Yeah, no worries. Believe me, the humour of posting such a link from Gizmodo (of all places) was not lost on me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Investigators Posed as Police in New Lost iPhone Prototype Search?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, no worries. Believe me, the humour of posting such a link from Gizmodo (of all places) was not lost on me.
Be careful about what you post here. I am sure Apple police is watching. One day you might hear a knock on your door and police officer might tell you that Apple wants to inspect your computer!
I think if I posted this a week ago, I would be called all kinds of names and yet here we are and this is exactly what Apple is doing. But hey, they ship their computers in environment friendly packaging (or at least so they say).
I think that the police are the ones who acted the most inappropriately here.
Perhaps that's how it is done in Canada, but here in MA it wouldn't fly.
Where's the formal apology from MacRumors to Apple now that it's clear that the police just screwed up and didn't file it?
This site, for being entirely a fan site for Apple, jumps at any chance to slam them, and I see it as ridiculous.
This whole conspiracy story has been front page, when it's BS. And now that it's PROVEN that the police were involved, and that Apple followed the proper course, the entire story remains - but with the tiniest little "update" tag at the bottom. Someone gets the full story of misinformation and lousy reporting, and by the time they get to the bottom, it's already in their mind that Apple did something that they didn't.
This isn't the first time MacRumors has pulled this crap, and frankly, I hope an Apple attorney makes it the last.
This site, for being entirely a fan site for Apple, jumps at any chance to slam them, and I see it as ridiculous.
This whole conspiracy story has been front page, when it's BS. And now that it's PROVEN that the police were involved, and that Apple followed the proper course, the entire story remains - but with the tiniest little "update" tag at the bottom. Someone gets the full story of misinformation and lousy reporting, and by the time they get to the bottom, it's already in their mind that Apple did something that they didn't.
This isn't the first time MacRumors has pulled this crap, and frankly, I hope an Apple attorney makes it the last.
It's just marketing
Don't you find it strange,that every iphone prototype is lost or stolen?It is just marketing.Everyone talks about it all the time so it is constantly being repeated.iPhone 5,iPhone 5,iPhone 5.....endlessly so u don't even think of any other option.It is like-there is nothing else out there.Only iphone my friend.
Don't you find it strange,that every iphone prototype is lost or stolen?It is just marketing.Everyone talks about it all the time so it is constantly being repeated.iPhone 5,iPhone 5,iPhone 5.....endlessly so u don't even think of any other option.It is like-there is nothing else out there.Only iphone my friend.
I'm sure you know by now that MR has become a haven for a certain type of people. And to be honest, I sometimes find that to be intensely satisfying. Like now. And quarterly report time.
Great idea! Now Apple can sue Mac forums. And maybe anyone who posts anything bad about them.
Are you a part of this group?
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1223089/
It flew.
If I were my posts would read a lot like yours.
While it would be sadly characteristic of Apple to try, exactly what liability do you believe MacRumors has incurred for simply relaying news from sources they've cited?
What was the lie? MR reported what was initially released. The story changed, MR corrected it. Like Antennagate.
But they do.
I am not sure of the liability of MR....
but here we have case MR published a report from another agency as true that turned out to be false which called into question the integrity of Apple...this isn't so straightforward as a simple mistake in my opinion because of what seems slanderous.
Though legally this might be okay. Sounds very tabloidish to me....something this site used not be like at all.
Who would be more liable, MR for repeating it, or the original source? This site has a lot in common with the National Enquirer.
Repeating someone else's lie does not imply less liability.
I understand this is a rumour site, but its lost the ideal that it is not a gossip site.
it is one thing to have rumors about products another thing to have rumors about Proper Entities themselves.
I dunno if you live in America, or have ever visited it, but please allow me to just say something.
I'm not too sure about what you said. Protection from the police is one of the major reasons why the US fought with King George... so we wouldn't have to deal with the King's men raiding our houses and treating us like crap just because they felt like it or were somehow superior than the average citizen. That's we have a Constitution that guarantees us protection from the government and the police.
Now I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't go after their lost property. We all would like our lost property back, and as such we report our valuable property to police. But that doesn't mean that you or I, or even the wealthiest corporation, can get the police and other minions to raid an innocent man's house (and who knows if he's innocent... but I'm going to assume he is innocent until he is proven guilty).
If we don't have police (and corporations) operating under their rights... well then, we might as well throw the Constitution away, right?
