Slashdot Mirror
Did Apple Impersonate Police To Recover the Lost iPhone 5?
zacharye writes "This whole lost iPhone 5 prototype story just got whole lot more interesting. According to SF Weekly, six investigators claiming to be members of the San Francisco police department descended upon one Bernal Heights, San Francisco man's home in search of a lost iPhone 5 prototype that CNET originally reported had been left in a bar. The scary part? The SFPD does not seem to be aware of such an investigation. Instead, it appears as though they may have actually been members of Apple's security team allegedly impersonating police officers."
So far this claim seems to be developing solely through media communications; in order for the SFPD to start an investigation, the man whose house was searched would need to speak with the police directly. Update: 09/03 12:14 GMT by S : A later report indicates police were present, but they stood outside while Apple employees searched the house. No police report was filed because Apple wanted it kept a secret.
Ha, the San Francisco Police Department WISHES they were as powerful as Apple security. Half the security guys at Apple have licenses to kill, and a pretty good portion of them are ninjas.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is hilarious! Why do they give out these phones anyway? Besides, Apple is a religion. The security team should have impersonated priests to get the phone back.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
There's a reason the SFPD doesn't know about it. It never happened. The entire incident, from the loss to the "search" is a story designed to generate hype for the iPhone 5.
iPigs
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
- this Apple employee "lost" an iPhone5 at a bar
- this undercover Apple employee "found it" and listed it on craigslist
- this undercover Apple employee bought it for $200
- this Apple employee in a uniform picked it up
- the whole internet ran wee-wee-wee silliness about it
It's all part of the hype machine's advertising campaign. You guys have all been fooled.
He's claiming that they said they were SFPD. If they said that, or even suggested it, then there's a strong claim for criminal trespass. Privilege to enter a house cannot be gained through deception.
The number they gave him was of an Apple employee whose title is "senior investigator" and who previously worked for the San Jose PD.
Maybe they were real cops. Maybe he called in an unofficial favor...
Corporate police forces are not new - some railway companies in the United States have had their own private police forces next to forever. And Apple probably figures they're more important than Burlington Northern - Santa Fe.
#DeleteChrome
You mean other than talking to the actual SFPD that does indeed have a report of the incident? That and calling the number the man was given and finding out it goes to Apple security.
Well if they searched the house, as the summary suggests, then it goes a LONG way past mistaking private security for police.
In this day and age, who is smart enough to pick up a lost phone in a bar and then try to sell it superstitiously and is still to dumb to tell a real cop from a rent-a-cop?
Not saying I believe any part of this story. The entire thing may be made from whole cloth since precisely one guy (Sergio Calderon, 22) is making this claim with nothing to back it up except a phone number that could easily be found via other means. (No business card, just a phone number).
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
yes, many gays still act like males. (likewise for lesbians that actually act like females.) what a concept. :P
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
San Francisco Police Department spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield now tells SF Weekly that "three or four" SFPD officers accompanied two Apple security officials
So, now we can stop with the Apple FUD, right?
[citation needed]
From TFA:
"This is something that's going to need to be investigated now," SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield said, when informed about the Bernal Heights man's statements to SF Weekly. "If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
And a little further down:
Dangerfield said police plan to look into Calderón's allegations. "There's something amiss here. If we searched someone's house, there would be a police report," Dangerfield said.
heheh, Guy Maddin is a crazy director. He's from my hometown. If you ever see My Winnipeg playing on TV or wherever you should check it out.
Completely messed up.
Trolling is a art,
The SFPD also said they did not go INSIDE the house. And the Apple employees who went inside, never said anything about them not being part of SFPD, so I think it's totally possible for the guy to think they were SFPD too. A bunch of guys come to your house, one guy says "SFPD" and then a couple of guys go in, I think it's reasonable for him to assume they're all SFPD, since you know, they came together, and acting as if they're all one group. But don't let little factoids come in the way of defending the borg.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
No doubt if the resident didn't agree those cops probably would do something to make his life difficult. An article I read suggested that they were threatening to call the INS. Obviously that implies the resident didn't have clean hands, but that doesn't justify abuse of process.
My problem with the modern court system is that we've turned the constitution into some kind of game. I know somebody who has given ethics lectures and he said that lectures to lawyers are the worst - you get a bazillion questions along the lines of "well, OK, maybe that is unethical, but how about if I did this and this and this instead." Basically the goal seems to be to figure out exactly how much you can get away with and then milk the system for all it is worth.
Er, one correction: it only matters if they had a search warrent and /forced the search/.
Police, investigators, anyone, are entirely within their rights to ask to search anything even if they have no right to demand a search.
Public or private. Someone can walk up to your door and say, "I think my kid is in your house, can I look around?"
They are under no obligation to prove any level of valid basis for that assertion -- if they ask you for permission and you say yes, they can search your house. Because you are letting them.
Police can say, "Mind if I come in, ma'am?" And you let them in, and they look around in plain sight and find something and you get arrested. That isn't a violation of the 4th amendment, even if they had no solid reason to ask -- the very fact that they ASKED and you GAVE PERMISSION changes the whole question.
You're right: it doesn't matter if they were SFPD, or SSFPD, or anyone else-- if they had a warrent they were legally in the right. BUT. The thing is, everything I've read about this has said this guy /gave permission/ to search. So at that point, it could have been ANYONE, in ANY jurisdiction. Now, some have said that there were threats and that the people asking for permission were threatening to involve INS -- and if thats true, a Judge may find that the permisssion was under duress. But, otherwise,
A search warrent is important, yes. For the governemnt to mandate a search requires one, and what "government" means there can vary depending on jurisdiction... If one exists, all this whining doesn't matter. BUT. That is not at all the story I've heard about this situation: there needs be no search warrent if one willingly grants access to their premesis.
If any random dude asks "Can I search your house for the color pink?" and you let them, they are in no way shape or form susceptible to any constitutional challenges on the "search". Random dude can be a cop, or a homeless guy wandering past-- if you consent to them wandering around your house, so be it.
The question is: did the party misrepresent the situation, and essentially deceive the homeowner about who it is is asking to search, and who is actually searching? Its a crime to pretend to be a police officer; but if a police officer asks if their technicians can look around and you are in no way obligated to obey, there is no force-- and though you may be confused on who 'technician' is and who they work for-- it is NOT the same thing as Apple forcing their way in and demanding to search the house.
In the end, the dude seems like he gave permission for a search. Maybe he was not entirely aware enough as he should have been. But his choices are his choices.