Slashdot Mirror
The 4G iPhone's Finder Reportedly Located
CNET is reporting that investigators have interviewed the person who found the unreleased Apple iPhone and began all the trouble. Wired reports that last week people "identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype." "'Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,' the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn't let them in. ... News of Apple's lost iPhone prototype hit the Web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder's roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. ... 'There was no effort to keep it secret,' the source said. 'There were a bunch of people who knew.' ... Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money."
Only Microsoft is evil. Google and Apple are forces for good.
This guy shopped around stolen property to find the highest bidder after making a feeble attempt to "return" it. I don't have much sympathy for whatever happens to the guy.
Who is it?
Not a land shark
Who?
Oh, for Christ sake, it's Steve F'ing Jobs. Give me my phone back or I'll send the Steve Balmer Chair Delivery Service to wreck the place!
So someone came to the door, but the roommate didn't let them in.
And then what happened?
This whole story reeks of a PR stunt. The story is so intricate in detail, but scratch the surface and there are more questions than answers.
But I guess we're talking about it, and that's what really matters.
Don't Talk to the Police
-William Brendel
I thought for a minute that Apple had ported the Finder to the iPhone OS and someone had a screenshot or something.
Another article about this? Really?
If I recall correctly, the last one was about the police getting involved.
So it would stand to reason that they would, oh I don't know, question the people involved?
Could slashdot stop advertising for Apple already?
You know, the attitude surrounding Gizmodo and the people involved in this is trying to make Apple look like the bad guy. But if anyone has read Gizmodo's comments this past week or so, it's easy to see that the damage has already been done. The site has lost a lot of reputation among people, and Gizmodo's handling of this has been pretty disgraceful. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/04/26/2048228/Police-Seize-Computers-From-Gizmodo-Editor?from=rss The phrasing in this article by Gawker was just way too pretentious. They deserve repentance.
Far more interesting than the fact that they've tracked down the finder of the phone:
Police broke into and searched Gizmodo journalist Jason Chen's home, seizing basically every piece of technology in his home, under an apparently illegal warrant:
Check it out.
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
I wonder if they found him using the Gizmodo journalist's computer, which according to the EFF, was an illegal warrant. If it is found to be an illegal warrant, I wonder how it would affect this case? Not that I feel sorry for the guy, he sold stolen property, he's a criminal (pending the jury finding him guilty). The only thing I'm questioning is the legality of the authorities' methods of finding him. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-illegal
Imagine just knocking on someone's door and going Apple Security, we're here to search the premises and and take with us all the goodies you have lying around *maniacal laughter*
Be yourself and aim high!
If Apple pursues this Gizmodo should do discovery on Apple's emails to confirm it wasn't a publicity stunt.
The most annoying thing about this whole thing is the free press Apple is getting out of it. Fuck them.
You're not the only person who has been thinking that, but your company is surely getting thinner every day.
It's really wonderful that they've found evidence of the Finder added to the 4G iPhone OS. Strange that Steve didn't announce it as a feature of iPhone OS 4.0.
Now we'll be able to manage our files and folders at last! ... ..
(Pssst. it's a joke, I'm not THAT stupid)
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
They knew where the phone was when they bricked it using the "Find my iPhone" feature. Makes you wonder why did not ring the doorbell earlier.
Seen on the blog:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/thatlost4gphone/
Apple have nothing to gain by leaking the iPhone 4.0, they wouldn't attempt viral marketing like this.
When the iPhone 4.0 is launched at its conference and Steve Jobs proudly declares they have "innovated" by inventing Video Phone Calls, Optical Zoom and multi-tasking to receive a standing ovation, that's all the viral marketing they need.
Someone jumping the gun on them only ruins that shock and awe ceremony.
last story, there were people who were defending apple and maintained that no linkage of evil could be established about the prosecution regarding the iphone dismantlers. it turns out that 'representatives' of apple went out to a private citizen's quarters, and intending to search the premises.
