but what the hell.. nobody will suspect it. Then sue the shit out of the guy who published photos - even more press time when it goes to court.
Then on the day of the release... drop the charges so you don't look like a huge asshole.
IANAL, but I'm pretty confident about two points:
Are you adequate?
Dude, if you think it's ok to sell something you don't own, I've got a bridge in New York City I'd like to sell you.
Are you adequate?
That almost certainly doesn't work if they committed a felony to learn those trade secrets.
Are you adequate?
Brilliant PR move by Apple. Let's convince a judge that the police should break into someones home, seize his computers, etc for exactly what purpose? Everything about the iPhone was out in the open. As to what's true or not will not be aided by the Nazi stormtrooper tactics that presumably Steve "Hitler" Jobs orchestrated. Of course we know the real reason this was done. It was to teach this guy and the rest of the world a lesson that Apple will not tolerate being messed with. Well Steve if I were a stockholder I would be pretty pissed off. The whole incident could have been dropped and have it quickly fade away. But no, Apple chooses to yet again make more enemies. Anyone that was on the fence about whether or not they had enough of Big Brother Steve dictating what Apple product owners can and cannot be using on their iPhones/Touch/etc are most likely not on the fence anymore. Congrats. Personally I look forward to the great success of the Android products.
Tet a Tet is alive and well thanks to Slashdot.org.
I did some checking and indeed you are absolutely correct that a ~1892 law in California makes it a serious offense to keep something that you found if you know the owner especially if it's worth more than $400.00.
However according to reports, the person that found the phone contacted Apple, which is not unlikely considering the close proximity to Apple headquarters and the general worship of Apple by Californians. Apparently in a PR faux paux so great that it is absurd, Apple denied that it was their phone and made no report to the Police that the phone was missing.
At this point we get down to basic logic. It's 1901 and a cow wanders into my farm and the branding mark clearly identifies that it is owned by a nearby dairy farmer. I bring the cow to the farmer to return it and for whatever reason he says, "It ain't mine, get the hell outta here". I then return to my farm with the cow and take care of it and then eventually sell it at the market. I did everything in my power to ascertain the owner of the cow based on obvious evidence and once the original owner disavowed all ownership, it became mine to use and sell as I please.
Regardless if Steve Jobs himself did not deny that the phone was his, the company did and the phone then became the property of the person who found it.
Now if they can prove that the phone was stolen, or that the person who found it did not try to return it to Apple, then yes they are screwed.
"Nero wasn't fiddling while Rome burned, he just didn't care"
Except you are forgetting about the part where you are supposed to turn it in to the police.
Phone number:
(510) 501-1829
Spouse:
Dixie Chen (née Xua)
Current address:
40726 Greystone Terrace
Fremont, CA 94538
Year home built:
2007
Assessed home value:
$580,000 (note: home was refinanced January 19, 2010)
Annual property tax:
$5,999.08
Note:
Jason, if it was okay to post personal information about Gray Powell to protect his job, it's okay for anybody else to post your information to protect you from getting fired. It's only fair that we do this for you!
Ever.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Even accepting the claim of his repeated attempts to contact Apple about the phone, once he asked for $5000 the whole good samaritan argument falls apart. Worse even after selling it, he was greedy and tried to convince another news oulet to pay more for it. Maybe initially he was trying to do the right thing, but in the end he saw dollar signs.
He could have saved himself a lot of problems by just contacting the police, or telling his sad story to a news agency becase he lacked the resources to find the real owner. Now he potentially faces charges for dealing stolen goods, conspiracy, state unauthorized computer access, and federal computer fraud (shouldn't have looked at Facebook), theft of trade secrets, and I'm sure a half-dozen more electronics and telecommunications charges because it's a computer/phone, a few more wire fraud related ones because he communicated with Gizmodo and Engadget, and I'm sure some banking ones for receiving $5k from the former. Just hope he didn't mail it and commit mail fraud too.
