Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple on the Steering Comitee of Task Force which Broke Down Chen's Door

I loved this comment about the article:

apple is trash and oh by the way the only people buying apple are yuppie wanna be cool college idiots spending daddies money, arrogant,jerks. I stopped buying apple crap 1 yr ago just because of the interaction with their customer support.
Click to expand...

They may be jerks, but they're cool. :)
 
Bear in mind that this is written by the joker who useds to work for Gawker but didn't mention that at all in this entire article where he defends Gawker.

I see it's been added on to the end now that people have complained, but seriously, why should I trust anything else this guy says if he can't even get that very-important rule of journalism correct?

He's basically called out the police department and accused them of working for a corporation but offered zero proof. If he has anything to prove it, I'm all ears. But until that happens it just looks like a hit piece by a biased former-Gawker employee who wants to defend his friends.
 
So, I guess the point of the article is that if regularly interact with law enforcement in any way, you have no right to protection from theft.

What an idiot!
 
dsnort said:
So, I guess the point of the article is that if regularly interact with law enforcement in any way, you have no right to protection from theft.

What an idiot!
Click to expand...

The point of the article is that the excessive force (breaking down the front door) used by the task force, and the issuance of a warrant instead of subpoena, may be explained by the considerable influence Apple exerts over the task force and over local officials.
 
I honestly don't see why this matters one bit. It's not like Apple forced them to go break into his house. The REACT task force are still POLICE. Last time I checked corporations can't tell the police what to do. The phone was technically stolen. Police investigate when things are stolen.
 
ngenerator said:
Lol, only if the things stolen belonged to Apple. Not so much the case when it comes to individual's phones
Click to expand...

Ok then.

Please find me an individual who had a $5,000 device stolen from them and who had a video of the person who had it posted all over the internet and yet the police didn't investigate it.

I'm very interested in meeting that individual.

Because I'm certain you're not equating a case with a high-priced item and clear evidence over who has the device with a case over a lower priced item and no leads whatsoever. That would be a meaningless comparison, so that's clearly not what you mean. Because of that, I'm assuming you have some kind of case in mind like the one I've asked for. You've been saying that same thing for days now all over the boards so I've finally decided to ask just what, exactly, you're talking about.
 
I promise

Lets say I go out to the bar, get drunk. I take a cab leaving my car it gets stolen I then report it to the police. yes they will try to find it but

Lets say I work for XYZ motors driving there most waited prototype car. Covered and camouflaged of course. I get drunk take the cab, car get stolen some guy sell itr for big bucks to a car magazine or web site. car ends up being all over the web. Embarrassing myself, XYZ car company and even the police. but XYZ tracks the car know where it was and it's history, you can bet the police will work with XYZ motors then again Maybe it's just that Apple owns the police. :p
 
macUser2007 said:
The point of the article is that the excessive force (breaking down the front door) used by the task force, and the issuance of a warrant instead of subpoena, may be explained by the considerable influence Apple exerts over the task force and over local officials.
Click to expand...

You do realize Adobe, Microsoft, Symantec, Cisco and 20 other tech industry titans are on that task force also?

It’s sort of the point of REACT.

http://www.reacttf.org/10701.html

Here’s the full list of known members:

Adobe Systems Incorporated6
American Express7
Apple Inc.8
Applied Materials Inc.9
BayTSP10
Bechtel11
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.12
Cisco Systems Inc.13
Creative Security Company14
eBay, Inc.15
Google Inc.16
Hitachi17
KLA-Tencor Inc.18
Microsoft Corporation19
Oracle20
Palm21
PG&E22
Prosper23
Seagate24
Sony Computer Entertainment25
Symantec Corp.26
Synopsys27

http://publicintelligence.net/rapid-enforcement-allied-computer-team-react-task-force/
 
labman said:
Lets say I go out to the bar, get drunk. I take a cab leaving my car it gets stolen I then report it to the police. yes they will try to find it but

Lets say I work for XYZ motors driving there most waited prototype car. Covered and camouflaged of course. I get drunk take the cab, car get stolen some guy sell itr for big bucks to a car magazine or web site. car ends up being all over the web. Embarrassing myself, XYZ car company and even the police. but XYZ tracks the car know where it was and it's history, you can bet the police will work with XYZ motors then again Maybe it's just that Apple owns the police. :p
Click to expand...

