I doubt it was a plant after seeing this.

Pretty heavy handed stuff.

Humm
The pot is starting to boil .



Ahhh what ? ? even a journalist is not above the law - how silly to even think that .

Now for kicking the door down was a bit heavy handed , then again they were on a raid and not passing out an warrant

Apple filed a complaint with the police. It's the police that are now pursuing this, not Apple.

I figured that's what they did, I knew that it wasn't Apple that kicked his door in.

The problem I see is that I've read somewhere along the line Apple was contacted about returning the phone and the guy was given the runaround. That pretty much tosses any criminality and/or claims of theft out the window if true.

Honestly I find the whole notion of theft in this situation laughable to begin with. The phone was lost at a bar. I bet if the phone had turned into the cops, 30 days later it would still have been sitting there.

The act of selling it is what made it theft, from what I understand. California law apparently has a specified amount of time between finding something, and being able to call it yours.

They had the guy's Facebook account, could have contacted him directly. Apparently he was calling the bar frantically trying to find it afterwards. Who takes a lost phone from a bar anyway? Isn't it pretty much common practice to give lost items to the owner of the establishment in case someone comes back looking for it?

Heck, the guy could have emailed Steve Jobs personally and I'm guessing he'd have gotten a hero cookie.

Mmmm.. hero cookie.. mMMmmMmmmmmm....

Theres a couple of things that are sticky .

1 - Rumor is that Gizmodo paid the Mystery Man some cash for the device - if thats true than Gizmodo could be in some Kim Chee . It is Gizmodo responsibility to ensure that ownership is free and clear - does not matter if the device is lost or stolen and to pay for it on top of that .

2 - Gizmodo then publishes said device for the world to see a secret prototype which = (Industrial Espionage) <-- hence is where the Felony Count is coming from ?

I betcha Gizmodo brain wave was a lost and found device (Finders Keepers , Loser Sweepers) - Ahhh no not for something like that , maybe a lost cheap watch or a dollar found on the ground . But they seemed to know what it was and what it meant to Apple .

Now
If Gizmodo made every attempt with documentation to contact Apple and or gave it to the police than everything would be different .

Ooooooooooooo, good one Carp! That's a keeper!

Finders Keepers, Loser Sweepers

I love Carpisms!!


.

1. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the device ...

2. Gizmodo purchased the device with full knowledge that the seller was not the legal owner, which makes Gizmodo guilty of knowingly purchasing stolen goods. The Felony comes in under CA law essentially because the value of the item was over $450 (I think that's the magic number), as established by the purchase price ...

You're right that if Gizmodo had bought the item and then immediately returned it to Apple, the obvious owner, the case might be a bit more nuanced (although, technically, they would have still knowingly purchased stolen goods -- intent here possibly being a mitigating factor) ...

Instead they proceeded to dismantle the thing, take pictures and provide commentary, particularly noting the Apple stamps, etc., and post all of this information on their web site. There's no way their intentions were anything beyond getting a scoop and certainly their methods were not in the better traditions of journalism. I for one hope they get the book thrown at them.

Thanks didn't know it was that much 5 grand - holy cow thats a ton of cash - plus then get your head beat in over it <-- to funny .

Would have better to take the 5 and throw it in the trash can .

Ah HA !! the chain of events reviled

However to me
The legal matter of the phone being lost or stolen , is not the issue - Rather the fact that Gizmodo published said secrets could mean Industrial Espionage ?

It seems Apple did pressure law enforcement.

Apple's always been a bully when it comes to its obsession withe secrecy. Nothing new, really.

It seems Apple did pressure law enforcement.

Well theres nothing wrong with that , in fact Apple needs to File a complaint with the police anyway , if Apple wants the police involved

But sure is an interesting story

Yep
, nothing new

I am sure any other company would have acted similarly if their prototype was pasted on the web

Talk about secrecy
I worked on Estimating for the last 2 weeks a 750,000 state job which today at 2;30 is the deadline , I need estimates from the sub contractors as well. (Secrecy) part comes in that the trades don't want to revile their bids until the very last moment

Not really seeing all that much "pressure" based on this article, to be honest.

Regardless, it sure doesn't paint a very nice picture of the Gizmodo guys or of the person who found the phone. As for Apple, I'll agree with the statement that while there may have been a little payback included in their filing a police report, they certainly seem to have had every right to do so, and it would seem more than justified by the way some of the accused appear to have made efforts to hide evidence ...