... will there be anyone that would come up and defend this, i wonder ...
so, a private corporation sends 'representatives' to search people's homes
Read radical news here
He could have sold it to the Chinese and they could have a 100,000 units hitting the stores next week.
I wonder if they found him using the Gizmodo journalist's computer, which according to the EFF, was an illegal warrant.
The answer to your question is "no". Read this quote form the DA in the San Jose Business Journal:
“I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,” he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
If you don't want pre-released hardware to get lost - don't let employees take the hardware off campus.
Nothing to see here - please move along.
last story, there were people who were defending apple and maintained that no linkage of evil could be established about the prosecution regarding the iphone dismantlers. it turns out that 'representatives' of apple went out to a private citizen's quarters, and intending to search the premises.
Yeah and if I lost a valuable phone and the anti-theft feature told my boss where it was, he might send people to ask the owner of the house if they could come in and find it too. How is that evil? Mind you the home owner has every right to refuse and make them call the cops who will get a warrant to come in and look for it.
so, a private corporation sends 'representatives' to search people's homes ... will there be anyone that would come up and defend this, i wonder ...
If they have reason to believe their stolen property is in someone's home, they have every right to go ask if they can come in and look for it. If you lost your phone and location tracked it to a house would it be evil for you to ask the residents if you can come in and look for it?
Stealing the phone someone lost at the bar is unethical. Selling it to the highest bidder is unethical. Looking for your lost property... not unethical.
What did Apple do here? The prosecutor's office (or investigating detective) decided to look into this. A judge decided that the search was reasonable. The police executed it.
I don't see Apple anywhere in there. The only thing Apple has to do with any of this is that they were hurt (through revealing of the device, and loss of their property) and have probably filed a report to the police to that effect.
If this happened to Garmin, don't you think they'd talk to the police and say "hey that's ours"? Dell would do it. So would TIVo, Microsoft, iRobot, and any other company. If they don't file a police report, they don't get it back.
The fact that the circumstances the device was acquired under are fishy enough that the police/prosecutor are looking into it aren't Apple's fault. If everything looked above board, the prosecutor wouldn't have started looking into this, the judge wouldn't have signed a warrant.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
"Apple would still scream blue murder and harass him with search warrants, but he would not be a criminal."
Apple can't obtain or act on search warrants. Apple can't charge or prosecute anyone for a crime.
The lack of even the most basic knowledge of how our system of justice works is just appalling. Do they put you kids through a civics course in school anymore?
Yeah and if I lost a valuable phone and the anti-theft feature told my boss where it was, he might send people to ask the owner of the house if they could come in and find it too. How is that evil? Mind you the home owner has every right to refuse and make them call the cops who will get a warrant to come in and look for it.
it is evil, because individual citizens are NOT police and the executors of justice. its a step away from thuggery.
If they have reason to believe their stolen property is in someone's home, they have every right to go ask if they can come in and look for it. If you lost your phone and location tracked it to a house would it be evil for you to ask the residents if you can come in and look for it?
Stealing the phone someone lost at the bar is unethical. Selling it to the highest bidder is unethical. Looking for your lost property... not unethical.
no, they dont have any right to conduct vigilante justice or search anyone's home even with permission. there is a reason why private investigators have to obtain licenses, and it is precisely to prevent the above from happening.
Read radical news here
you read the article half assedly maybe.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/
SOME PEOPLE saying that they were REPRESENTING APPLE came to the guy's apartment asked to search the apartment. not prosecutor's office or investigating detective.
Read radical news here
Reading this story (and all the others) makes me realize that Apple is the type of company that I will never bother doing business with again. Reading all the replies and noting the moderations makes me feel ashamed for registering at slashdot. Forget about California law for a second. What if you personally lost some precious possession? Would you think for a moment that somehow the finder is legally obligated to correct your mistake? YOU are the one that made the mistake. Legislating the "right thing to do" is not the answer. Personal responsibility should trump in this case. If I lost anything due to my own negligence then I would consider it lost. If by benevolence of another it was returned then that other is doing me a favor. We should not require by law that everyone do favors for others.
