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

Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests

wovel said:
Please note I have over 25 years of eligibility as a juror in the United States and 5 years in the Jurisdiction in question. This makes me more qualified to judge the facts of this case than you ;)
Click to expand...

Not only is that hysterical, it's absolutely true! That's just great.
 
Anyone else see the letter that Apple sent to Gawker a few month back when they were holding a "find us a prototype iPad" contest?

http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt

Scroll down to see the letter from Apple legal. Seems kind of prophetic now. Sorry for the long post. It's eye opening.

appleletter1_01.jpg


appleletter2_01.jpg
 
No brainer

I dont have time to troll through everyones post here so I will ask something that might already be addressed:

Doesn't removing the sim card in the iphone make it useless to tracking by gps? If you want to see what is on it Pop in a prepaid att Sim card form a prepaid phone at the Local 7 eleven and power on.
So how is it possible to track this headset without a SIM card communicating to the network? I mean if you plan on selling it or leaking it for money that would seem to me to be the first logical step in any type of blackmarket trade.

Is this right? Removing the original SIM results in no Tracking by APPLE?
 
It amazes me that the law enforcement can act very quickly to investigate Apple's lost property but when average Joe looses their property or someone steals their property, not much happens. It just displays a double standard that has always existed.


Also, to all the whiners complaining that Jason and Gizmo broke the law, I hope you did not look at the prototype iphone photos! Because if you did, you just indirectly supported what Jason/Gizmo did and you are a hypo f..ing crit! :p even if you do not want to admit it! So quit pointing fingers! :apple:
 
ET007 said:
It amazes me that the law enforcement can act very quickly to investigate Apple's lost property but when average Joe looses their property or someone steals their property, not much happens. It just displays a double standard that has always existed.


Also, to all the whiners complaining that Jason and Gizmo broke the law, I hope you did not look at the prototype iphone photos! Because if you did, you just indirectly supported what Jason/Gizmo did and you are a hypo f..ing crit! :p even if you do not want to admit it! So quit pointing fingers! :apple:
Click to expand...

Average Joe can't deliver the police the entire crime spelled out in excruciating detail with color photographs and video. (Or so I heard, I did not read the story because I did not want to be a f..ing crit!)
 
Binary11001 said:
I dont have time to troll through everyones post here so I will ask something that might already be addressed:

Doesn't removing the sim card in the iphone make it useless to tracking by gps? If you want to see what is on it Pop in a prepaid att Sim card form a prepaid phone at the Local 7 eleven and power on.
So how is it possible to track this headset without a SIM card communicating to the network? I mean if you plan on selling it or leaking it for money that would seem to me to be the first logical step in any type of blackmarket trade.

Is this right? Removing the original SIM results in no Tracking by APPLE?
Click to expand...

The AT&T tracking would rely on cell towers. I assume that if you have a wifi connection the skyhook-based location services still work and apple can still track (unless it's broken firmware like 4.0 beta.)
 
tingly said:
They have a civil obligation to Apple and a criminal obligation to the State of California, both defined by law. Where you would have a point is if Apple was doing something illegal and the story exposed it. A jury might excuse Gizmodo for the sake of the greater good. If only that was what happened.
Click to expand...
Gizmodo on the other hand will defend their end by stating that they didn't knew the origin of the obtained prototype, because at that time it wasn't even sure that it was a real iPhone, and not some Chinese fake product, and thus they had to open it, because it did not startup properly. They also did not reveal anything new [not really] because they said not to want to damage the phone.

And no, simply opening a phone without damaging it does not count as illegal activity. Not when you have to open said product to determine if it is real or not.

And they did expose at least one thing, and that is that the Apple engineer did not enable [or disabled] the auto lock [password protected] feature.
 
