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.