Personally I think Steve Jobs is behind this whole escapade for a publicity stunt.J

Publicity stunts don't involve the police, or the possible stagnation of current product sales because people find out something better is around the corner.

Besides, since when does Apple need more publicity than they already have? SJ snaps his fingers an the press appears.

the guy who originally found the phone knew exactly what he was doing and knowingly tried to avoid the police before he could capitalize and make some money. i have no sympathy for him or Gizmodo. if i was Apple i would have also notified the police and pressed charges. beyond that, it's a police matter. meh.

In your opinion do you think the guy that found the phone should be jailed?

Fined & community service should be just fine, but people have been jailed for less.

Shoot! I don't know how to make the image larger so you all can read it. Here is the link to the above comic: http://www.foxtrot.com/comics/2010-05-16-55fd67ba.gif

Actually, there is something quite wrong with it. While Apple has every right to to file a complaint, press charges, etc, NO individual or corporate entity has any business directing or pressuring law enforcement in the carrying out of their duties. Ever. If there's an issue with stagnation or delay in the carrying out of those duties, then that's a job for those higher up or maybe in different channels. That didn't happen here, and public service shouldn't be bought by private interests. EVER. That it actually happens should be more of a wake-up call to us than it is.



EXACTLY.

In what way do you feel Apple directed or pressured law enforcement in this case? I haven't heard or read anything indicating they did anything other than file a complaint and provide police with information regarding the prototype unit and other details of the case ...

i heard steve jobs attached C4 to the door personally …then shouted "yippee kaiyaee mother…" as half the building went down

Uhm, you read the article, right?
Apple put a bit of a squeeze on law enforcement. How much of a squeeze is a matter of debate, unless you were there when it happened, and I certainly wasn't. Of course, law enforcement has the authority to determine for themselves how much force is necessary to accomplish a given task, and they should be held accountable for those decisions, ultimately, but even so, a corporation shouldn't be able to pressure law enforcement, by any amount or means.

Define "a bit of a squeeze" -- All the article says is that "Apple pressed" for an investigation. I think I would press for one, too, if something of mine had been stolen. I would imagine the police feel some amount of pressure from every single person who files one to investigate their complaint. The question here is wether Apple "pressing" for an investigation represents undue "pressure" or rather is something merely appropriate for the circumstances.

Again, I'm not seeing where Apple pressured law enforcement into doing anything they wouldn't have ordinarily done, or where Apple pulled any particularly special strings to get what they wanted ... (except for the C-4 incident, which I admit was slightly over the top ;-)

Again, the prototype had been returned and details already leaked to the public. There was no need to break into the man's house, and no manner of Apple-fan psychological gymnastics changes that. It was overkill. While the police may feel pressure during an investigation, it is their job, responsibility, and area of expertise to exercise restraint and keep that pressure in check, rather than having it the other way around. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone of sound reason that it was 'appropriate' to break into a man's house and remove his computers from the premises in this situation. If higher ups in the legal food chain are bringing such decision-making into question (and, AGAIN, they are), then this is more than a few armchair lawyers, activist groups (think EFF and the like), and Apple-bashers raising a prejudiced stink. This is something which needs deep examination.



He may as well have. In the military, we had a cliche for not overdoing something to dramatic degree- "Don't nuke it."

So, wait. You're blaming *Apple* for the police breaking into the man's house? That implies Apple had some sort of operational control that I seriously doubt they had. Nor do I see any evidence that Apple pressured the police into taking that specific action. Wether or not the police should have acted that drastically, until someone can show Apple's involvement in that decision beyond filing a complaint, I'll have a hard time buying Apple should bear much if any blame for that decision.

As for wether the police should have seized computers and whatnot: I'm under the impression they were looking for any proprietary software that may have been offloaded from the iPhone prototype -- given the actions of the Gizmodo folks in regards the hardware of the prototype, a very real possibility. Where else would they have searched if not computers and memory devices? If the question is more about the method of the search (i.e. breaking-into the premises), that, again, would be the police you'd want to question, not Apple =)

I think you've picked one quote from my reply and in doing so have completely tossed the context.

I have to agree with Big Six on this one , Antonio

All I see is Apple filing a complaint and informing the police on what to look for - Computers , HDs , Thumb Drives yada yada

In fact
Any police bust be it a drug , murder , assault , stolen property as in this case - You betcha they will grab anything that has a memory , especially cell phones . All that stuff can carry even more evidence .