The un-named finder of the lost iPhone can't count on the Gawker folks to keep his name hidden, because once they took possession of the stolen phone and became a party to the criminal activity, they lost their Shield Law protections. There's no whistleblower or other similar protections either, because the story was about a gadget, there was no compelling public interest -- unless it had a memo of Steve Jobs talking about child labor or how he expected 1/10,000 to explode or something. Gawker should have paid for the "story." Interview the guy, have him bring over the phone for inspection and verify his claims. Just don't take possession of the damn thing, and everybody would have been better off.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
You mean, how they wield state power over us? Heh. And I'm guessing the tool you're going to try to wield over those nasty corporations is... the state. What a n00b. "If only that state had more laws and more power, it could totally fix this for us!" Has 200+ years of government taught you nothing?
The important news here is the (routine?) overly-broad search warrant which cripples and punishes the suspect _IN ADVANCE_ of any hearing or trial.
* Driver's license - suspect can no longer (legally) drive.
* All IDs -suspect can no longer access his/her bank accounts, so suspect can't bail him/herself out of jail, can't pay rent/mortgage, nor pay bills, nor pay a lawyer, nor buy food.
* Credit cards - same as above.
* Keys - suspect can't get into house or apartment, or car.
etc...
(supporting data)
Follow TFA and look at the search warrant's Appendix B, which describes what is to be seized. It reads, in part,
"5. Any article of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons who have dominion and control over the premises and vehicles to be searched, including all keys to the described location and vehicles, rent receipts, utility bills, telephone bills, addressed mail, purchase receipts, sales receipts, and articles of personal property tending to show ownership of vehicles including, but not limted to vehicle pink slips and vehicle registration. All personal property and documents used by the persons named as means of identification, including but not limited to driver's licenses, credit cards, passports, social security cards, and photographs relative to the person(s) described."
If you think "has not claimed the property" was meant to be interpreted against someone in a situation like this, consider if a company had said about some lost item "That's just a non functional mockup and the CEO says it's too much trouble for us to come get it back, so you can just keep it." Would you then seriously expect the finder to take it to the police and have the police place a notice in the paper for a lost and unclaimed item? I don't think "has not claimed the property", applies after the owner is contacted and refuses to take back the item. It is no longer lost and unclaimed, it is found and abandoned. Stupidly and mistakenly, but still intentionally.
"Losing something in a bar does not mean you abandoned it."
What kind of pretzel logic is that?
Seriously, he left it on the bar, he didn't lose it.
Quick, go look up both words in a dictionary.
Clue up before you go pretending to be insightful.
And here's the curious up-shot from that... if you want to change the power that corporations have over us, then you must FIRST change the government. As it stands today, the "government" is complicit with the corporations in fucking us over. Two things to address: lobbyists, and campaign finance.
Until you change those two aspects, more importantly the second, there's no point running around screaming about corporations. Until we change things in government and the laws that we want government to enact, then what they are doing is legal and condoned and even encouraged.
Once you've dealt with those 2 issues, then you can go about changing the corporate laws to make BOTH executives AND shareholders MORE responsible for the actions of the corporation. The only reason that "externalities" exist is because the law encourages shareholders to fuck over the public commons.
That said, I tend not to think that the "tea party" folk are terribly enlightened, but you never know, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, and they might just push the right button for "change" by mistake...
The device had no markings about who the owner was. Gizmodo wrote an article about it and after Apple claimed it they returned the device immediately. I see no crime here. I have even read that Apple was contacted before but they denied that the device was theirs.
Nonsense. Where does the statute say, "due diligence, and it's yours to do what you wish."
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If it was a wallet that was 'found' and they opened it and splashed the contents over the web, they would get the same reaction from it's owner as Apple has done over the phone. They have no defence, sorry.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
He called the help desk in a clear attempt to make it look like he tried to return it. He made no "reasonable" attempt to return it.
Gizmodo may have got themselves a large enough extra hit-count last week to pay for their legal costs in the upcoming trial, and they may have gotten themselves some free publicity vis a vis Engadget, but they will be sullied with a slight whiff of illegality from here on. After all's said and done, I'm pretty sure they will be asking themselves if it was worth it.