Hm, you can't tell a difference between a phone on the floor, and a locked car in the parking lot?

You drink too much :D
 
ngenerator said:
Lol, only if the things stolen belonged to Apple. Not so much the case when it comes to individual's phones
Click to expand...


Lol, I doubt that the theft of your phone would have much effect on the state of the smart phone industry or divulge trade secrets.
 
The police appear to have gone too far. The Over-REACT team, "a partnership of 17 local, state, and federal agencies" with a "close working partnership with the high tech industry," seems to have leapt eagerly to Apple's aid before it looked at the law. Putting the presumed interests of an important local company before the rights guaranteed by law is an obvious occupational hazard for a police force charged with paying particular attention to the interests of high tech businesses. Now that First Amendment lawyers, reporters, and others have highlighted the potential legal improprieties of this search, the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
I still think its a waste of time and taxpayer money and will only make Apple look bad in the end. This will not bring back anything but bad publicity, the prototype has been all over the news and the few people that didnt hear about it now did cause of this fiasco.
 
I swear these posts about Apple pushing this bla bla police doing that bla bla.

Personally I look at this whole thing this way.

1. The person that 'found' the phone knew damn well what he had in his hands. He knew who it belonged to, meaning Apple. He knew where the owner was, meaning Apple, he decided NOT to return it other than sitting in his chair whispering "did anyone loose this? no? ok then" but the bottom line was he knew what he had, he knew who it belonged to, he knew what the 'right' thing to do and he refused to do so.
2. Gizmodo knew DAMN well what they were buying. They knew that ANY type of 'prototype' was going to be stolen or aquired in some unethical/illegal/against contract means, and they bought it. After all they knew the story so the above leads into they knew how the guy got it, they knew the guy knew who owned it and where it should have been returned to and yet they decided to buy it anyway. Or in laments terms 'receiving stolen goods' which is more crime than it is 'who is your source that told you I walk around in woman's panties' and thus doesn't really qualify as needing journalistic protection. Journalism and theft are 2 different things.

So you say "how was he supposed to know it was an iphone?" well the posts before Gizmodo bought it clearly talk about it having been remote wiped etc bla bla not going to go copy and paste. But when you know who the owner is of something, and you choose to not return an item anyway, that is still theft and thus Gizmodo paying for it is receiving stolen goods, thus as far as I know does not have anything to do with journalism.

As someone once said in these forums (sarcastically of course) I can go buy a stolen car, and because I'm a blogger I am exempt from the law because I'm related to journalism.

Another way to look at it is what if it was YOUR company. You were developing a new product to rival others, some jerk bag 'lost' it (naturally I'd fire the guy!) and you want the item back because others could 'copy' your work. Seriously take the company Apple out of the picture and put yourself in it. You would want it back too. You knew who had it, they clearly know you are the owner of the prototype device and they aren't giving it back, yah, I'd file a stolen report with the cops too. Then either fire the guy who lost it or have them man an Apple kiosk in downtown Barrow Alaska.
 
It's not like they used breaching charges and tossed in flashbangs while storming in wearing gas masks and black bagging people.
 
kkat69 said:
I swear these posts about Apple pushing this bla bla police doing that bla bla.

Personally I look at this whole thing this way.

1. The person that 'found' the phone knew damn well what he had in his hands. He knew who it belonged to, meaning Apple. He knew where the owner was, meaning Apple, he decided NOT to return it other than sitting in his chair whispering "did anyone loose this? no? ok then" but the bottom line was he knew what he had, he knew who it belonged to, he knew what the 'right' thing to do and he refused to do so.
2. Gizmodo knew DAMN well what they were buying. They knew that ANY type of 'prototype' was going to be stolen or aquired in some unethical/illegal/against contract means, and they bought it. After all they knew the story so the above leads into they knew how the guy got it, they knew the guy knew who owned it and where it should have been returned to and yet they decided to buy it anyway. Or in laments terms 'receiving stolen goods' which is more crime than it is 'who is your source that told you I walk around in woman's panties' and thus doesn't really qualify as needing journalistic protection. Journalism and theft are 2 different things.