Now for busting down the door , well that maybe a little overboard . All they needed to do was serve the search and seizure Warrant . I dunno ? maybe they thought he could do a remote wipe all drives , if they happily walked in and gave him the time to do so .

My apologies if I've misread your posts -- in what what way have I taken them out of context? You seem to be concerned here that a corporation has had undue influence on law enforcement. I have merely asked what makes Apple's (in this case) actions so nefarious compared with what any other company or individual would or should do under the circumstances. Or in what way Apple has inappropriately pressured those officials into doing something they shouldn't have. I really don't see where Apple has crossed a line here.

Yeah, unless they bribed or threatened them to do so I don't see how they can be the bad guys here.

It doesn't matter that some other company might do the same- which, actually, reinforces my point and is worse. Nor is there any hard requirement of a 'bribe or threat' necessary for a corporation to have undue influence on law enforcement (and yes, that is what I'm saying is possible here). To think so is a bit naive, I think. Same goes for the entire 'bad guy' thing. I never said there was a good guy in this situation. Maybe not even a bad guy either, but certainly a lot of stupidity. As aforementioned several times now, even others in law enforcement saw this as over the top and possibly in violation of an individual's rights. That they're taking time to look into this should say something. I'd say at this point the motivation is, more or less, to win an argument than acknowledge what's right out in the open. Between the two, I'll gladly quit dragging it around in circles and take the second.

Well,my motivation is to find out what people think Apple has done that is wrong. I keep asking specifically for what it was that Apple is supposed to have done that unduly influenced the police, and nobody so far has provided any real specific answer. If it's so obvious and in the open, you'd think somebody by now would have enlightened those like me who are apparently missing some sort of elephant in the room.

But if you wish to simply agree to disagree, I'm down with that =)

What they've done wrong is that it's not very good for business. Apple aint cool anymore - They look like a stuffed suit. Suspend the turbodorkness for a second and dwell on the Mass of the bread and butter.

This is regarding the continued success ( long time in internet time ) of the iPhone:



Apple is a stuffed suit.

Ed

It will get harder for them. They need an obfuscation department - Now that would be cool Fake protos, specs, emails, whatever in the wild - Apple twatterings/buzz/whatever universe explodes, no one knows what's up or down, just controlled Apple noise. Quarterly phenom. Cool

Ed

Indifference is cool. Apple used to be iconically indifferent.

The Dungarees vs The suits.

Meh. It's a corporation. Makes product, earns profit. In the case of the computer, it's a solid product, with a well-developed ecosystem (OS, peripherals, developer support, third-party software etc, etc). Ultimately, they are one of several, and for any one of the several you choose, your mileage and level of buy-in will vary.

If you really think that corporations can "pressure" police into doing something, then you have been watching too much tv.

Apple's lawyer went to the station and filed a police report. Obviously, as a lawyer, he probably emphasized how valuable this iPhone was to Apple and how it could do serious damage to their earnings.

There is NO way in hell that Apple (or any corporation) can tell a police dept how to execute a search warrant.

How they entered the house is totally on the police dept.

I hope that they throw the book at Gizmodo. "Journalism" (and I use that word very loosely) like this should NOT be accepted.

Actually, I don't watch much TV at all. I just don't trust that police departments make habits of breaking into people's homes on a regular basis and I think your argument is more than a little assumptive. As for "telling" anyone to do something, (god, I feel like I'm going in circles here, repeating the same things, over and over again) it doesn't need to be that direct an insinuation. Even if the cops did it simply because it was Apple (pressure simply because it's a large company, who happens to be on the board of the police unit who obtained the warrant) that's STILL reason to look at this more critically. And, in such a case, procedure would likely need to be reviewed. Also worth consideration is the fact that Apple sent their own employees to Brian Hogan's residence and asked to search it. No way in hell? Common sense and critical thinking would indicate otherwise. There is no shortage of suspicion here. I don't know any better than anyone else if it HAS happened (and I don't think all corporations are out to get us), but I'm pretty damn sure it CAN happen, also considering it wouldn't be the first time a corporate entity has influenced government function.

