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.
Authorities Begin Evidence Examination in Gizmodo iPhone Case
- Thread starter Mark Booth
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was trying to think of all the possible charges.
phone finder - theft, selling stolen goods, attempted destruction of evidence
phone finder's friend - attempted destruction of evidence
jason chen - receiving stolen goods, vandalism
brian lam - extortion, maybe receiving stolen goods or an accomplice to it
I feel like I'm missing some, probably gonna feel moronic.
phone finder - theft, selling stolen goods, attempted destruction of evidence
phone finder's friend - attempted destruction of evidence
jason chen - receiving stolen goods, vandalism
brian lam - extortion, maybe receiving stolen goods or an accomplice to it
I feel like I'm missing some, probably gonna feel moronic.
The nonsense people can write! They didn't inform themselves at all - and that's beyond reasonable doubt.
Good try.
But too many people who hate SJ/iPhones/Apple/Corporations in general aren't the least bit interested in the facts.No amount of truth will sway them.
Hey, it's story time!
Interesting thing that probably should occur: during the discovery phase, Apple might find themselves having their records scoured as well...
Imagine for a moment that they subpoena Steve's phone records, emails, and such... then they have one of these Masters looking for information about the prototype phone... You can betcha that Gizmodo's lawyers are going to go after Apple as well...
What if they find that Steve knew full well that his employee was wandering in "the wild" with this secret prototype, in fact, Steve authorizes people to do this... this employee most certainly is going to be a witness (bet he's being coached right now), and he relates that he was drunk off his ass and honestly has no idea whatsoever what he was doing with the very secret phone that night (the speculation that Steve is now trying to discredit FINDING the phone as "could have been taken from his bag" is ... smoke and mirros)...
So. Guy "finds" the phone. That's going to be his story, and he even tries to return it according to the stories. Did Employee or Apple attempt to use location services to get it back? Did E/A attempt to call phone or do ANYTHING positive to get the phone back?
Now, Guy could have tried a bit harder, but according to the stories, he had the phone for OVER 3 weeks, before Gizmodo got wind of it. That's a fair bit of time for Apple to have tried to locate it. By that point it had been remotely torched, so it's pretty much an unfriendly brick. Most of us have lives, and wouldn't be trying hard to find the owner. Apple certainly didn't seem too concerned from what we've heard.
Then Gizmodo gets their mitts on it. Paying for it? Er, they REALLY should have kept that on the down-low, but ultimately, that's how news hounds get their data - they pay for it. Perhaps they even suggested they'd find the owner and give it back Oops. They publish. Apple is now fully aware where that phone is. They ask for it back. Gizmodo reasonbly wants proof or at least a written statement for legal purposes indicating that Apple claims actual ownership...
Then it gets funky ;> Then the Apple Secret Police go door to door. The Rapid Response task force has as a board member ... APPLE - yay! Conflict of interest much? Nahhhhhhhhhh.
So, I think we're just going to have to wait until Apple^H^H^H^H^HCourts decide...
Re: "finders keepers" and "possession is 9/10ths of the law" - doesn't this come down to us from common law practices? if one makes a reasonable attempt to return goods and find owners, after some (usually long) default period, the property is no longer theirs, but yours. as well, during the period, reasonable (but not extraordinary) care must be taken to keep the property in good shape and usually any costs associated with this must be paid by the owner upon claim... unless the costs are too high, and then there's default conversion. something like that - i only play a lawyer on court tv
ML
Interesting thing that probably should occur: during the discovery phase, Apple might find themselves having their records scoured as well...
Imagine for a moment that they subpoena Steve's phone records, emails, and such... then they have one of these Masters looking for information about the prototype phone... You can betcha that Gizmodo's lawyers are going to go after Apple as well...
What if they find that Steve knew full well that his employee was wandering in "the wild" with this secret prototype, in fact, Steve authorizes people to do this... this employee most certainly is going to be a witness (bet he's being coached right now), and he relates that he was drunk off his ass and honestly has no idea whatsoever what he was doing with the very secret phone that night (the speculation that Steve is now trying to discredit FINDING the phone as "could have been taken from his bag" is ... smoke and mirros)...
So. Guy "finds" the phone. That's going to be his story, and he even tries to return it according to the stories. Did Employee or Apple attempt to use location services to get it back? Did E/A attempt to call phone or do ANYTHING positive to get the phone back?
Now, Guy could have tried a bit harder, but according to the stories, he had the phone for OVER 3 weeks, before Gizmodo got wind of it. That's a fair bit of time for Apple to have tried to locate it. By that point it had been remotely torched, so it's pretty much an unfriendly brick. Most of us have lives, and wouldn't be trying hard to find the owner. Apple certainly didn't seem too concerned from what we've heard.