It's a free country. You are allowed to go to someone's door and ask them a question, and ask to come in. They can say no. If you keep it up, they can call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing/harassment. But asking "can I come in to talk to you" is perfectly legal.
According to Apple Insider:
The emphasis is mine, though that was a link in the original. A branch of the police executed a warrant. That's legal too. That's the way it's supposed to work.
If Apple did their own search, that would be bad. But they used the process. They did it by the book. This article says that the police aren't analyzing what they found until the question of the shield law is settled. Does that sound like someone following Apple's agenda, damn the consequences?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It's a free country. You are allowed to go to someone's door and ask them a question, and ask to come in. They can say no. If you keep it up, they can call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing/harassment. But asking "can I come in to talk to you" is perfectly legal.
they didnt ask to come in and talk, they asked to be allowed to SEARCH it. its much more bolder and on the borderline than talking.
and the boldness of that matters. private corporations anywhere in the world has no authority to their own detective work. they have to hire p.i.s to do it. the fact that apple didnt refrain from doing that tells volumes about their control freakness.
On Friday, the REACT task force executed a warrant to search the home and car of Gizmodo blogger Jason Chen, who had possession of the iPhone prototype before it was returned to Apple, and who was responsible for the gadget blogs breaking stories on the device.
you are missing the point - this is the blogger's house. its different. apple went to the guy before the gizmodo guy.
Read radical news here
Still legal. I can come to your door and ask for permission to set your couch on fire or take a sledgehammer to your walls. It's still just a request. If he was afraid, he should have called the cops saying he was being harassed, threatened, intimidated, etc. If they tried to force their way in, he could attacked them or even shoot them to defend himself/his property. Either way he could have sued Apple for the harassment/threats/intimidation/trespassing. That's how the process works.
You don't need to hire a P.I. to ask someone a question. The tone of the question doesn't matter. Asking a question in these circumstances is perfectly legal.
Sorry. You missed the point. The point of that sentence was the warrant part. So I mixed up two people. The police served a warrant on someone who received stolen property. That seems like a pretty good way to find out what they knew (i.e. if they thought it was stolen). It was still a warrant, which means it was signed off on by a judge, and not just some company searching a private citizen. It was the government, after going through the process set out to prevent unreasonable searches.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
"The fact that people are defending Apple's retarded actions "
What actions have Apple taken? Lodged a complaint with the police? Filed anything with a court? Initiated a civil suit? Even just a public statement?
Is there anything tangible at all to base your speculation on?
From the prosecutor's point of view, the best thing about this is that most of what happened was conveniently documented for them by Gizmodo.
it is uncommon. it is a practice that private sources do NOT ask to search people's homes. a company, doing this, without noticeable precedent, shows how bold and ethically uncaring they are. they didnt even think this would be bad PR
Sorry. You missed the point. The point of that sentence was the warrant part. So I mixed up two people. The police served a warrant on someone who received stolen property. That seems like a pretty good way to find out what they knew (i.e. if they thought it was stolen). It was still a warrant, which means it was signed off on by a judge, and not just some company searching a private citizen. It was the government, after going through the process set out to prevent unreasonable searches.
the apple 'representatives' had no warrant.
Read radical news here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
Apple is on the steering committe for the REACT law enforcement task force that performed the raid.
The only answer to this is not No, but F-NO!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First off, people keep saying the finder should have "returned the phone to the bar/bartender". That's insanity! Most bars I've been to, I *hardly* trust the bartender or other staff not to just lie to me, promising they'll "try to get it back to the rightful owner" and then just turn around and sell it themselves! Especially in a part of the country where a large portion of the clientele are fairly "tech savvy"? How can you be remotely confident the people working there wouldn't have some personal interest in hanging onto a phone like that?