Binary11001 said:
I dont have time to troll through everyones post here so I will ask something that might already be addressed:

Doesn't removing the sim card in the iphone make it useless to tracking by gps? If you want to see what is on it Pop in a prepaid att Sim card form a prepaid phone at the Local 7 eleven and power on.
So how is it possible to track this headset without a SIM card communicating to the network? I mean if you plan on selling it or leaking it for money that would seem to me to be the first logical step in any type of blackmarket trade.

Is this right? Removing the original SIM results in no Tracking by APPLE?
Click to expand...

The thief that took it plugged it into his roommate's Mac and tried to restore it. Even though his attempt to restore it to working condition did not work, you can be sure the device's ID number was sent to Apple's iTunes Store servers. I am confident Apple was on the lookout for the unique ID of that device and the minute it showed up in their logs, they also had an instant match to the iTunes Store account of the person that owned that Mac. Instant name and address!

Take a look at this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

At the beginning of that article, it mentions that Apple representatives went to that home and knocked on the door. A roommate answered and refused to let them in, etc. Farther down, it mentions the part about the thief having connected the iPhone to his roommate's Apple computer.

So, think about that... If Apple did, indeed, get the person's name and address from the iTunes Account, and the computer belonged to the ROOMMATE (not the thief), then the person that Apple would be asking for at the front door is the name of the roommate. But the guy that answered the door said the person they named wasn't home and he wouldn't let them in.

My bet.... the person that answered the door WAS the thief! Apple wasn't going by his name, they were going by the name of the person that owned the Mac... the roommate.

It seems at least possible that Apple representatives were speaking directly to the thief and didn't even know it.

Mark
 
Master Chief said:
Gizmodo on the other hand will defend their end by stating that they didn't knew the origin of the obtained prototype, because at that time it wasn't even sure that it was a real iPhone, and not some Chinese fake product, and thus they had to open it, because it did not startup properly. They also did not reveal anything new [not really] because they said not to want to damage the phone.

And no, simply opening a phone without damaging it does not count as illegal activity. Not when you have to open said product to determine if it is real or not.

And they did expose at least one thing, and that is that the Apple engineer did not enable [or disabled] the auto lock [password protected] feature.
Click to expand...

We already have evidence via statements of friends and neighbors that the iPhone thief knew what he had. His actions to seek $5,000 by shopping the device to news sites also prove he knew what he had. The prosecution will have zero difficulty proving that Gizmodo knew what they were buying before they ever opened it up. In fact, they would have wanted to prove that to themselves BEFORE spending $5,000. It's entirely possible that they opened it up BEFORE making the deal.

Keep in mind... there is evidence that the thief started shopping the phone to news sites on or about March 28 (it was stolen on March 18). According to Gizmodo, they took delivery on or about April 12. That gave Gizmodo two weeks to verify the device's legitimacy before they ever took delivery.

Mark
 
Mark Booth said:
The thief that took it plugged it into his roommate's Mac and tried to restore it. Even though his attempt to restore it to working condition did not work, you can be sure the device's ID number was sent to Apple's iTunes Store servers. I am confident Apple was on the lookout for the unique ID of that device and the minute it showed up in their logs, they also had an instant match to the iTunes Store account of the person that owned that Mac. Instant name and address!

Take a look at this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

At the beginning of that article, it mentions that Apple representatives went to that home and knocked on the door. A roommate answered and refused to let them in, etc. Farther down, it mentions the part about the thief having connected the iPhone to his roommate's Apple computer.

So, think about that... If Apple did, indeed, get the person's name and address from the iTunes Account, and the computer belonged to the ROOMMATE (not the thief), then the person that Apple would be asking for at the front door is the name of the roommate. But the guy that answered the door said the person they named wasn't home and he wouldn't let them in.

My bet.... the person that answered the door WAS the thief! Apple wasn't going by his name, they were going by the name of the person that owned the Mac... the roommate.

It seems at least possible that Apple representatives were speaking directly to the thief and didn't even know it.

Mark
Click to expand...

Or they could have just had the information submitted with the ticket put in via AppleCare (assuming contact information was provided).