As much as the guy was scared or in the heat of the moment, I certainly hope that in the future people know their rights and demand a warrant from cops. Luckily, I have never had to deal with cops before (knock on wood), but I'm hoping that when I do, I'll remember to exercise my rights that are guaranteed on a piece of paper located in DC.
*Sorry about getting a bit philosophical/off-topic.
----------
By the way, I'm having a hard time recalling this, but didn't the Gizmodo editor who published iPhone 4 images have his house raided and his computers taken without a warrant? Or did they have a warrant? I know it was some secret tech police that is apparently legal (I can't remember the name unfortunately).
But I do remember reading that the editor basically came back from an evening out and found some "agents" in his garage checking and clearing it out...
It's really outrageous to be honest. I recognize that these products deal in the millions of dollars (or even billions for Apple), but come on... don't go around disrupting people's lives just because you can afford the cops/agents to do so.
What has happened to rule of law in this country... average guys like me will probably never recover a stolen or lost iPhone even after filing numerous police reports... but corporations man, they get special agents to raid houses on the spot.
It was a perfectly valid story. There was a citizen that reported his home was searched by police. There was the original story that Apple employees attended that search. All facts. The police denied being there. Another reported fact. If Apple lost their property, the police deny being there, and the citizen claims the people represented themselves as police (some were), then the story was 100% truthful. The implication, and it was reported as such and not as fact, was that then if the police were not there, then the people claiming to be police were impersonating police. That was the logical conclusion but was never presented as being fact, that Apple employees did in fact represent themselves as police. Only the implication, given all the facts.
Of course, now that it has also been acknowledged that the police were there, then there is problem with a private company using the public resources of the police department to gain access to a private residence.
Is there anyone with the slightest qualification, such as a member of the bar, who can cite any California statute or case law for the proposition that police officers may not accompany private citizens attempting to recover their stolen property from premises where there is reasonable cause to believe it may be found?
So, by that logic, it's fact up until it's not fact, at which point it's still formerly fact, so it's still not slander or libel?
And by your standards, it would be the person who got shot who would be at fault if the police didn't follow proper procedure when pursuing the suspect.
So, by that logic, it's fact up until it's not fact, at which point it's still formerly fact, so it's still not slander or libel?
And by your standards, it would be the person who got shot who would be at fault if the police didn't follow proper procedure when pursuing the suspect.
Um no. You do understand the concept of having to use what is known to draw conclusions, don't you. Did you ever take a science class? Math theory? Investigative writing? (these are all middle/highschool level courses if you are interested) One uses and can only use the facts available. If the police give factually inaccurate info and/or Apple gives no info, then one has to rely on the facts, as they are known. One can only draw conclusions on the facts as they are known and presented. If parties involved misrepresent their information or withhold information, then they are responsible for inaccurate conclusions.
By your standards, if they police claim they didn't shoot a suspect, even though witnesses say they did and ballistics show he was shot with their gun, no media may be allowed to speculate or draw conclusions. Their speculations and conclusions may not be correct, but there is nothing libellous or slanderous from draw those conclusion. Especially if they do not claim that their conclusions have been proven (you know, like arn never claimed any conclusions were proven).
of course you can welcome somebody in, everyone knows that. a warrant just makes it possible to enter without his consent. (unless he was a suspected terrorist under the patriot act). i agree the police were there for safety but i also think the cops were there to retrieve stolen property if possible This scenario wouldn't make sense if a major company impersonated our police. if you think apple impersonated police officers to retrieve the next iphone, you are a complete moron that loves to ponder on ridiculous conspiracies. the thing is only worth $400 in stores when it comes out, and it won't be a surprise so soon anyway, it's not like it's secret that's worth keeping for too much longer...
That's all well and good, but that's not the case here. You've got MacRumors creating a massive conspiracy theory about how Apple controls the SFPD and manipulates them.
Where clearly it was just lousy police work and bad reporting.
It's the bad reporting that would be taken as slander and libel.
you're canadian, but police officers in the US are our neighbors friends and blue collar just like us yes you have on bad rotten or two, but it's the politicians that will fudge the truth...
----------
im sorry but most of you people are complete morons.
NO THIS IS NOT CONSPIRACY
YES, ACTUAL POLICE OFFICERS WERE PRESENT.
apple wanted to retrieve stolen property & the police were present to ensure safety and to arrest if necessary...
Haha put a bunch of hippies in a blog spot and let them duke it out between a over a corporation and police officer and you get mass hysteria.
your brains are squeezing around apple so hard you're about to make apple juice
i love it...