Second, I don't think it really matters what part of Apple the guy says he tried to contact. The point is, he made an initial effort. He didn't just sell the thing off immediately. That might be "feeble" to you, but it's probably going to hold up in court to prove he doesn't meet the required standards for his actions to be criminal.
Third, what about an Apple store?! Do you have any idea how "in the dark" their employees are kept on Apple's unreleased products and projects? Most of their "geniuses" I've dealt with knew less than I did about upcoming products, or even the details of exactly what's in a brand new product AFTER its released. I had to educate a couple of them on some of the new features Apple added to the Macbook Pro aluminum, when I was in there right after those were released and in stores to demo. Apple actually prefers hiring employees who DON'T have previous experience working in computer stores. They don't think the "hard-core techno geek" types give off the type of image they want for their retail stores of a "friendly place for ANYONE to shop for a computer".
Fourth, giving it to the police?! Another foolish idea. I know most police are way too busy to waste time with a lost cellphone. If I called my local police about something like that, I'm pretty sure they'd laugh and tell me just to keep it. A few, less honest cops I know would just take the thing themselves - figuring they eased your conscience and made you happy, and they got a free bonus at the same time.
About the only sensible thing you've said so far is that he could try to contact the engineer whose name was supposedly in the phone. Still, even that's a little questionable. I thought Apple killed the phone pretty quickly after they realized it was lost, so that would mean he couldn't get back in it to see any info at all. Would he necessarily remember how the guy spelled his whole name, after only looking at it once on the night he found it (and presumably after doing some drinking himself)?
Really, the whole thing looks to me like Apple might have just ignored the lost phone completely and decided to "cut their losses" by letting the world guess if what was found was real or a fake. But all the media attention and diagnosis forced their hand to do something, days later.
I'm not saying what he did, trying to SELL the phone, was completely ethical -- but this is far from being a clear-cut "criminal" case either. He didn't pick-pocket the phone from the engineer in the bar. He found it after it was LOST. And neither Apple corporate nor the engineer made a huge rush to get the phone back either.
I'm not even sure exactly what I would do, if I was the one who found this thing.... Knowing what I know about Apple and their paranoia about leaks of info, I'd be sort of afraid to drop by their HQ with it - for fear I'd get blamed for stealing it or something. I'd also realize the value it would have to the tech-geeks and Mac fans out there, and think I'd rather see them "win one" for a change, vs. helping Apple protect trade secrets they weren't able to sufficiently protect themselves this time around.
Why didn't Apple just call the phone and ask for it to be returned in exchange for a suitable reward?
Why didn't they used their vaunted find my phone system to locate it within hours of knowing it was missing?
Why wasn't it bricked within minutes of going AWOL, rather than letting the people play around with it for weeks?
Too many things just don't make sense about any of this.
Did the guy even tell Apple that it was missing?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
in one of the comments, someone asked why didn't dude give it to the police.
Um, police isn't lost and found, and they have more serious work to even take time for something as stupid as that.
Dude got a hold of apple, they dropped the ball. End of story.
Be seeing you...
it is evil, because individual citizens are NOT police and the executors of justice. its a step away from thuggery.
They were not being police or executors of justice. They asked if they could search for it and abided by the request to leave. If they claimed they had a warrant (they didn't) or broke the door down (they didn't) your comparison with the police would work. But your comparison is phony.
no, they dont have any right to conduct vigilante justice or search anyone's home even with permission. there is a reason why private investigators have to obtain licenses, and it is precisely to prevent the above from happening.
They didn't conduct vigilante justice. And yes, if the person gives them permission they aren't breaking any law searching for it.