The only one who's laughing all the way to the bank in this is Apple, who once again gets a boat load of free PR for doing sweet nothing.
Apple, in my view, overtook Microsoft a while ago in terms of abusive business practices.
Even if he had given it to the police, he still could have sold access to it to Gizmodo prior.
Apple has no expectation of privacy on phones it leaves in bars.
He did try to get someone from Apple to either claim or disclaim it. They ignored him, and they have to take responsibility for that.
So he turned it over to someone who was more able to determine if it really was Apple's, or just some Chinese knock off.
Maybe this will cease and desist with the crap Gizmodo articles pushed off as news. That website is like a TMZ for bored geeks and should be taken out.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Given the Law as quoted the approach that would have been within the letter of the law is thus:
1. The Person with Iphone (PWI) contacts Mr. Chen
2. Mr. Chen meets PWI and gives them nice new Digital camera
3. PWI (with technical help) does investigation of device, takes pictures etc. Reassembles Iphone.
4. PWI sells pictures and reports, screen shots to Mr. Chen for $5000 (possibly less price of new digital camera)
5. PWI drops Iphone into Police anoyomously with a note saying found in such and such bar.
With this approach (and assuming it was done swiftly) PWI becomes an anoymous source that happend to have access to the new Iphone. No Theft under the law has occured. Apple could go after the theif for criminal damage - however they would not be able to accuse Mr. Chen of a crime as he bough pictutures of a real object taken by the PWI (the PWI would even own the copyright) a completly legitimate act.
Now Apple could sugest that damage had been done to the Phone (remember their trade secrets being lost are not covered) but to do that they would have to enter into the record how a correctly configured IPhone should look.
In conclusion: The Law can be twisted by a cunning soul in many ways. But only a fool ignores it.
Let's assume, for the sake of this really silly argument, that the fact that the guy talked on the phoneto some random dude in Apple Care who thought he was on crack somehow actually does mean that Apple denied ownership. He's still not supposed to sell stuff that he doesn't own. Gizmodo's not supposed to buy stuff that they can reasonably know does not belong to the guy.
The guy was certain this phone was an Apple prototype. The story we've heard about his "efforts," assuming it's even true at all, only shows at best that he didn't nearly exhaust his alternatives for returning this phone to Apple. He doesn't even have to go out of his way trying to return it if it is not convenient to him: the law allows (and requires) him to hand it over to the cops if he's unwilling, unable or unsuccessful at returning it, and tell them the circumstances in which he found it and what information he has about its ownership. Which he didn't do.
But, there's more! The law explicitly forbids him from selling the phone for his own gain. So what does he do on top of not returning it promptly or giving it to the cops? Spend three weeks trying to sell it to the highest bidder, of course!
Are you adequate?
If you look the stories from gizmodo you can easily conclude that iphone4g was stolen. First of all the person who allegedly "found" , knew who lost it immediately (they say he looked at his facebook page on iphone). But at no time they contacted that person to return it , even doe they knew persons name and facebook page (they claim that they contacted apple , in my humble opinion i think they were just trying to check how much goods are worth). First thing that gizmodo should have done is contact engineer who lost it (because there was not proof that apple actually owned it) , then again they contacted apple (basicaly to check again is it real). And after they found out it is real, they took it apart. And if that wasnt enough they published the name of person from who it was stolen ("found"). Shame on you gizmodo.
Whether he contacted Apple or not does not matter. He did not attempt the most important step which was to hand it to the authorities.
The guy that "found" the phone "found" a working, unlocked phone unit. Since the guy didn't bother to contact the person that lost it KNOWING WHO WAS since the phone was logged in his Facebook account, or give it back to the bartender, or make a call to ANY of the people in the contact list or redial the last number dialed, from the very beginning it was clear for Gizmodo or EnGadget that they were dealing with a thief selling stolen goods. Plain and simple.