Then Gizmodo gets their mitts on it. Paying for it? Er, they REALLY should have kept that on the down-low, but ultimately, that's how news hounds get their data - they pay for it. Perhaps they even suggested they'd find the owner and give it back
Oops. They publish. Apple is now fully aware where that phone is. They ask for it back. Gizmodo reasonbly wants proof or at least a written statement for legal purposes indicating that Apple claims actual ownership...Then it gets funky ;> Then the Apple Secret Police go door to door. The Rapid Response task force has as a board member ... APPLE - yay! Conflict of interest much? Nahhhhhhhhhh.
So, I think we're just going to have to wait until Apple^H^H^H^H^HCourts decide...
Re: "finders keepers" and "possession is 9/10ths of the law" - doesn't this come down to us from common law practices? if one makes a reasonable attempt to return goods and find owners, after some (usually long) default period, the property is no longer theirs, but yours. as well, during the period, reasonable (but not extraordinary) care must be taken to keep the property in good shape and usually any costs associated with this must be paid by the owner upon claim... unless the costs are too high, and then there's default conversion. something like that - i only play a lawyer on court tv
ML
help
I'm rather confused about this whole thing. Is possession still 9/10th of the law? Is Apple alleging that the prototype was stolen out of the employee's bag? I'm fuzzing on the whole thing and not trying to be coy. Are you obligated under the law to return lost property? It might be the decent thing to do but how far does the person have to go by law that recovered the lost property?
How is the guy that recovered the device supposed to know if it's authentic? The average person knows little about how to navigate their personal computer they've been using for years. He may have known it was an iPhone but would he necessarily know it's the new generation unless he already owned one?
I'll admit that I'm not sure about the selling part but again neither party can really confirm the authenticity. My wife recently lost her iPhone. She kept calling it and I sent text messages that if it was recovered to please call. I pulled it up on the AT&T map and told my wife where it was. Thinking no one had the phone, I sent a text to it for her to call me once she found it in the park. Within a few minutes, the device was intentionally shut off and just prior someone read all my wife's new emails. She confirmed through her Gmail account. We both showed up at the park and no one fessed-up to having it. I'm sure who ever recovered it kept it or sold it. AT&T told me they do nothing about someone trying to activate a stolen phone since they don't track that stuff anymore.
Is this case kind of the same thing? Or is it different because Gizmodo published photos? If so, isn't it only on Gizmodo then for publishing the photos?
I'm rather confused about this whole thing. Is possession still 9/10th of the law? Is Apple alleging that the prototype was stolen out of the employee's bag? I'm fuzzing on the whole thing and not trying to be coy. Are you obligated under the law to return lost property? It might be the decent thing to do but how far does the person have to go by law that recovered the lost property?
How is the guy that recovered the device supposed to know if it's authentic? The average person knows little about how to navigate their personal computer they've been using for years. He may have known it was an iPhone but would he necessarily know it's the new generation unless he already owned one?
I'll admit that I'm not sure about the selling part but again neither party can really confirm the authenticity. My wife recently lost her iPhone. She kept calling it and I sent text messages that if it was recovered to please call. I pulled it up on the AT&T map and told my wife where it was. Thinking no one had the phone, I sent a text to it for her to call me once she found it in the park. Within a few minutes, the device was intentionally shut off and just prior someone read all my wife's new emails. She confirmed through her Gmail account. We both showed up at the park and no one fessed-up to having it. I'm sure who ever recovered it kept it or sold it. AT&T told me they do nothing about someone trying to activate a stolen phone since they don't track that stuff anymore.
Is this case kind of the same thing? Or is it different because Gizmodo published photos? If so, isn't it only on Gizmodo then for publishing the photos?
Mostly agree,however no law suit has been filed.We're dealing with a criminal case.
I have rarely met a 12 year old who knows the rules of evidence, nor one who can assess facts in relation to the applicable criminal law and determine relevance. I have, however, met many adults, non-lawyers, who are very ignorant about the law and don't seem to realize it.
I guess California doesn't have real crimes to investigate
I know, huh. Theft, extortion, and distribution of trade secrets are so trivial compared to, say, jaywalking.
If someone broke into your house and stole your TV, would you call the police?
To be fair I think a moderately intelligent carrot would disagree with that
You honestly thought the person who found the phone, made a reasonable attempt to return it? Really? You clearly haven't been keeping up to date on this story so far then. I recommend you go back and read up before you post in this thread again.
I can already tell you just from reading this that everything you just typed was a waste of time. The police are not going to bother looking at Apples records or anything from them at all. They are not the ones on trial here.
This is a well known fact. Steve Jobs has said in interviews that in order to test technology like this, you have to take it out of the lab.
Based on what information is out there, this might not have even been possible.
Why is secrecy and "not letting people know about a new product" part of Apple's core values? I don't disagree with it at all, but I'm not sure how that can be part of a "core value". Aren't core values supposed to be nice things like "we will deliver quality products" and "we won't want to make compromises just to make more money"?