Why is everyone getting hung up over the issue of physical property when the value of said object, a single telephone, is inconsequential compared to the value of the intellectual property it represents (millions of R&D dollars). The simple fact is that this device represents a TRADE SECRET and its owners are legally obligated to protect it as such. By going after petty criminal charges rather than asserting that they adequately protected their IP they are leaving the door wide open to knockoff producers to flood the market without any legal recourse as that Apple did not do due diligence in protecting their trade secrets relating to the 4G iPhone.
See you at the flea market, Mr. Jobs.
They were not being police or executors of justice. They asked if they could search for it and abided by the request to leave. If they claimed they had a warrant (they didn't) or broke the door down (they didn't) your comparison with the police would work. But your comparison is phony. They didn't conduct vigilante justice. And yes, if the person gives them permission they aren't breaking any law searching for it.
im appalled at your acceptance of complete strangers coming to ask you that whether they could search YOUR house, and you being ok with it, with no reason whatsoever.
it doesnt make a single bit of difference whether this was legal at that point or not. it is not normal, uncommon, and also incompliant with innumerable privacy considerations, ethics and morals of our society. these are not police, not investigators not d.a. these are RANDOM people. a house is a house, which is a PRIVATE place, loaded with private things of individuals. not to mention that all kinds of legal liabilities would ensue from conducting such a search, REGARDLESS of the 'permission' given.
while police needs warrants to search houses, and even has to be on a particular investigation officially to enter someone's house and search their belongings, private people cannot go and search anyone's house with or without permission. they can only ask to be handed out certain items, and even not demand.
Read radical news here
No, you're very wrong. Lost property is dealt with under both civil and criminal statutes. Selling someone else's lost property is only illegal if you don't make a 'reasonable and just' effort to return it to the original owner. Criminal law on the subject makes absolutely no reference to the police.
Civil statutes are much stricter than criminal, but violating them doesn't mean you've done something illegal. It just means Apple can sue for remedy and restitution, i.e. the return of their lost property. Which has already happened.
This is why non-lawyers shouldn't discuss legal topics. They invariably get things wrong.
I think you're assuming Apple believed the phone had been deliberately taken from the bar. For all Apple knew someone accidentally took the phone home thinking it was their phone. They probably sent the people to the house hoping it was just a misunderstanding. Why get the police and lawyers involved when you can just go ask to look for it?
im appalled at your acceptance of complete strangers coming to ask you that whether they could search YOUR house, and you being ok with it, with no reason whatsoever.
Depends on whether I did anything wrong. If I didn't I would probably be miffed and refuse them (perhaps even giving them the finger). But this is a far cry from your exaggerated claims of thuggery, vigilante justice, and executors of justice.
incompliant with innumerable privacy considerations, ethics and morals of our society
It violates no privacy, ethics or morals. If there was no cause, it might be snotty. No more than that.
private people cannot go and search anyone's house with or without permission
Sounds fishy to me. But if you can point to a law, I'd be interested.
http://www.lolwut.com.au/2010/04/steve-jobs-better-keep-an-eye-on-his-car-keys.html
+1 internets for you, sir. Bravo. Finally something reasonable in this disgusting flamewar. You'll be modded down in 10 seconds, but you're right on the money. If it was Ballmer's phone itself, people would be screaming in laughter and cheering the finder as a gladiator. And the iCops would never ever mind the "incident".
Sheesh, being so cynical about everyone's motives is not an excuse not to do the right thing. It's the finder's responsibility to make an effort to return it to the owner, or to the police. If the finder doesn't do that, and he gets caught, he had it coming. Breaking the rules has consequences, whether you like it or not.
They asked. The person said no. No ones rights were violated. I can go around all day asking people if I can search their house. I am not violating anyones rights.
Perhaps it is because they traced their stolen phone to the persons house. There was actually an easy way to prevent them from coming to the house. Don't steal their phones.
If I know you stole something from me, there is nothing wrong with me coming to your house and asking if I can come in and look for it. In fact I am doing you a huge favor. I could just call the police.