So you say "how was he supposed to know it was an iphone?" well the posts before Gizmodo bought it clearly talk about it having been remote wiped etc bla bla not going to go copy and paste. But when you know who the owner is of something, and you choose to not return an item anyway, that is still theft and thus Gizmodo paying for it is receiving stolen goods, thus as far as I know does not have anything to do with journalism.

As someone once said in these forums (sarcastically of course) I can go buy a stolen car, and because I'm a blogger I am exempt from the law because I'm related to journalism.

Another way to look at it is what if it was YOUR company. You were developing a new product to rival others, some jerk bag 'lost' it (naturally I'd fire the guy!) and you want the item back because others could 'copy' your work. Seriously take the company Apple out of the picture and put yourself in it. You would want it back too. You knew who had it, they clearly know you are the owner of the prototype device and they aren't giving it back, yah, I'd file a stolen report with the cops too. Then either fire the guy who lost it or have them man an Apple kiosk in downtown Barrow Alaska.
Click to expand...
Nailed it best post I've read on this whole situation.
 
macfan881 said:
Nailed it best post I've read on this whole situation.
Click to expand...

Boy, some of the Apple fanboys are as bloodthirsty as the religious nuts who cheered on George W.....

Is busting a journalist's front door down, at night, necessary to recover information which was leaked a month ago, and widely published already?

And this "stolen" crap. I understand the guy who found the phone called Apple Customer Service and told them about it, before he went to Gizmodo.

And Apple could have simply called the phone on the next day, and said "Hey, you, give it back." Or they could have tracked it. Or make an immediate demand on Gizmodo.

The reality, most likely, is that some overzealous attorney at the DA's office decided to get noticed by the most prominent local member of the REACT Steering Committee.

With the hope, of course, that Apple will remember it when he jumps into private practice. And of course, Apple's GC may have encouraged it, wink, wink.

And now, a horde of glassy-eyed Apleistas are ready to march down the street demanding tougher police measures in defense of Apple's corporate interests.
 
macUser2007 said:
The point of the article is that the excessive force (breaking down the front door) used by the task force, and the issuance of a warrant instead of subpoena, may be explained by the considerable influence Apple exerts over the task force and over local officials.
Click to expand...

Which is brain dead and shows he's pretty ignorant of how police tactics are implemented. Really, he thinks individual tactics can be micromanaged like that...:rolleyes:
 
macUser2007 said:
Boy, some of the Apple fanboys are as bloodthirsty as the religious nuts who cheered on George W.....

Is busting a journalist's front door down, at night, necessary to recover information which was leaked a month ago, and widely published already?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Because the information they were after, as clearly stated in the news, was NOT the same as what was leaked or published. You bother reading these things?
 
gwangung said:
Which is brain dead and shows he's pretty ignorant of how police tactics are implemented. Really, he thinks individual tactics can be micromanaged like that...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh, but I see you are an expert on the matter....

On further reflection, I really doubt you actually have a clue.

Exactly what information they could not have obtained with a subpoena?

What was so vital, that they had to go in at night and smash their way through the door?

I certainly hope this backfires, both on REACT, and on Apple. Not that I expect you to get the reasons why.
 
This story is getting old. I honestly don't care that Chen's house got raided.

I really don't care that Apple is the one that might of pushed the buttons.

I don't care that Gawker isn't probably allowed in future apple events.

Who cares. It's a phone. Whatever Gizmodo. Whatever Chen. Whatever Apple.

All three of you got what you deserved.
 
of course, if it were Nokia or some other company, what Gizmodo did would qualify as industrial espionage....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back