The excuse that the thief instead did the most unintuitive, unreasonable thing, to call Apple support, and really expect to be taken seriously about he being in possession of a secret prototype iPhone, is absurd. Only a stupid moron would believe that; well, perhaps the same kind of stupid idiot that would boast publicly that he paid $5K for an stolen good.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
was obviously wrong, but keep in mind why they intentionally broke the law: to feed the insatiable beast of Apple fanbois who are more loyal to His Steveness than Tom Cruise is to L Ron. This is what makes Apple so dangerous (they sit on the committee that sent the police squad); I hope this heavy-handed response finally shows enough people their true nature and break the Reality Distortion Field once and for all. They are not a bright, happy commercial with happy music and cool tech: they are cruel, vicious, and totalitartian.
At some point you Apple fanbois will understand that this company is NOT what you think it is.
Obviously Jobs is now in the business of intimidating journalist.
But this is not the 1st time...
Apple loses their Iphone
Apple is contacted by phone but tells the caller that it is NOT THEIR PROPERTY.
Apple gets Iphone back.
Apple calls up criminal charges against everyone involved.
Thank you very much Apple!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. If I lose my wallet in a bar and get it back, I [shockingly] would not insist on criminal charges against the ones who found it.
Give them a story they can't pass up. And allow them to screw themselves. Hopefully, they had their company lawyer look this over before they ran the story/paid for the device. Because, Apple set them up good.
Funny, I always figured it would be Wonkette which got Gawker dragged into court. Shows what I know. Anyway, IANAL, but Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr are, and have some useful analysis on Gawker/Gizmodo's exposure.
No statement is true, not even this one.
The exact same people who have attacked Apple for their "publicity stunt" of "losing" an "alleged iPhone prototype" "on purpose" now attack Apple for supposedly "trying to silence" the only source who publicized this?
What do you say, hyperbole? There's a post in this very discussion basically claiming both is a fact.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Police don't like public crime, and somebody who not only apparently commits a felony but writes about it in detail on a national forum is bound to annoy them. The fundamental point of this investigation is that Apple is not part of it. Somebody committed a very high-profile crime and publicly wrote about it. The police decided to investigate, very likely partly motivated by somebody boasting about committing a crime in their bailiwick, and are now trying to find the other party to the apparent felony.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
People make it seem like Chen actually stole the device. People should get angry at the person who sold it him. If you believe what Chen did is was unacceptable, you should also agree what the developer did was unprofessional and as well unacceptable. How does a professional developer lose such a fragile item like a 4th-generation iPhone. Word of advice: If you don't your items taken, don't lose them. Keep them with you.
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. - Nikola Tes
First of all is it just me or did folks forget that the phone was lost in a bar in another country according to the last article I read on this issue. I always thought that what you did in another country would fall under their laws. In any case, I suspect what is actually going on is Apple is investigating if Gizmodo actually stole the phone. If it turns out they only bought something that was stolen in another country I don't think there's much legal president on it. Besides, the press, "Apple jails Reporter who bought a stolen Iphone." probably really isn't something Apple wants to be known for. If anything it seriously tarnishes your product image. I suspect Apple is not directly involved for this reason but requesting an investigation to be sure. If it turns out Gizmodo did steal the iPhone directly then yes, they will be in trouble but I suspect in the long run, nothing will come from this and after the investigation, all the computer hardware will be returned.
In this instance they should nail him. Most of Gawker's sites hardly pass for journalism, imo. I mean really, Kotaku posting pictures of Mario cakes is not journalism.
Secondly Gizmodo named the guy and possibly ruined his career chances for some time over a mistake. Real journalists shouldn't name their source let alone name him just for some more hits.
They paid for something they knew full well was obtained through questionable means. If this is acceptable then who is to stop people from pinching things from work on a regular basis just to earn some extra cash.
I'm not sure about Gizmodo but I do know Kotaku has often had to retract stories because there is little to no research. It's just fanboys posting any little thing they hear just for some ad revenue. Again, it's my personal opinion that Gawker Media's sites are tabloid trash. I hope they're taught a lesson.
I don't see any deception with the finder in trying to get the phone to the rightful owner. For something that was so very important to Apple... they did not move very fast to get it back. Trade secrets are up to the business establishment to protect not the public.
I wish there was a simpler way to undo moderation.