What bothers me about all the Apple defenders citing civil law here is that Apple is NOT a person. Them losing an iPhone is not the same as you or I losing an iPhone, or even a passport. Apple is a corporation, an arbitrary entity bound by laws that don`t apply to human beings. They had no right to ask the police for a warrant to smash into someone`s house and take their property.
Yet again, another inadvertent but accurate description of ACTA.
So basically because you can't trust other human beings it's ok to sell something that doesn't belong to you to the highest bidder.
Why does everyone that is defending this shithead sound like an Apple hater or a droid Fanboy. Their insistence that this guy is innocent is as absurd as listening to a teabagger defend against the fact that they're racist.
Ignorance does not equal innocence.
If they have reason to believe their stolen property is in someone's home...
Except Apple didn't have any reason to believe the phone was there since they had already sent the letter to gizmodo asking for it back when this occured...... hmmmmm
Engadget was extremely clever in this situation. They let Gizmodo break the story and take the legal risk, then immediately republished all of Gizmodo's photos on their own site with the Giz watermarks intact, as did dozens of other blogs. S
it doesnt matter what you believe - what matters is going to ask someone to search their homes as a private corporation. if that is not creepy, i dont know what is. that doesnt happen even here in turkey.
Read radical news here
Depends on whether I did anything wrong. If I didn't I would probably be miffed and refuse them (perhaps even giving them the finger). But this is a far cry from your exaggerated claims of thuggery, vigilante justice, and executors of justice.
no it doesnt depend on whatever you do. because, when it does, you can not prevent people from taking various approaches to vigilante justice, because it becomes commonplace.
this is why in all civilized countries searches are limited to police, and they require warrant, and private investigators can only ask permission. you can NOT go to a citizen's home and ask to search their house without being a police or a p.i.
It violates no privacy, ethics or morals. If there was no cause, it might be snotty. No more than that..
yea private strangers going through your underwear, cupboards, pc definitely do not constitute any violation of privacy, ethics or morals. then, please explain what obligations in regard to privacy do these individuals have. lets say they have noticed that you have various sex fetishes. can one of them expose that information on the net ? what are the legal guidelines for these ?
Read radical news here
i wont reply to each of you who think that some private corporation being able to ask to search someone's house is not normal and contrary to privacy. i have replied to others in the thread, please go and read them.
Read radical news here
Gizmodo aren't the ones who claimed they called Apple Care (a different company than Apple!) as an attempt to return the phone. The guy who sold it to them is the one who claims he did (according to Gizmodo).
Let me reiterate that according to Gizmodo's story, the guy held on to the phone for three weeks before he sold it. Then Gizmodo held on to it for a week without telling Apple before they published their story. They collectively spent like a month not returning the phone to Apple or to the police.
Are you adequate?
That's not quite accurate. Selling goods you don't own is stealing, yes, but you don't get to claim lost property simply because you think you made reasonable efforts to return it. Section 2080 of the California Code requires the finder of missing property, if they are unable or unwilling to find the owner in a reasonable time, to turn the lost goods in to the police and tell them what they know, so that police can attempt to contact the owner. The finder can only take possession of the lost goods after the police gives the owner a 97 day window to claim them first.
I don't think holding on to this phone for 3 weeks counts as reasonable efforts to return it, especially given that the guy was trying to sell it.
Are you adequate?
So the guy who found the phone could perhaps be uncertain whether it belonged to a guy who worked at Apple, or or to Apple itself. The reasonable course of action is the same: call Apple, and tell them you need to get in contact with that guy because you found the cell phone he lost. Mr. Powell and Apple can sort out which of them owns the phone.
Are you adequate?
You're missing the point of the advice to give it to the bartender. It's not a claim that bartenders are particularly reliable in this regard. It's an explanation of the fact that you can avoid legal responsibility for returning a lost item by leaving it at the place where it was found (unless you do something completely unreasonable like return it to the bar one month later, after renting it).