"We will sue anyone who tries to figure out what we're up to" doesn't really sound like a proper core value even if Apple has every right to do that.
"We will sue anyone who tries to figure out what we're up to" doesn't really sound like a proper core value
even if Apple has every right to do that.If this were true, Jason Chen could exercise his journalistic rights.
However, not only did Chen buy the phone, which is stolen property, Brian Lam also tried to extort special access to Apple products from Jobs all the while claiming that they weren't sure it was rightfully Apple's phone.
Yes, Chen and Lam will probably be found guilty of a crime (probably plead to a misdemeanor if they are smart) and Gawker is going to be writing a very large check to Apple for damages by stealing and releasing corporate secretes of Apples.
If San Mateo county wants to keep tech businesses like apple around and paying high dollar salaries to taxpaying citizens, you can bet your behind that the police and DA will prosecute corporate crimes such as this. If they did not, then why would apple want to have their HQ in a place that won't protect their sizable interests from crime?
I'd bet a good portion of the San Mateo tax revenue is directly attributable to the presence of Apple and other tech companies in their county so in effect, the police and DA are serving their constituents appropriately.
With all due respect, you are not confused, you are clueless.
EVERYONE should be REQUIRED to read the entire affidavit used to obtain the search warrant on Jason Chen's home:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf
Don't rely on some blogger's opinion of the affidavit, read the actual document for yourself. It really is quite interesting.
Those that haven't read the affidavit should just shut up until they do.
Mark
Oh, my!
Absolutely no need.
You manage to contradict yourself in one sentence?
So you agree it's a speculation?
Read the affidavit.
Let me fix that for you:
"Now, Guy could have tried, but according to affidavit he didn't."
The don't take the f****** phone!
Data. Not stolen items.
What legal purposes? They don't need it.
Whatever.
Bigger whatever!
S****t, I hope not!
WTF is the country you live in?
Interesting thing that probably should occur: during the discovery phase, Apple might find themselves having their records scoured as well...
Imagine for a moment that they subpoena Steve's phone records, emails, and such... then they have one of these Masters looking for information about the prototype phone... You can betcha that Gizmodo's lawyers are going to go after Apple as well...
What if they find that Steve knew full well that his employee was wandering in "the wild" with this secret prototype, in fact, Steve authorizes people to do this... this employee most certainly is going to be a witness (bet he's being coached right now), and he relates that he was drunk off his ass and honestly has no idea whatsoever what he was doing with the very secret phone that night (the speculation that Steve is now trying to discredit FINDING the phone as "could have been taken from his bag" is ... smoke and mirros)...
So. Guy "finds" the phone. That's going to be his story, and he even tries to return it according to the stories. Did Employee or Apple attempt to use location services to get it back? Did E/A attempt to call phone or do ANYTHING positive to get the phone back?
Now, Guy could have tried a bit harder, but according to the stories, he had the phone for OVER 3 weeks, before Gizmodo got wind of it. That's a fair bit of time for Apple to have tried to locate it. By that point it had been remotely torched, so it's pretty much an unfriendly brick. Most of us have lives, and wouldn't be trying hard to find the owner. Apple certainly didn't seem too concerned from what we've heard.
Then Gizmodo gets their mitts on it. Paying for it? Er, they REALLY should have kept that on the down-low, but ultimately, that's how news hounds get their data - they pay for it. Perhaps they even suggested they'd find the owner and give it back
Then it gets funky ;> Then the Apple Secret Police go door to door. The Rapid Response task force has as a board member ... APPLE - yay! Conflict of interest much? Nahhhhhhhhhh.
So, I think we're just going to have to wait until Apple^H^H^H^H^HCourts decide...
Re: "finders keepers" and "possession is 9/10ths of the law" - doesn't this come down to us from common law practices? if one makes a reasonable attempt to return goods and find owners, after some (usually long) default period, the property is no longer theirs, but yours. as well, during the period, reasonable (but not extraordinary) care must be taken to keep the property in good shape and usually any costs associated with this must be paid by the owner upon claim... unless the costs are too high, and then there's default conversion. something like that - i only play a lawyer on court tv
ML
Since there is no lawsuit involved,there is no "discovery phase".This is a criminal prosecution.
Not really. I believe he is still on Apple's payroll, therefore a conflict of interests would occur.
To be fair I think a moderately intelligent carrot would disagree with that
I was trying to be nice,but yea.
No no, I mean the carrot would disagree that they'd made the effort to return it.
Why don't we formulate it like this: "We are protecting our own stuff".Why is secrecy and "not letting people know about a new product" part of Apple's core values? I don't disagree with it at all, but I'm not sure how that can be part of a "core value". Aren't core values supposed to be nice things like "we will deliver quality products" and "we won't want to make compromises just to make more money"?
"We will sue anyone who tries to figure out what we're up to" doesn't really sound like a proper core value
Considering what I was replying to, forgive my slip. Point taken.