CNet has a nice summary of the main issues: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html
It seems like this "theft" is being blown way out of proportion, for several reasons:
1. The device in question is a cell phone.
2. The finder seems to have made several attempts to contact the apparent owner to return the device, and was told it wasn't theirs.
3. When the owner of the device did surface, the phone was immediately returned.
Regardless of what happened between #2 and #3 above, would the police normally waste any time on an incident like this?
Let me try to pre-emptively respond to some objections. Regarding #1, the only reason this particular cell phone was "valuable" was because of who it belonged to (Apple). If it had turned out to have been a fake, it would have been virtually worthless. So is this really a huge felony? Here's another example: Suppose the device in question had been a t-shirt (value $10), lost by some celebrity (say Brittney Spears). Of course, the t-shirt can be sold for outrageous sums of money on eBay or wherever, if it can be determined that the shirt is genuine. Is it a felony to sell the shirt? Is it really that big a deal? If the shirt was promptly returned to Brittney as soon as she came forward to claim it, would the police be giving this any attention at all?
I say no.
read rest of a discussion before you jump at butt end. your objection has been brought up by other people, who were saying that this was the law. turned out that that kind of laws were found in anglosaxon countries or dominions or unions - britain, ex british colonies including united states, and scotland. which copy each others' laws. with one exception being germany. rest of the 200 countries on the world do not share such common outlook on that matter.
world is not made of anglosaxon heritage.
Read radical news here
"We don't need to fear and change the government, we need to fear and change the power corporations have over us."
What?!? The US government, who ostensibly is responsible for protecting its citizens, is either gutlessly allowing or complicity helping companies to defraud, damage, shakedown, and systematically disenfranchise the American public. Our elected officials have the hands of big business shoved so far up their collective asses every time I watch Cspan I think it's the damn Muppet show. What's worse, the politicians appear to absolutely LOVE IT. They continually vote en masse for appropriations and measures that erode our rights all the while saying "those multimillion dollar corporate contributions had absolutely nothing to do with how hard we are fucking the American public here." From the DMCA and Mickey's infinite copyright to H1Bs, unrestrained immigration, and insane corporate bailouts the government can't seem to suck enough of the crack smoke billowing out if the rectums of the corporate lobbyists. Soon enough, if it hasn't already happened, our legislators will be unabashedly outsourcing their bill writing to their large corporate donors' legal teams.
In short, this battle has been waged for over 100 years, with business interests and government on one side and with the "people" on the other. They have been in bed together, off and on, for much longer than most of us have been alive. Also, consider the fact that companies have larger resources and greater influence than people individually do. And in an age where "wedge issues" are adroitly wielded by our government against their own electorate in an attempt to fracture and divide them is it any wonder the united front of a corporate entity has such influence, or that our government views us with such contempt?
I don't care who says it, tea partiers, tea drinkers, tea baggers, whatever. The label doesn't matter; it's the message that counts. The government is raperizing the American people like we are indigenous natives. This shit has got to stop.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The police reporting clause refers to " the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property".
That doesn't apply here because Apple abandoned the property.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
"He called AppleCare, and they are not Apple employees"
Doesn't matter: they are acting as agents of Apple.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
It's just a PHONE for fuck's sake. Tell that to Steve Jobs! :-)
When did Apple abandon it?
In order to prove that something was abandoned in court, you must demonstrate:
(1) an act by the owner that clearly shows that he or she has given up rights to the property; and
(2) an intention that demonstrates that the owner has knowingly relinquished control over it.
The tradition for millenia has been if property is lost, and then found by someone else. It's acceptable salvage. Especially if a good faith endeavor was made to return said property.
This was in no way theft.
--
Nor should you be forced to turn over property to the police. Who merely keep it all for themselves and auction it off. There was a time when if you were to perchance to find $20 in a dryer. Then it was a blessing. Now you're supposed to turn it over to the police who will keep it or you become a felon.
Sorry, but !@#$% that.....
Answer the question in the subject above tomhudson? Do the things you note hold true in all states of the union in the USA?? You're just another blowhard wannabe slashdot expert, nothing more.