No, he didn't sell it off immediately--he spent weeks trying to get the best offer. That's very incriminating.
So how was he able to tell Gizmodo the engineer's name?
Are you aware of the fact that in California you must turn in items to the police if you can't or won't return them to the owner in a reasonable time? Whether you think it's foolish or not, it's the law.
Are you adequate?
It sounds like no, they managed to identify him without searching Jason Chen's computer. According to reports, Apple already knew who found the phone before Chen got raided. From that story, it just sounds like the guy showed the phone to a number of people, and some of them must have notified Apple and/or the cops.
Are you adequate?
THEY DIDN'T SEARCH HIS HOME, they said a collection of words from his doorstep when his door was (probably) open.
The police did search, with a warrant. Apple (according to you), only asked to. That's not wrong in any way.
Also, uncommonness is not a good way to measure things. Just because you're the lone voice in the wilderness doesn't make you wrong.
I just don't understand your position. What's so horrible about being asked something? That seems overly sensitive.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
THEY DIDN'T SEARCH HIS HOME, they said a collection of words from his doorstep when his door was (probably) open. Also, uncommonness is not a good way to measure things. Just because you're the lone voice in the wilderness doesn't make you wrong. I just don't understand your position. What's so horrible about being asked something? That seems overly sensitive.
come back and tell me whats so horrible about it when some private corporation's 'representatives' come and ask you to search your house, going through all the belongings of your family, including underwear of your wife, husband or kids, as well as the stuff in your medicine cupboard.
Read radical news here
Dilbert link: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/thatlost4gphone/
What are you talking about? Apple did not search anyone's home.
Under California Law, finding lost property grants you the equivalent of depositary-for-hire status. Which means you need to take care of the item you found until it is returned to its owner, or failing that, turned over to the police. The civil statutes are very clear on this. As the depositary, if you don't trust the bar staff, you shouldn't leave the item with them - you should turn it over to the police, as the law requires.
You're right. He felt that Apple was the owner, and he attempted to contact them to return the item. So far, he's run afoul of no law. He could have attempted to contact Apple more aggressively by bringing it to a store, or bringing it to corporate headquarters. But assuming that calling tech support was a "reasonable" effort to return the item to the owner, the law is very clear that if you are unable to return it to the owner, you must then bring it to the police if it's worth more than $100. He didn't do that - he began shopping it around to web sites trying to make a few bucks off it. This is where his defense falters.
Only if you consider "following the law" to be a foolish idea. California's civil code (section 2080) is very clear that this is exactly the step that should be taken if the item is worth more than $100 and the finder cannot contact the owner.
Clear-cut? No, but California Penal code section 485 also have some things to say about whether or not this could be considered a criminal matter.
So you're saying that you're okay with violating the law, as long as Apple gets screwed. That's fine, and we appreciate your input.
enter 23262625234244519th person to have read TFAs half assedly.
police searched gizmodo editor's home. apple sent 'representatives' to the home of the guy who gave the phone to the gizmodo editor.
Read radical news here
"you can NOT go to a citizen's home and ask to search their house without being a police or a p.i." Yes you can. What law makes this illegal?
"yea private strangers going through your underwear, cupboards, pc definitely do not constitute any violation of privacy, ethics or morals. then, please explain what obligations in regard to privacy do these individuals have. lets say they have noticed that you have various sex fetishes. can one of them expose that information on the net ? what are the legal guidelines for these ?"
Well you'd have to be pretty dumb to let a stranger search your house, wouldn't you?
privacy laws.
what are the legal obligations and boundaries of an individual private citizen searching someone's home ? can i just tell anyone about what i see in here ? youre not my friend, youre not my family. there are no definitions. since you agreed with me, i got in, i got access to everything in your home including your underwear ? what bars me from using any material inside for any purpose ?
Read radical news here
you would, however the point is a private corporation attempting that.
Read radical news here