It was stupid of an Apple employee to lose a prototype iPhone in a bar. It was stupid of Brian Hogan to accept any form of payment for any 'service' related to said prototype (he claims he 'wasn't selling it', right...), it was stupid of Gizmodo to buy the phone and rub Apple's nose in it (whether it makes for 'good' journalism or 'bad' is another debate), and it was stupid of the San Mateo police to bust into Jason Chen's home, remove his property, and possibly violate state and federal shield laws. They're not even going to search his computers until that's been decided. All the way around, there obviously hasn't been much forethought going on.

We can agree to disagree, yes, but I'm not looking at this from the point of view of an Apple fan who sees them as being victimized here. I'm looking at this based on what information about the actual chain of events is available. It plays out, thus far, like a bad movie with bad acting all the way around.

So with one last shot at things here: It seems to me that in the end you find Apple suspect of something untoward not necessarily by anything they actually did, but merely by the fact that they're big. And the fact of their bigness means that any interaction they have with police makes them necessarily suspect of using unwarranted pressure.

Have I got that right? Because I really don't want to put words in your mouth, but it really does seem from this latest post that you'd find *any* interaction between a large corporation and police suspect merely because the contact happened. Which I guess would logically lead to a larger discussion about corporate influence on government in general, which while interesting really would probably be another thread of its own =)

Regardless, I will point out that there's a difference between looking at such contacts with greater scrutiny and criticism -- which I actually agree is warranted and is a good thing -- and actually accusing one party of bringing undue pressure over the other, which, I'm sorry, really does require some actual evidence other than speculation.



All I've seen about this so far is an unsubstantiated report in a Wired article. If you have something actually establishing this as fact, then we can talk about Apple's stupidity in trying to take matters into their own hands ;-)



Ugh. Really?

My response of "watching too much tv" was an assumption but I guess I should have perhaps put "read too much internet or whatever you want to insert here".

My argument is a little assumptive? Hello pot, I'm kettle. Because to say mine is but yours isn't is a little contradictory. Where is your proof? I have at least a little background here by being a former police officer.



I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Apple is on a "board of the police unit that obtained the warrant"? Because if you are, that makes no sense. No corporation sits on a "board" of police departments, especially when obtaining warrants. That is up to the judicial department made up of a judge.

And if companies are able to give undo pressure, that certainly does merit looking into.



Like six of one said, where's the proof? Even if there was, so what? Anyone can come to my house and ASK to search it. Will they be able to? No way. Would I lodge a complaint with the company head regarding such a request? Probably. Is it illegal for them to ask? No, not that I'm aware of.




A search warrant HAS to be signed by a judge. This judge HAS to be presented with facts and what the police suspect. This warrant HAS to be executed exactly as how the judge spells it out. If the police did NOT do what the warrant specifies, then it's on them for liability. Otherwise, it's legal for what they did.



You are basing it on hearsay and partial information. Not a very good ground to be standing on.

Look, I've already addressed most of what you've said here, and I've already stated many times it's speculation. Pick it apart as you see fit for just the sake of argument- I'm not going through the redundancy of repeating myself yet again. There's a difference between discussion, debate, and simply being disagreeable and thick-headed for the sake of being disagreeable and thick-headed. I think we've hit that limit here, but have at it, anyhow. *shrug*

How can anyone not look at Apple and see them as being the victim? How many millions of dollars did this fiasco cost them in iPhone sales?

None of this would have happened if the right thing had been done when the phone was found. Both the stolen goods peddler and Gizmodo CLEARLY did the wrong thing. Engadget is the model citizen in this chain of events.

So I point out some errors in your postings and you call me disagreeable and thick-headed?

I'm not picking it apart for the sake of argument, but rather I'm fixing the mistakes that you posted. To leave them as is would make people think that is what happened.

When you pick it apart, selectively ignoring anything which supports it and choose to ignore the overall message, yes, it is simply being thick-headed and disagreeable, especially when your own speculation isn't any better or more informed than mine- in which case, you're really not 'fixing' anything, even if saying so makes you feel better. On the other hand, when there are more important things to do than be repetitious, I have to decide what qualifies as a reasonable use of time. This sort of thing isn't it.

I'm not sure what your expectation is here if by your own admission the overall message is supported only by speculation on your part. And it's a shame you find it disagreeable that people might actually challenge that speculation rather than mindlessly buy into it -- some people find having to actually defend their opinions beneficial. But oh well.

Now, THAT'S complete bunk, and more of the same.

Obviously then you're not one of those people ;-)