Hickman
 
Master Chief said:
Gizmodo on the other hand will defend their end by stating that they didn't knew the origin of the obtained prototype, because at that time it wasn't even sure that it was a real iPhone, and not some Chinese fake product, and thus they had to open it, because it did not startup properly. They also did not reveal anything new [not really] because they said not to want to damage the phone.

And no, simply opening a phone without damaging it does not count as illegal activity. Not when you have to open said product to determine if it is real or not.

And they did expose at least one thing, and that is that the Apple engineer did not enable [or disabled] the auto lock [password protected] feature.
Click to expand...

Anything they did that was not directly related to making a reasonable attempt to return to the owner was illegal. They had the owners name, they had no need to determine if the device "was real".

Opening the device and displaying pictures of the inside simply took away any chance they had of escaping criminal and civil penalties for disclosing trade secrets.
 
Mark Booth said:
The thief that took it plugged it into his roommate's Mac and tried to restore it...

Take a look at this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

At the beginning of that article, it mentions that Apple representatives went to that home and knocked on the door...
Click to expand...
Now read this specific part: "News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”".

Now tell me people... how many times did I, chief editor of a well known Mac magazine, told you people here, that there was no "sale"? Thank you for not listening.

dejo said:
How did opening it determine if it was real or not?
Click to expand...
There are certain things that can be checked, but I signed an NDA myself [only very recently] and thus I will not go into this. Other people might.
 
wovel said:
Anything they did that was not directly related to making a reasonable attempt to return ti the owner was illegal. They had the owners name, they had no need to determine if the device "was real".
Click to expand...
No. That is a lie! Gizmodo only found out later about who the Apple engineer in question was.

wovel said:
Opening the device and displaying pictures of the inside simply took away any chance they had of escaping criminal and civil penalties for disclosing trade secrets.
Click to expand...
No sir. You are wrong. Wait and see.
 
Mark Booth said:
The thief that took it plugged it into his roommate's Mac and tried to restore it. Even though his attempt to restore it to working condition did not work, you can be sure the device's ID number was sent to Apple's iTunes Store servers. I am confident Apple was on the lookout for the unique ID of that device and the minute it showed up in their logs, they also had an instant match to the iTunes Store account of the person that owned that Mac. Instant name and address!

Take a look at this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

At the beginning of that article, it mentions that Apple representatives went to that home and knocked on the door. A roommate answered and refused to let them in, etc. Farther down, it mentions the part about the thief having connected the iPhone to his roommate's Apple computer.

So, think about that... If Apple did, indeed, get the person's name and address from the iTunes Account, and the computer belonged to the ROOMMATE (not the thief), then the person that Apple would be asking for at the front door is the name of the roommate. But the guy that answered the door said the person they named wasn't home and he wouldn't let them in.

My bet.... the person that answered the door WAS the thief! Apple wasn't going by his name, they were going by the name of the person that owned the Mac... the roommate.

It seems at least possible that Apple representatives were speaking directly to the thief and didn't even know it.

Mark
Click to expand...

That makes the seller look pretty bad if Apple tried to get it back from him personally and he still sold it.

Another big oops. To think if the guy was just honest and returned it...
 
Brian Hickman said:
Or they could have just had the information submitted with the ticket put in via AppleCare (assuming contact information was provided).
Click to expand...

Assuming the thief ever actually called AppleCare. All we have so far is his STORY to Gizmodo regarding that.

If he did make that call, it would be REALLY interesting to know the date. If it was the morning after he took the iPhone, it would at least add some level of credence to his story (not enough to vindicate him, in my opinion, but some level of an attempt to return it). But if he made that call after March 28, well, a suspicious person might wonder if some other party suggested to him that he make a feeble attempt to return it to "cover his ass" before he sold it.

I sure hope nobody involved with this case gave him such instructions. That could move this whole thing into the realm of statutory conspiracy.

Mark
 
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